carbon neutral technology corporation asset reuse …

CARBON NEUTRAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION IT

ASSET REUSE PROJECT FOR COMSALE

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction

Offset Project Report

January 1st, 2016 – June 30st, 2018

Final Report – January 31, 2019

Prepared by: Blue Source Canada ULC (Authorized Project Contact) Suite 1605, 840-7th Avenue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3G2 T: (403) 262-3026 F: (403) 269-3024 www.bluesource.com

Prepared for: Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation (Project Proponent) 31 Rosena Lane, Uxbridge Ontario, L9P1X8 T: (647) 267-9982 www.co2neutral.com

http://www.bluesource.com/

Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation IT Asset Reuse Project for Comsale

January 2019

Page | i

Table of Contents

Project Summary and Description ................................................................................. iv

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5

ISO Principles ................................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Relevance ....................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Completeness ................................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Consistency .................................................................................................................... 7

2.4 Accuracy .......................................................................................................................... 7

2.5 Transparency .................................................................................................................. 8

2.6 Conservativeness .......................................................................................................... 8

2.6.1 Aligning with the WARM Methodology: ...................................................................... 8

2.6.2 Operations: ..................................................................................................................... 8

2.6.3 Quantification: ................................................................................................................. 9

2.6.4 Discount Factor .............................................................................................................. 9

Project Description ......................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Project Title ................................................................................................................... 10

3.2 The Project’s Purpose(s) And Objective(s) Are: ..................................................... 10

3.3 Expected Lifetime Of The Project ............................................................................. 10

3.4 Type Of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Or Removal Project .................. 10

3.5 Legal Land Description Of The Project Or The Unique Latitude And Longitude 10

3.6 Conditions Prior To Project Initiation ........................................................................ 11

3.7 Description Of How The Project Will Achieve GHG Emission Reductions Or

Removal Enhancements............................................................................................. 11

3.8 Project Technologies, Products, Services And The Expected Level Of Activity 11

3.9 Total GHG Emission Reductions And Removal Enhancements, Stated In

Tonnes Of CO2 E, From The GHG Project (GHG Assertion) ............................... 12

3.10 Identification of Risks .................................................................................................. 13

3.10.1 Regulatory Risk ............................................................................................................ 13


January 2019

Page | ii

3.10.2 Reversal Risk ............................................................................................................... 13

3.10.3 Double Monetization Risk ........................................................................................... 13

3.11 Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................................... 14

3.12 Any Information Relevant For The Eligibility Of The GHG Project Under A GHG

Program And Quantification Of Emission Reductions ........................................... 15

3.13 Summary Environmental Impact Assessment ........................................................ 16

3.14 Relevant Outcomes From Stakeholder Consultations And Mechanisms For On-

Going Communication. ............................................................................................... 16

3.15 Detailed Chronological Plan ....................................................................................... 16

Selection and Justification of the Baseline Scenario ................................................ 17

Inventory Of Sources, Sinks And Reservoirs (SSRs) For The Project And

Baseline ........................................................................................................................... 19

5.1 Inclusions and Exclusions from the WARM Methodology ..................................... 19

Quantification and calculation of GHG emissions/removals ................................... 21

6.1 Methodology Selection ................................................................................................ 21

6.2 Emission Factors ......................................................................................................... 21

6.3 Baseline Emissions ..................................................................................................... 24

6.4 Project Emissions ........................................................................................................ 24

6.5 Emission Reductions ................................................................................................... 25

6.6 Worked Example .......................................................................................................... 25

Monitoring the Data Information Management System and Data Controls .......... 28

7.1 Quantification Limits and Uncertainty ....................................................................... 29

7.2 Data and Information Quality Management Procedures ....................................... 29

7.2.1 Back-up Procedures at Blue Source......................................................................... 30

7.2.2 Document Retention Policy at Blue Source............................................................. 30

Reporting and Verification Details ............................................................................... 31


January 2019

Page | iii

List of Abbreviations

CH4 Methane

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CO2e Carbon Dioxide-equivalent(s)

CNTC Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation

EOFL End of Field Life

GHG Greenhouse Gas(es)

HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons

PFCs Perfluorocarbons

N2O Nitrous Oxide

SF6 Sulphur Hexafluoride

WARM US EPA Waste Reduction Model

QA-QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control


January 2019

Page | iv

Project Summary and Description

Project Title Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation IT Asset Reuse Project for Comsale

Project Purpose/Objective

CO2NeutralTM is an IT asset reuse program created by the Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation (CNTC). The objective of CO2NeutralTM is to refurbish end-of-first-life (EOFL) IT assets, extending their useful life and reducing emissions associated with the manufacturing of virgin IT equipment and components. This scope of this Project includes the refurbishment activities attributed to Comsale Computer Inc., a CO2NeutralTM program participant.

Reporting period 1 January 2016 – 30 June 2018

GHG Assertion for Reporting Period

75,855 tonnes CO2e

Protocol US EPA (2016) Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used In The Waste Reduction Model (WARM), Durable Goods Materials Chapter.

Expected Lifetime of Project

Comsale Computer Inc. (Comsale) began refurbishment operations in 2016. The project is a commercial operation with no anticipated end-date and crediting is expected to continue until at least 31 December 2026. However, crediting may continue as long as the project practices remain additional.

Project Type The project is a waste management (source reduction) project, by displacing virgin IT equipment manufacturing.

Project Location The project refurbishment warehouse is Comsale’s Canadian location at 111 Snidercroft Rd, Vaughan, ON L4K 2J8. Latitude: 43.787604 Longitude: -79.500709

Conditions Prior to Project

Prior to this project, EOFL IT assets would have been either disposed of in a landfill or recycled.

Description of how GHG Reductions are Achieved

This project achieves GHG emission reductions by extending the useful life of computing devices – including laptops, desktops and computing components. By refurbishing computers that are already in existence, GHG emissions associated with manufacturing of new devices and recycling of old devices are avoided.

Project Technologies The Project is not a technology implementation-based GHG emission reduction project. Rather, the GHG emission reductions are a result of Comsale’s refurbishment process and operations, whereby existing EOFL IT Assets are collected, assessed, repaired/replaced/re-assembled and shipped to the consumer.

Project Risks The key risks to the project are a) regulatory risk (that refurbishment and/or recycling of IT equipment becomes mandatory) and b) reversal risk (that refurbished equipment does not function as expected by the consumer, resulting in returns of refurbished EOFL equipment and purchase of virgin equipment by the consumer). Appropriate mitigation for these risks is in place.


January 2019

Page | 5

1.1 Introduction

The production of computing devices (such as computers, monitors, laptops, and associated components) involves a variety of processes that directly or indirectly release GHGs into the atmosphere. This includes: fossil fuel use for natural gas and electricity to run processes and heat, light and power facilities; use of gasoline and diesel to power transportation equipment, and the direct release of some GHGs as a by-product of manufacturing processes (such as PFCs released during aluminum production). At the end of product use, assets are typically disposed of in landfill, and in some cases recycled, further adding to net emissions associated with the product. As a result of these negative environmental impacts, there is a growing need to reduce the volume of e-waste ending up in landfills by recycling, and even reusing end of life computing devices. However, the process of refurbishing IT assets for reuse is expensive, and incentive programs such as the CSA GHG Clean Projects Registry are essential for funding such initiatives. CO2NeutralTM is an IT asset reuse program created by the Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation (CNTC). The objective of CO2NeutralTM is to ensure that end-of-first-life (EOFL) IT assets are refurbished and reused, extending their useful life. In doing so, emissions associated with the manufacturing of new IT equipment are avoided. This project report quantifies the portion of the CO2NeutralTM program that is fulfilled by Comsale Computer Inc. a program participant, for the years 2016-20181. The intended user of this report is CO2Neutral Technology Corporation, to facilitate voluntary carbon offset transactions and contribute to carbon neutral programs. A relevant methodology has been selected for the project – the US EPA (2016) Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used In The Waste Reduction Model (WARM), Durable Goods Materials Chapter (hereafter referred to as ‘WARM’). This methodology explicitly includes a GHG reduction pathway for the source reduction of personal computers and so is relevant to the CO2NeutralTM project. Modifications to the WARM methodology have been applied to the Project to account for IT type. The total emissions reductions associated with this project for the reporting period 1 January 2016 – 30 June 2018 are calculated to be 75,855 tCO2e.

1 The GHG assertion included herein represents only the GHG emissions avoided due to the operations completed by Comsale and does not represent the total impact of the CO2NeutralTM program as a whole.


January 2019

Page | 6

ISO Principles

2.1 Relevance

A relevant methodology has been selected for the project – the US EPA (2016) Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used In The Waste Reduction Model (WARM), Durable Goods Materials Chapter (hereafter referred to as ‘WARM’). This methodology explicitly includes a GHG reduction pathway for the source reduction of personal computers and so is relevant to the CO2NeutralTM program and thus, this Project. Although this methodology was developed for the US, and not Canada, it is the only methodology available for this type of project and the IT purchasing habits of Canadian consumers are not anticipated to be significantly different than those of consumers in the US. As such, the WARM methodology is considered to be relevant. WARM includes all relevant GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs for the baseline condition, and represents existing best practice for quantifying GHG emission reductions from source reductions of EOFL IT Assets. Some modifications to the underlying assumptions of the WARM methodology emission factors were made to increase their relevance to the Project. For example, the WARM methodology assumes that of every 1 ton of IT assets, 22% of the weight is made up of glass. This assumption has been maintained for the IT assets which are notebooks; however, roughly 75% of the assets in this project are desktop computers and so contain very little to no glass. As such, using data from the WARM methodology, the emission factors for this class of IT assets have been amended to exclude the emissions due to glass manufacture, increasing its relevance to the project. In addition, project-specific emission factors for natural gas and electricity consumption, relevant to the project’s location in Ontario, Canada, have been used in the quantification of project emissions. These have been taken from the most recent National Inventory Report for Canada2, which represents a source of best practice information.

2.2 Completeness

Complete GHG SSRs are quantified for the project, as required by the WARM methodology. This includes:

• In the project condition: o P1 – “Electricity consumption” i.e. indirect GHG emissions released as a result of

electricity consumed to run the refurbishment operation; o P2 – “Natural gas consumption” i.e. direct GHG emissions released as a result of

natural gas combustion to run the refurbishment operation.

• In the baseline condition:

2 Environment Canada (2017), National Inventory Report 1990-2015: Part 2.


January 2019

Page | 7

o B1 – “Process energy emissions” i.e. GHG emissions released as a result of energy consumption for the process of producing virgin electronics

o B2 – “Process non-energy emissions” i.e. GHG emissions released as a result of non-energy related parts of the process of producing virgin electronics (for example, evaporation of solvent vapors from photolithography procedures used to apply phosphors to the screen)

o B3 – “Process energy emissions credit” i.e. energy consumption GHG emissions avoided due to the recycling of EOFL IT Asset components, thereby replacing virgin production of other, secondary products (for example, recycled plastic from EOFL IT Assets being used as a feedstock for asphalt production).

o B4 – “Process non-energy emissions credit” i.e. non-energy consumption GHG emissions avoided due to the recycling of EOFL IT Asset components, thereby replacing virgin production of other, secondary products.

All relevant species of GHGs – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) – are included in the quantification separately (where applicable) and/or in aggregate in the common unit of CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent). Note that using the WARM methodology, separate species of GHGs are only calculable when quantifying emissions from natural gas as all other emission factors are presented in units of CO2e. Neither Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) nor Hydofluorocarbons (HFCs) are emitted due to the project activities. Although PFCs are emitted in the production of virgin aluminum (in the baseline scenario) the emission factors from the WARM methodology have already converted all species of GHGs into CO2e. As such, emissions of these three species of GHGs are not reported separately.

2.3 Consistency

Functional equivalence between the baseline and project conditions is maintained by using mass of EOFL refurbished in the project condition, as required by the WARM methodology. As all refurbished IT Assets are eligible for a 5-year warranty3, they demonstrate an equivalent level of service to virgin IT Assets. The methodology presented herein is consistent with a similar project report4.

2.4 Accuracy

As far as possible, every effort has been made to reduce uncertainties in the calculations. A best practice protocol has been followed and QA-QC procedures have been applied to the calculations.

3 http://www.comsale.com/ [Accessed: 17th July 2018] 4 Green4Good IT Asset Reuse Project: 2013-2016 GHG Project Report, Version 4.

http://www.comsale.com/


January 2019

Page | 8

To increase the accuracy in the credits created, a discount factor of 7.22% was applied to the final assertion for years 2016 and 2017, and 7.66% for 2018. The discount factor is applied to ensure that the risk of double monetization has been addressed and accounted for within the assertion (see section 3.10.3).

2.5 Transparency

This project report is presented transparently, with full disclosure of all sources of information, calculations used and assumptions made, including the discount factor noted above. The discount factor was applied to the overall assertion due to stages of the IT lifecycle that may be subject to a regulated emissions trading or pricing mechanism. As such, excluding those credits from the assertion ensures that the emissions are not double monetized, (once as a credit, and second as additional allowance within the trading system).

2.6 Conservativeness

Various conservative approaches and assumptions were made to ensure GHG reductions were not overestimated. Application of the discount factor ensures an accurate, conservative credit assertion is registered. The following factors also contribute to the conservativeness of the assertion:

2.6.1 Aligning with the WARM Methodology:

• The baseline used in the quantification aligns with the GHG Emission and Energy Factors presented in the “WARM Version 14, Durable Goods and Materials” chapter.

• This baseline involves both recycling IT waste and landfill disposal; section ‘1.4.2 Recycling’ of the chapter states that 40% of CPUs and 33% of computer displays are recycled annually. Therefore, the quantification includes a negative “recycled input credit” emission factor to account for the proportion of EOFL IT diversion that occurs from recycling management practices.

• Thus, while the baseline includes both recycling and disposal practices, the credits generated by the refurbishment Project represent only the proportion of IT materials that were diverted from landfill disposal, and avoided manufacturing virgin products.

• Only products that qualified for a 5-year warranty were quantified.

2.6.2 Operations:

• The emissions for the total area of the Comsale facility were included in the project emissions, rather than selecting only a proportion of emissions associated with the areas of the facility used for refurbishment. This is likely to result in an overstatement of emissions in the project, and therefore a more conservative overall lower emissions reduction.

• Assets from July 2018 onwards were excluded from quantification. This is because it is not currently possible to to separate from the inventory totals any assets that were sent


January 2019

Page | 9

to Malaysia for refurbishment (a process which came online starting in July 2018). We have conservatively excluded all data from July 2018 onward from our quantification. However, once these data become available, it may be possible to quantify and report these as emissions reductions at a later date.

• The WARM methodology suggests that transportation emissions are lower for refurbished e-waste, (refurbishment requires collection and transport to the refurbishment facility, whereas recycling requires at least two transportation activities); however, they were excluded for the sake of conservativeness.

2.6.3 Quantification:

• Product weights were obtained from manufacturer specifications. The first step of gathering these data was completed by Comsale. These were then verified and completed by Bluesource. Any discrepancies that were found were reviewed, and where applicable, the lowest weight value was chosen for conservativeness.

• Weights of any refurbished assets that were returned, were removed from the total inventory prior to quantification (i.e. the inventory refers to net totals of refurbished assets excluding returns). At the time of quantification, Comsale did not weigh IT assets throughout the refurbishment cycle. As a result, original manufacturer weight specifications were used to determine total refurbished weights. Further, any component(s) added to the IT asset(s) were not included in the quantification owing to the lack of post-refurbishment weight data from the participant and the fact that manufacturer weights were used for all devices. This ensures no ‘virgin’ IT materials were included in the emission reduction claim.

• Emission reductions are rounded down to the nearest whole tonne.

2.6.4 Discount Factor

To account for the possibility that some IT components in the CO2Neutral Technology program may be subject to double monetization, a discount factor was developed and applied to the total credit assertion. The development and application of this discount factor is discussed in Appendix A.


January 2019

Page | 10

Project Description

The project is located at Comsale’s Canadian warehouse at 111 Snidercroft Road, Ontario. This is the location for the collection, processing and refurbishment of EOFL IT Assets under the project. Here, IT Assets undergo a process that adheres to the R2:2013 Standard5, which includes:

• Receipt of EOFL IT Assets;

• Extensive diagnostic process to identify any issues;

• Removal of all prior data;

• Thorough cleaning of all components and hardware upgrades as necessary;

• Installation of a genuine, brand new version of Microsoft Windows operating system;

• Testing and inspection before shipment to the consumer.

3.1 Project Title


3.2 The Project’s Purpose(s) And Objective(s) Are:

The CO2NeutralTM program is an IT asset reuse program created by the Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation. The objective of CO2NeutralTM, is to refurbish EOFL IT assets, extending their useful life. In doing so, emissions associated with the manufacturing of new IT equipment are avoided. This project report only quantifies the portion of the CO2NeutralTM program that is fulfilled by Comsale, a participant.

3.3 Expected Lifetime Of The Project

Comsale began refurbishment operations in 2016. The project is a commercial operation with no anticipated end-date and crediting is expected to continue until 31 December 2026. However, crediting may continue as long as the project practices remain additional.

3.4 Type Of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Or Removal Project

The project is a waste management (source reduction) project, specifically electronic waste (e-waste); whereby virgin IT material manufacturing is avoided.

3.5 Legal Land Description Of The Project Or The Unique Latitude And Longitude

The project refurbishment warehouse is Comsale’s Canadian location at 111 Snidercroft Rd, Vaughan, ON L4K 2J8. Latitude: 43.788338 Longitude: -79.500486

5 SERI (2013). R2:2013. The Responsible Recycling (“R2”) Standard for Electronics Recyclers. September 1, 2014.


January 2019

Page | 11

Comsale has entered participation agreements with CNTC to carry out refurbishment activities and contribute to the CO2Neutral program; all environmental attributes are owned by CNTC.

3.6 Conditions Prior To Project Initiation

Prior to this project, EOFL IT assets would have been either disposed of to a landfill or recycled.

3.7 Description Of How The Project Will Achieve GHG Emission Reductions Or Removal Enhancements

The production of computing devices involves a number of processes that directly or indirectly release GHGs into the atmosphere. This includes fossil fuel use for natural gas and electricity to run processes and heat, light and power facilities; use of gasoline and diesel to power transportation equipment, and the direct release of some GHGs as a by-product of manufacturing processes (such as PFCs released during aluminum production). In addition, GHGs are released through fossil fuel use during traditional disposal processes (such as transportation fuel for landfill vehicles and electricity for recycling plants, for example). As a source reduction project, this project achieves GHG emission reductions by extending the useful life of computing devices – including laptops, desktops and computing components – via comprehensive refurbishment of devices that are already in existence. By substituting demand for virgin devices with these refurbished devices, GHG emissions associated with manufacturing of new devices and recycling of old devices are avoided. Over the project lifetime, an anticipated 303,420 tonnes CO2e will be reduced by the project. This was estimated based on the average yearly reduction within this reporting period: 75,855 tonnes CO2e divided by 2.5 years of crediting, is 30,342 tonnes of CO2e reduced annually. The project is expected to continue until at least 2026, yielding approximately 303,420 tonnes of CO2e reduced over the total lifetime.

3.8 Project Technologies, Products, Services And The Expected Level Of Activity

The Project is not a technology implementation-based GHG emission reduction project. Rather, the GHG emission reductions are a result of Comsale’s refurbishment process and operations; whereby existing EOFL IT Assets are collected, assessed, repaired/replaced/re-assembled and shipped to the consumer. The services provided include cleaning and sanitization of collected IT assets, triage sorting of assets whereby they are determined to be usable or unusable, data wiping, repairs, testing and quality control, cosmetic repairs, software installation and licensing, and finally packaging and shipping to the client. Where applicable, special orders are accepted, and include things such as custom or upgraded components. The WARM methodology accounts for the processes included above by considering the electricity and natural gas consumed to run the refurbishment operation.


January 2019

Page | 12

Consistent performance from year to year is expected, and processes are expected to continue at the same level of productivity. However, as of July 2018, significant volumes of assets began to be transported to a facility in Malaysia for refurbishment. Though these asset volumes are not considered in this report, future quantifications and reports will need to consider these assets, and the transportation emissions associated with them.

3.9 Total GHG Emission Reductions and Removal Enhancements, Stated In Tonnes Of CO2 e, From The GHG Project (GHG Assertion)

Table 1. A-C The Project resulted in the following emissions and emission reductions.

A. Baseline tCO2 tCH4 tN2O tCO2e Total (t CO2 e)*

2016 - - - 28,096.4 28,096.4

2017 - - - 37,672.5 37,672.5

2018 - - - 16,580.9 16,580.9

TOTAL - - - 82,349.8 82,349.8

B. Project tCO2 tCH4 tN2O tCO2e Total (t CO2 e)*

2016 164.4 0.0032 0.0030 13.9 179.3

2017 161.9 0.0032 0.0030 16.2 179.1

2018 145.2 0.0028 0.0027 9.2 155.4

TOTAL 471.5 0.0092 0.0087 39.3 513.7

C. Reductions tCO2 tCH4 tN2O tCO2e Total (t CO2 e)*

2016 -164.4 -0.0032 -0.0030 28,082.5 27,917.1

2017 -161.9 -0.0032 -0.0030 37,656.3 37,493.4

2018 -145.2 -0.0028 -0.0027 16,571.7 16,425.6

TOTAL -471.5 -0.0092 -0.0087 82,310.5 81,836

D. Reductions

Total (t CO2 e)* Discount

Factor Discount (t

CO2e) Adjusted Total (t

CO2 e)*

2016 27,917 7.22% 2,015 25,902 2017 37,493 7.22% 2,707 34,786

2018 16,425 7.66% 1,258 15,167

TOTAL 81,835 - 5,980 75,855

*We report all relevant species of reductions where applicable. Note, the WARM methodology emission factors do not separate all emissions by species. Therefore, the only emission source


January 2019

Page | 13

which is included in this species breakdown, come from project process emissions from natural gas consumption.

3.10 Identification of Risks

The key risks to the project are a) regulatory risk (that refurbishment of IT equipment becomes mandatory) and b) reversal risk (that refurbished equipment does not function as expected by the consumer, resulting in returns of refurbished EOFL equipment and purchase of virgin equipment by the consumer).

3.10.1 Regulatory Risk

Currently, across Canada, there is no mandatory program that requires EOFL IT assets to be refurbished. Although refurbishment programs do exist and their use is encouraged – for example, Ontario’s ‘Recycle My Electronics’ program includes an Environmental Handling Fee (EHF) on the sale and distribution of new electronic products in Ontario, which is used to fund “collection, transportation and responsible recycling of end-of-life electronics”6 – there is no requirement for consumers to drop off their EOFL IT Assets at a drop-off location nor does the program specifically include refurbishment7 (it is a recycling program). If refurbishment does become mandatory in some jurisdictions, then this program will cease to produce offsets from EOFL IT Assets sourced from that jurisdiction.

3.10.2 Reversal Risk

Refurbished equipment must function properly, so that it is not returned by the consumer, and meet the performance standard of virgin equipment in order to function in such a manner that a consumer does not feel the need to purchase new equipment earlier than they normally would. Either of these scenarios would result in some or all of the benefits of the refurbishment program being reversed. To mitigate against this risk only net sales (i.e. gross sales minus any products returned by the consumer) are counted in the quantification of this project. Furthermore, Comsale is a MicrosoftTM Authorized Refurbisher. All devices are shipped with a Microsoft Certificate of Authenticity and provided with a 1-Year Guaranteed Warranty, with an optional 5-Year Extended Warranty available for all devices. This provides the same level of warranty that is typically provided for virgin equipment.

3.10.3 Double Monetization Risk

The project is creating GHG reductions through meaningful changes to the supply chain associated with creating virgin IT assets. However, there is a risk that some of the GHGs reduced

6 https://www.recyclemyelectronics.ca/on/residential/environmental-handling-fee-ehf/ [Accessed: 17th July 2018]. 7 https://www.recyclemyelectronics.ca/on/resources/the-journey-of-end-of-life-electronics/ [Accessed: 17th July 2018]

https://www.recyclemyelectronics.ca/on/residential/environmental-handling-fee-ehf/

https://www.recyclemyelectronics.ca/on/resources/the-journey-of-end-of-life-electronics/


January 2019

Page | 14

by the project will occur in regulated environments where these reductions may create value to the entity making the physical reduction. For example, if some of the iron ore for the steel used in manufacturing IT assets is mined at a facility which is covered by a GHG cap-and-trade system, that iron ore mine could directly create value through reducing its GHGs (due to the Project impacting demand for its product) by selling unused pollution permits to another participant in the cap-and-trade system. This is known as ‘double monetization’. As discussed above, a discount factor has been applied to the total credit assertion in order to mitigate any risk associated with potential double monetization. The discount factor development is fully outlined by Appendix A: Methodology for calculating a Discount Factor to mitigate against potential double monetization. However, in brief, this methodology identifies the proportion of aluminum, steel and copper contained within virgin IT assets that may have been covered by an Emission Trading Scheme and develops a % discount factor to account for this. This factor is different for 2016 and 2017, as Kazakhstan, a producer of steel and copper, did not run its ETS during these years, but did in 2018. The 2016/17 discount factor is thus 7.22%. The factor for 2018 is 7.66%.

3.11 Roles and Responsibilities

Authorized Project Contact and Project Developer Bluesource Canada ULC 717-7th Avenue SW, Suite 700 Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P 0Z3 Contact: Tooraj Moulai [email protected] Phone: (403) 262-3026 ext. 259 Project Proponent Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation 31 Rosena Lane Uxbridge, Ontario, Canada L9P1X8 Contact: Steve Glover [email protected] Phone: (647) 267-9982 Report Verifier Brightspot Climate Inc. 225 West 8th Ave, Suite 300, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

mailto:[email protected]



January 2019

Page | 15

V5Y 1C3 Lead Verifier: Aaron Schroeder [email protected] Phone: (604) 353-0264 GHG Programme CSA GHG Clean Projects Registry 178 Rexdale Blvd Toronto, Ontario, Canada M9W 1R3 [email protected] Phone (416) 747-4155 Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation is the owner of the CO2NeutralTM program. Mr. Glover is the president of Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation and has signing authority. Bluesource Canada ULC is an environmental marketing consultancy focusing on environmental assets. Bluesource has over 20 years of experience in carbon offset project development. Bluesource staff members Dorothy Maguire, Kelsey Locke and Graham Harris were responsible for the quantification, calculations, data source validation and QA-QC related to project registration. Brightspot Climate Inc. is the verifier chosen for this project verification. Selection of Brightspot was based on the expertise and experience in GHG emission reduction project verification of the individuals in the organization.

3.12 Any Information Relevant For The Eligibility Of The GHG Project Under A GHG Program And Quantification Of Emission Reductions

This project is eligible to create emission reductions based on the following attributes:

• The IT sector in Canada, the US, and Europe are not by law required to refurbish and reuse IT assets, though it is considered best practice.

• The emission reductions were quantified using the best available protocol and emission factors outlined in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) methodology (Durable Good Material Chapter, February 2016). The WARM methodology was approved for use, and is considered industry best practice, by the US EPA.

• The project was developed in accordance with the ISO-14064-Part 2 guidelines and principles.

• The project is eligible under the CSA GHG CleanProjectsTM registry. Reductions are solely registered under the GHG CleanProjectsTM registry. The reductions have been verified by a third party under ISO 14064- Part 3 guidelines.

• The project did not receive any additional public funds in exchange for the emission reductions.


January 2019

Page | 16

3.13 Summary Environmental Impact Assessment

An environmental impact assessment is not required for this project. The activities of the project are related to the refurbishment of IT assets, and therefore there are no negative impacts on the environment. Waste is being diverted from recycling facilities and landfills; therefore beyond the environmental benefits of avoiding GHG emissions, the project saves virgin materials, and energy consumption in the recycling process.

3.14 Relevant Outcomes From Stakeholder Consultations And Mechanisms For On-Going Communication.

There was no stakeholder consultation relevant to this project.

3.15 Detailed Chronological Plan

Project activities beginJanuary 2016• Quantifiable monitoring of project activities begins.

Malaysia facility comes onlineJuly 2018• Volumes of IT assests shipped to Malaysia facility for refurbishment.

• To be included in the next project cycle. Quantification of project activitiesSeptember 2018

• Emissions reductions for years 2016 through 2018 performed.

VerificationOct '18 - Jan '19• Project verified by third party Brightspot Climate.


January 2019

Page | 17

Selection and Justification of the Baseline Scenario

The scenario of landfilling IT waste is still the most common practice on a volume basis, and volumes of electronic waste going to landfill continue to increase8. However, many provinces and states have expanded IT waste recycling infrastructure to the point where recycling has become common thanks to programs such the Electronics Reusing Association9 and the Ontario Electronic Stewardship10. Consequently, recycling is likely to become the most common practice in the future, and thus recycling of IT waste was selected as the most conservative, and appropriate baseline scenario. A barriers test (Table 2) further demonstrates the suitability of recycling as a suitable baseline scenario. The baseline approach will be reviewed every 5 years in order to ensure that project activities remains additional in light of new baseline options, legislative changes and changes to common practice. The selection of a 5-year review for project additionality, methodology selection and baseline selection is consistent with the periodic review process of other well-established GHG programme standards. Table 2 Barriers test for project additionality and baseline scenario.

Type of Barrier Project Scenario (Reuse)

Baseline (Recycling) Common Practice (Landfill)

Financial Economic Barrier Discussions

Barrier

Significant investment required

Barrier

Significant investment required

Not a barrier

Technology Operation, Maintenance and Disposal Barrier Discussions

Barrier

Specific equipment, space, and operations required

Barrier

Specific equipment, space, and operations required

Not a barrier

Data Reliability and Limitation Barrier Discussions

Barrier

Need product weights to use methodology appropriately, and these are not otherwise easily available.

Not a barrier Not a barrier

Present, Future Conditions and

Barrier

If there are changes to the supply chain, or the


8 https://globalnews.ca/news/2718497/electronic-waste-skyrockets-in-canada/ 9 https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/non-profit-electronic-recycling-association-working-with-an-ontario-recycling-company-to-prevent-hazardous-e-waste-from-entering-ontario-landfills-691867441.html 10 http://ontarioelectronicstewardship.ca/


January 2019

Page | 18

Type of Barrier Project Scenario (Reuse)

Baseline (Recycling) Common Practice (Landfill)

Proliferation Barrier Discussions

supply of IT assets available for refurbishment.

Legislative Barrier Discussions

Not a barrier Not a barrier Not a barrier. Currently, IT assets may still be landfilled.

Socio-cultural Barrier Discussions

Barrier

Because this is not common practice or regulated in any way, there may be cultural aversion to investing the time into doing this, as well as lack of awareness that such options exist, and lack of expertise in initiating such a project. There may also be reluctance on the part of end-users to purchase EOFL equipment due to perceptions of lower quality.


Prevailing Practice Discussion

Barrier

This is not common practice

Not a barrier

This is slowly becoming a more common practice in some jurisdictions.

Not a barrier

This is the common practice.


January 2019

Page | 19

Inventory Of Sources, Sinks And Reservoirs (SSRs) For The Project And Baseline

5.1 Inclusions and Exclusions from the WARM Methodology

The project and baseline SSRs from the selected WARM methodology are summarized in Tables 3 and 4 below. We exclude transportation energy from the quantification of reductions. Both the baseline and project conditions assume that computers have been manufactured and used in the same manner prior to being collected for disposal (similar emissions associated with source materials, manufacturing, product shipping, and computer use). Though the WARM methodology suggests that transportation emissions are lower for refurbished e-waste, (refurbishment requires collection and transport to the refurbishment facility, whereas recycling requires at least two transportation activities), we excluded them from the project for sake of conservativeness. Table 3 Baseline condition SSRs in a recycling scenario.

Emission Sources Description Controlled, Related, or Affected

Details

Process energy for virgin production of electronics

The amount of energy required to produce a short ton of each of the secondary products from 100% virgin inputs. Secondary products include asphalt, steel sheet, plastics, led buillion, CRT glass, copper wire.

Related INCLUDED- tCO2e from all fuel types used in electronics processing. Calculated from weights of electronics refurbished as per WARM methodology.

Process non-energy for virgin production of electronics

This refers to the emissions from manufacturing that are not associated with combusting fuel for energy. For example, these include CRT glass manufacturing emissions from the production of lime and in the evaporation of solvent from making screens. Production of virgin steel and aluminum also factor into non-energy emissions.

Related INCLUDED- tCO2e reduced from manufacturing steel sheet, plastics, glass lead bullion, and other materials. Calculated from weights of electronics refurbished as per WARM methodology.


January 2019

Page | 20


Details

Process energy recycled input credit

This includes the GHG emissions avoided from energy consumption when creating secondary or recycled materials instead of creating virgin materials.

Related INCLUDED- tCO2e from all fuel types used in electronics secondary products processing. Calculated from weights of electronics refurbished as per WARM methodology.

Process non-energy recycled input credit

This includes the GHG emissions avoided from non-energy processes when creating secondary or recycled materials instead of creating virgin materials.

INCLUDED- tCO2e reduced from manufacturing steel sheet, plastics, glass lead bullion, and other materials. Calculated from weights of electronics refurbished as per WARM methodology.

Transportation energy recycled input credit

This includes the GHG emissions associated with collecting and transporting end of life electronics to recycling facilities.

Related EXCLUDED- for conservativeness. These are expected to be equivalent in the baseline and project scenario.

Table 4 Project condition SSRs.


Details

Process energy emission- purchased energy

Electricity purchased for operating the refurbishment site (power, lights, etc)

Controlled INCLUDED- tCO2e, emissions from electricity generation.

Process energy emission- natural gas consumption

Natural gas purchased for operating the refurbishment site (heating, hot water, etc).

Controlled INCLUDED- CO2, CH4 and N2O

Transportation energy- refurbishment input credit

Related EXCLUDED- for conservativeness. These are expected to be equivalent in the baseline and project scenario.


January 2019

Page | 21

Quantification and calculation of GHG emissions/removals

6.1 Methodology Selection

A literature review of the methodologies and quantification methods available was conducted, however the only protocol suitable for IT waste diversion is the U.S. EPA Waste Reduction Methodology (WARM)11. WARM is considered to most relevant and timely methodology available for the refurbishment of IT waste. The guidelines and principals for the WARM methodology were followed and used as a reference for the quantification within this report.

6.2 Emission Factors

All emission factors used for quantification are outlines in Tables 5-7. Emission factors for fuel use on site, for the portion of total warehouse space reserved for IT refurbishment and storage, were obtained by the latest published Canadian National Inventory Report (NIR)12, specifically for natural gas, and include CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions. Emission factors for electricity consumption for the portion of total warehouse space reserved for IT refurbishment and storage was also obtained by the Canadian National Inventory Report (NIR) GHG Generation Intensity13. The Global Warming Potentials used for each of the three greenhouse gases of CO2, CH4 and N2O, are sourced from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report14.

11 2016. US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and

Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM). Durable Goods Materials Chapters. 12 2015. National Inventory Report 1990-2013 13 2015. National Inventory Report 1990-2013 Submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Part 3.

14 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. Table 2.14, IPCC Fourth Assessment

Report, 2007


January 2019

Page | 22

Table 5 Emission factors for energy consumption.

*Note that emission factors for 2017 and 2018 are assumed to be the same as for 2016 (the most recent year for which EF data is available). **Note that the 2014 and 2015 Electricity EFs have been taken from the most recent (2018) NIR as this number is final. By contrast, the 2015 Electricity EF published in the 2017 NIR, and the 2014 Electricity EF published in the 2016 NIR, are 'preliminary'.

Electricity

Consumption

Notation EFNG-CO2 EFNG-CH4 EFNG-N2O EFELEC

Units g/m3 g/m3 g/m3g CO2e/kWh

Source

Environment Canada

(2018), National

Inventory Report 1990-

2016: Part 2. Table A6-1,

Ontario.

Environment Canada

(2018), National



Residential,

Construction,

Commercial/Institutiona

l, Agriculture.

Environment Canada

(2018), National



Residential,

Construction,


l, Agriculture.

Environment Canada

(2018), National


2016: Part 3. Table A13-

7, Ontario, Consumption

Intensity - 2016

Factor 1888 0.037 0.035 40

Source

Environment Canada

(2018), National



Ontario.

Environment Canada

(2018), National



Residential,

Construction,


l, Agriculture.

Environment Canada

(2018), National



Residential,

Construction,


l, Agriculture.

Environment Canada

(2018), National




Intensity - 2016

Factor 1888 0.037 0.035 40

Source

Environment Canada

(2018), National



Ontario.

Environment Canada

(2018), National



Residential,

Construction,


l, Agriculture.

Environment Canada

(2018), National



Residential,

Construction,


l, Agriculture.

Environment Canada

(2018), National




Intensity - 2016

Factor 1888 0.037 0.035 40

Natural Gas Combustion

2018*

YEAR

2016

2017*

Emissions Factor


January 2019

Page | 23

Table 6 Emission factors for raw materials acquisition and manufacturing of virgin electronics.

*Note that the Documentation for Greenhouse Gas Emission and Energy Factors Used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM), Background Chapters, pg 2-6, specifies that the abbreviation MTCO2E used in this exhibit is for metric tonnes, not mega-tonnes. ** Note that the EF for desktops was modified by removing the emissions due to CRT glass (associated with screens and monitors). Glass was considered in notebook emissions.

Notebooks were classified as IT equipment containing glass screens, such as Laptops, Mini PCs, tablets, and Ipads. Therefore, each of these IT ‘types’ were re-labelled ‘Notebooks’ to apply the ‘Notebook’ process energy and process non-energy emission factors appropriately. Similarly, the weights of all other equipment such as towers, form factors, and desktops were considered “Desktop weights” to apply the modified Desktop emission factor. The process energy and process non-energy emission factors for Desktops (Table 6) were modified as follows:

• According to the WARM methodology the process energy emissions for PCs (assumed 22% glass by weight) is 50.02 MTCO2e/1 short ton of IT assets;

• Desktops were assumed to have no glass.

• First, the process emissions associated with 0.22 short tons of glass = 0.22short tons glass * 0.52MTCO2e/short ton glass = 0.1144MTCO2e/short ton computers.

• The non-process emissions associated with 0.22 short tons of glass = 0.22 short tons glass*0.16MTCO2e/1 short ton glass = 0.0352MTCO2e/ short ton of computers.

• Therefore the EF was modified as follows: o Process Energy (Desktops)= (50.02-0.1144 MTCO2e)/(1-0.22 short tons)=

63.98MTCO2e/short ton desktops. o Process Non-Energy (Desktops)= (0.10-0.0.0352 MTCO2e)/(1-0.22 short tons)=

0.08MTCO2e/short ton desktops. The recycled input credit EFs were not adjusted for desktops and notebooks separately as, according to the WARM methodology, glass was not responsible for any of those emissions.

Process Energy Process Non-Energy

Process Energy

Recycled Input Credit

Process Non-Energy

Recycled Input Credit

EFPE EFNPE EFPE-R EFNPE-R

tonne CO2e/Short ton

refurbished


refurbished


refurbished


refurbished

Documentation for

Greenhouse Gas

Emission and Energy

Factors Used in the

Waste Reduction Model

(WARM), Durable Goods

Materials Chapters,

February 2016,

Notebooks: Exhibit 1-

7(b)*, Desktops Exhibit 1-

7(b) and exhibit 1-13.

Documentation for

Greenhouse Gas

Emission and Energy

Factors Used in the



Materials Chapters,

February 2016,

Notebooks: Exhibit 1-

7(d), Desktops Exhibit 1-

7(d) and exhibit 1-15.

Documentation for

Greenhouse Gas

Emission and Energy

Factors Used in the



Materials Chapters,

February 2016, Exhibit 1-

11.

Documentation for

Greenhouse Gas

Emission and Energy

Factors Used in the



Materials Chapters,

February 2016, Exhibit 1-

11.

Desktops** 63.98 0.08 -1.58 -0.88

50.02 0.1 -1.58 -0.88

Emissions Factor

Notation

Units

Source

Notebooks


January 2019

Page | 24

Table 7 Global warming potentials.

6.3 Baseline Emissions

Baseline scenario emission in recycling process (tCO2e)= BSE.

BSE= B1+B2+B3+B4 Table 8 Description of formulae and data used to calculate baseline emissions.

MDesktops MNotebooks B1 B2 B3 B4

Description Net mass of refurbished desktops, components, etc

Net mass of refurbished notebooks

Process energy emission factor for virgin production of electronics in recycling scenario

Process non-energy GHG emissions factor for virgin production of electronics in recycling scenario

Process energy GHG emission factor of recycled input credit

Process non-energy GHG emission factor of recycled input credit

Equation MDesktops=Total mass of desktopsand components, minus any material returns.

MDesktops=Total mass of notebooks, minus any material returns.

B1=MDesktops*EFPE-

Desktops + MNotebooks*EFPE-

Notebooks

B2=MDesktops*EFNPE-

Desktops +

MNotebooks*EFNPE-

Notebooks

B1=M*EFPE-R B1=M*EFNPE-R

Unit Short Tons Short Tons tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e tCO2e

6.4 Project Emissions

Project scenario total emission in refurbishing process (tCO2e)= PSTE

PSTE=P1+P2

CO2 CH4 N2O

GWPCO2 GWPCH4 GWPN2O

CO2e CO2e CO2e

Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change (IPCC)

Fourth Assessment

Report. Table 2.14, IPCC

Fourth Assessment

Report, 2007



Fourth Assessment


Fourth Assessment

Report, 2008



Fourth Assessment


Fourth Assessment

Report, 2009

1 25 298Factor

GHG

Notation

Units

Source


January 2019

Page | 25

Table 9 Breakdown of formulae and data used to calculate project emissions.

ES NGS Facility% P1 P2

Description Site electricity consumption.

Site natural gas consumption

Proportion of facility used for refurbishment

Project scenario emission from process energy of electricity consumption for project activities

Project scenario emission from process energy of natural gas consumption for project activities

Equation n/a n/a Facility%=AR/AF Where: AR=Area of facility used for refurbishment AF=Area of facility

P1=Es*Facility%*EFCO2e

/1000/1000

P2=(NGCO2*GWPCO2)+ (NGCH4*GWPCH4)+ (NGN2O*GWPN2O) Where: NGCO2=(NGS*Facility%*EFNG-

CO2)/1000/1000 NGCH4=(NGS*Facility%*EFNG-

CH4)/1000/1000 NGN2O=(NGS*Facility%*EFNG-

N2O)/1000/1000

Unit kWh m3 % tCO2e tCO2e

6.5 Emission Reductions

Emissions Offset Credits Created (tCO2e)= EOCC.

EOCC=BSE-PSTE

Where BSE = sum of the emissions under the baseline condition. PSTE = sum of the emissions under the project condition.

6.6 Worked Example

Table 10 Hypothetical data and emission factors for worked example.

Symbol Description Value

Data ES Total project electricity consumption 30,000 kWh

NGS Total project natural gas consumption 60,000 m3

MDesktops Total mass of refurbished desktops, components, etc

75 short tons

MNotebooks Total mass of refurbished notebooks 25 short tons

%Facility Proportion of facility used for refurbishment process

100%

GWPs CO2 GWP for CO2 1

CH4 GWP for CH4 25


January 2019

Page | 26

Symbol Description Value

N2O GWP for N2O 298

Emission Factors EFPE-

Desktops

Process energy- Desktops 63.98

EFPE-

Notebooks Process energy- Notebooks 50.02

EFNPE-

Desktops Non process energy- Desktops 0.08

EFNPE-

Notebooks Non process energy- Notebooks 0.1

EFPE-R Process energy- recycling -1.58

EFNPE-R Non process energy- recycling -0.88

EFCO2e Electricity EF for CO2e 40

NGCO2 Natural gas EF for CO2 1888

NGCH4 Natural gas EF for CH4 0.037

NGN20 Natural gas EF for N2O 0.035

Step 1. Calculate Baseline Emissions B1=(MDesktops* EFPE-Desktops) + (MNotebooks* EFPE-Notebooks) =(75*63.98)+(25*50.02) =6049 B2=(MDesktops* EFNPE-Desktops) + (MNotebooks* EFNPE-Notebooks) =(75*0.08)+(25*0.1) =8.5 B3=M* EFPE-R

=100*(-1.58) =-158 B4=M* EFNPE-R

=100*(-0.88) =-88 Step 2. Calculate Project Emissions P1=ES*Facility%*EFCO2E/1000/1000 =30,000*100%*40/1000/1000 =1.2


January 2019

Page | 27

P2=(NGCO2*GWPCO2)+ (NGCH4*GWPCH4)+ (NGN2O*GWPN2O) Where: NGCO2=(NGS*Facility%*EFNG-CO2)/1000/1000 =60,000*100%*1888/1000/1000 =113.28 NGCH4=(NGS*Facility%*EFNG-CH4)/1000/1000 =60,000*100%*0.037/1000/1000 =0.00222 NGN2O=(NGS*Facility%*EFNG-N2O)/1000/1000 =60,000*100%*0.035/1000/1000 =0.0021 P2=(113.28*1)+(0.00222*25)+(0.0021*298) =113.96 Step 3. Calculate emissions reductions BSE=B1+B2+B3+B4 =6049+8.5 -158-88 =5811.5 PSTE=P1+P2 =1.2+113.96 =115.16 EOCC=BSE-PSTE =5811.5-115.16 =5696 tCO2e

Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation IT Asset Reuse Project for Comsale January 2019

Page | 28

Monitoring the Data Information Management System and Data Controls

Table 11 Summary of data sources, reliability, and measurement approaches used in project quantification.

SSR identifier or name

Data parameter

Estimation, modeling, measurement or

calculation approaches

Data Recording (electronic or paper)

Data unit

Sources/ Origin

Monitoring frequency

Description and justification of monitoring method

Uncertainty Provide the details for any

deviations from methodology including the

justification and rationale.

B1, B2, B3, B4

Weight of refurbished IT assets.

Inventories by Comsale include the make, model, form factor (desktop vs notebook) and number of IT assets, as well as whether they are returned or not. Those returned have been removed from the inventory data sent to Bluesource. Weights were estimated using the most recent manufacturer specs available online.

Electronic. Submitted as excel files.

Reported by Comsale in lbs. Converted into short tons.

Manufacturer specifications.

Continuous A slightly more accurate measure of IT asset weight would be if the refurbisher weighed assets before sale. While this is something the refurbisher may implement in the future, the approach used is the best data currently available.

There is uncertainty regarding what error exists between the actual weights of refurbished assets and the weights reported in the manufacturer specs.

There were no deviations in the methodology.

P1 Electricity consumption of refurbishment facility.

Standard emission factors were used to convert electricity consumption (kWh) to CO2e.

Data were facility monthly electricity bills including usage for the quantification periods.

kWh Direct metering as recorded in monthly invoices from Powerstream.

Monthly This is the most accurate method of measuring this parameter assuming that staff are correctly trained and equipment is correctly maintained.

Very little uncertainty associated with these data.


P2 Natural gas consumption associated with refurbishment facility.

Data were the monthly bills for facility natural gas consumption.

m3 Direct metering as recorded in monthly invoices from Enbridge.

Monthly This is the most accurate method of measuring this parameter assuming that staff are correctly trained and equipment is correctly maintained

Very little uncertainty associated with these data.



January 2019

Page | 29

7.1 Quantification Limits and Uncertainty

There is limited uncertainty associated with project methodology and the data that is collected and used for quantification of emissions and emission reductions. Since the consumption of fuel and energy is recorded and metered, it is deemed as a low risk. Records for quantified of IT assets actually ordered and shipped are constantly monitored for accuracy, and thus have a low risk of uncertainty. IT asset weights were taken directly from manufacturers specification sheets for each unique asset type, model and configuration. The use of such third-party sources of weight is consistent with the methods used in the WARM model Reference of Consumer Reports in WARM (though more accurate would be if assets were specifically weighed before sale after refurbishment). There is uncertainty associated with the development of the Discount Factor, owing to the complexity of global supply chains regarding materials in the virgin IT assets. However, it is believed that the Discount Factor is conservative.

7.2 Data and Information Quality Management Procedures

Blue Source Canada holds itself to the highest professional and ethical standards. Staff all have experience in working on GHG projects and training in the use of ISO14064-2. Junior staff members are mentored closely until their level of competence is deemed sufficient for them to work more independently. This experience and training helps to ensure that errors and omissions are minimized, and that project documentation is compiled in accordance with the principles of relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy, transparency and conservativeness. Bluesource operates a rigorous internal QA/QC process that is built around the principle of senior review (i.e. calculations and reports are checked by experienced staff members prior to being released). The quantification calculator, for example, will be checked for:

• Transcription errors/omissions

• Correctly functioning links/formulas in spreadsheets

• Correct and transparent referencing of data sources

• Justification of assumptions

• Use of, and compliance with, most up-to-date versions of protocols, technical guidance,

etc.

In addition, the Project Report is also senior-reviewed for errors, omissions, clarity, etc. Any issues with any of the project documentation – including the calculator – are recorded using Blue Source’s in-house QA/QC tracking sheet and, as necessary, comments are embedded into the reviewed version of the documents and/or calculator. These must then be corrected before any documents are sent to the third-party verifier. Staff sign an “Attestation of Quality Assurance and Quality Control” to document that the QA/QC process was followed.


January 2019

Page | 30

7.2.1 Back-up Procedures at Blue Source

Electronic data is backed up by Blue Source’s IT service provider, Calitso. A recent copy of this back-up procedure is provided in Appendix B.

7.2.2 Document Retention Policy at Blue Source

Blue Source operates a documentation retention policy, which all staff must abide by as a condition of their employment. A copy of this document retention policy is provided as Appendix C.


January 2019

Page | 31

Reporting and Verification Details

This GHG Report has been prepared in accordance with ISO 14064-2 and GHG CleanProjectsTM requirements. The report has been third party verified by Brightspot Climate Inc (details below) who have submitted a verification report that conforms to ISO 14064-3 standards, includes a signed Verification Statement, provides details on how conflict of interest issues are managed or mitigated, demonstrates that the verification body is competent to perform the verification of the GHG project that includes the GHG Report, GHG Assertion(s), and the calculations of the GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements, includes in its scope the fact that the project conforms to the requirements of ISO 14064-2, and verifies the project to a reasonable level of assurance, including all GHG Assertion(s) and calculations of GHG emission reductions or removal enhancements. Report Verifier Brightspot Climate Inc. 225 West 8th Ave, Suite 300, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V5Y 1C3 Lead Verifier: Aaron Schroeder [email protected] Phone: (604) 353-0264



January 2019

Page | 32

Carbon Neutral Technology Corporation IT ASSET REUSE PROJECT FOR COMSALE

Appendix A: Methodology for calculating a Discount Factor to mitigate against potential double monetization

Version 4.0 2019-01-10

Firefly GHG Consulting Bluesource Canada Graham Harris, EP(GHG) Kelsey Locke [email protected] [email protected] (403) 402-8993 (403) 262-3026 x228




January 2019

Page | 33

Contents 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 34

2 Methodology ................................................................................................................... 35

2.1 Stage 1 – Identify Embedded Carbon by Material ............................................. 35

2.2 Stage 2 – Identify Major Production Stages and Jurisdictions, and Coverage by

ETS ........................................................................................................................... 38

2.2.1 Aluminum ................................................................................................................. 38

2.2.2 Aluminum Discount Factor .................................................................................... 41

2.2.3 Steel .......................................................................................................................... 41

2.2.4 Steel Discount Factor ............................................................................................. 45

2.2.5 Copper ...................................................................................................................... 45

2.2.6 Copper Discount Factor ......................................................................................... 48

3 Calculation of the Final Discount Factor .................................................................... 48

List of Tables Table 1 - Embedded Carbon, by Material, in an Archetypical PC ................................. 36 Table 2 - World Bauxite Production, by Country .............................................................. 39 Table 3 - World Production of Alumina, by Country ........................................................ 39 Table 4 - World Production of Aluminum, by Country ..................................................... 40 Table 5 - World Iron Ore Production, By Country ............................................................ 42 Table 6 - World Coal Production, by Country ................................................................... 43 Table 7 - World Steel Production, by Country .................................................................. 44 Table 8 - World Copper Production, by Country .............................................................. 46 Table 9 - World Refined Copper Production, by Country ............................................... 47 Table 10 - Discount Factor .................................................................................................. 48

List of Figures Figure 1 - Overview of Approach to Develop a Discount Factor ................................... 34 Figure 2 - Mass of Archetype PC, by material .................................................................. 36 Figure 3 - Proportion of Total Embedded Carbon, by Material, in Archetypical PC ... 38 Figure 4 - Contribution of Aluminum production stages to lifecycle GHG emissions . 39 Figure 5 - Contribution of Steel production stages to lifecycle GHG emissions ......... 42 Figure 6 - Contribution of Copper production stages to lifecycle GHG emissions ..... 46


January 2019

Page | 34

1 Introduction Potential double monetization – caused by aspects of the materials supply chain being covered by emission trading systems – is an identified risk to the CO2Neutral project. In order to mitigate this risk, a Discount Factor (DF) is used. This conservatively reduces the offsets created by the project, in line with the identified potential for double monetization. This DF was developed as follows:

1. The embedded carbon, by material, of a typical (archetype) IT asset, was calculated;

2. The top 3 most important materials – making up over 75% of the embedded carbon in

the archetype – were then isolated for further analysis;

3. The major production/supply chain stages for these three materials were then identified;

4. Data on the geographic distribution of each production stage, for each material, was

obtained;

5. The presence, or lack thereof, of an Emission Trading System (ETS) in each geographic

area was confirmed using World Bank data15;

6. Finally, the data was used to calculate a DF that would reduce the project’s created offset

credits in line with the proportion of embedded carbon in the archetype which could

potentially have been subject to double monetization.

Figure 1 illustrates this approach.

Figure 1 - Overview of Approach to Develop a Discount Factor

In the example shown in Figure 1, 25% of the embedded carbon in the archetype IT asset comes from Material 1. Material 1 requires two major production stages: mining, which contributes 30% of the GHGs associated with Material 1, and refining, which contributes the other 70% of lifecycle GHGs. These two production stages occur across four countries – Countries A, B, C and

15 World Bank Group (2018) State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2018, Washington DC, May 2018

ETS Status of Jurisdiction

Production by Jurisdiction

Production Stages for Material

(GHG contribution)

Materials by Mass

IT Archetype

IT Asset

Material 1

25%

Mining

30%

Country A

50%NO ETS

Country B

40%NO ETS

Country C

10%ETS in place

Refining

70%

Country A

90%No ETS

Country D

10%ETS in place

Material 2

50%

Material 3

25%


January 2019

Page | 35

D; of which, only Country C and Country D have an ETS in place. Country C’s mining industry produces 10% of the raw Material 1, and Country D’s refining industry produces 10% of the refined Material 1. Conservatively, therefore, 10% of production of material 1 and 10% of refining of material 1 are both separately covered by an ETS. As production of material 1 is responsible for 30% of lifecycle GHGs, and refining is responsible for 70% of lifecycle GHGs, then (30% * 10%) + (70% * 10%) = 3% + 7% = 10% of the lifecycle GHG emissions from Material 1 are ineligible to create offsets. As 25% of the embedded carbon in the IT archetype comes from Material 1, the Discount Factor to be applied to the carbon offsets is therefore 10% of 25% = 2.5%.

2 Methodology

2.1 Stage 1 – Identify Embedded Carbon by Material The WARM methodology includes a number of discreet information points that indicate:

• the material composition of a typical desktop PC (the archetype IT asset that the WARM

methodology is based upon) (Exhibit 1-5) (e.g. the proportion that is plastic, glass, steel,

etc), and

• the process energy, transportation energy and non-process energy GHG emissions

associated with the production of some, but not all, of those specific materials (Exhibits

1-13, 1-14 and 1-15).

Figure 2 shows the composition of an archetype PC under the WARM method, in terms of proportions by mass.


January 2019

Page | 36

Figure 2 - Mass of Archetype PC, by material

The WARM data points were used to calculate the total embedded carbon in a typical desktop PC for the following materials, which constitute around three-quarters of its mass:

1. Steel

2. Glass

3. Aluminum

4. Lead

5. Copper

However, as GHG emissions data was not available in WARM for plastics or zinc, lifecycle GHG emissions data were sourced from other high-quality datasets. The final embedded carbon, by material, in MTCO2e per Short Ton of PCs, is therefore shown in Table 1 below16:

Table 12 - Embedded Carbon, by Material, in an Archetypical PC

16 All together, 96.7% of the embedded carbon in the IT archetype is accounted for. The other 3.3% is made up of miscellaneous metals and plastics – as no further information is provided by WARM on the makeup of these materials, and as they constitute a minimal proportion of the archetype materials, the embedded carbon of this 3.3% is not considered further in the development of the Discount Factor.


January 2019

Page | 37

Material Embedded MTCO2E per Short Ton of PCs

Data Source

ABSa (Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene).

0.2761 Franklin Associates (2011), Revised Final Report - Cradle-To-Gate Life Cycle Inventory of Nine Plastic Resins and Four Polyurethane Precursors, Table 10-5.

PPO/HIPSb (Polyphenylene oxide/High-impact polystyrene).

0.1367 University of Waterloo, Canadian Raw Materials Database, https://uwaterloo.ca/canadian-raw-materials-database/life-cycle-inventory-databasesbases-donnees-linventaire [Accessed: 10 December 2018].

TBBPAc (flame retardant) (Tetrabromobisphenol A.)

0.1317 PlasticsEurope (2011), Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers, Bisphenol A (BPA), March 201117

Glass 0.1540 WARM Exhibits 1-5, 1-13, 1-14 and 1-15

Lead 0.0888 WARM Exhibits 1-5, 1-13, 1-14 and 1-15

Steel 0.6829 WARM Exhibits 1-5, 1-13, 1-14 and 1-15

Copper 0.4633 WARM Exhibits 1-5, 1-13, 1-14 and 1-15

Zinc 0.0850 International Zinc Association (2016), Zinc Environmental Profile - 2015 Update, Life Cycle Assessment, Rev April 2016

Aluminum 1.4884 WARM Exhibits 1-5, 1-13, 1-14 and 1-15

ALL 3.5068

Figure 3 illustrates the proportion of embedded carbon by material. As can be seen, three materials – aluminum, steel and copper – make up over 75% of the embedded carbon in an

17 No specific GHG information could be found on TBBPAc from any jurisdiction. As TBBPAc is a compound produced by reacting BPA with bromine, available (European) data on the GHG lifecycle of BPA, the major component of this compound, was used as a proxy. It is likely that the GHG emissions of TBBPAc are therefore underestimated; however, the value used is in line with the GHG emissions associated with the other plastic component and as TBBPAc makes up only 5.7% of the mass of an archetypical PC, this uncertainty is deemed acceptable.


January 2019

Page | 38

archetypical PC. As such, the rest of the development of the discount factor focuses on these three materials.

Figure 3 - Proportion of Total Embedded Carbon, by Material, in Archetypical PC

2.2 Stage 2 – Identify Major Production Stages and Jurisdictions, and Coverage

by ETS The major production stages for each of the three key materials identified in Stage 1 are:

2.2.1 Aluminum

Aluminum is produced through three major stages: the mining of bauxite, which is then processed to extract alumina (Al2O3), which is then smelted to produce aluminum. This is shown in Figure 4, which also shows that most of the GHG lifecycle emissions for producing aluminum come from the conversion of alumina to aluminum (based on a lifecycle assessment conducted by The Aluminum Association18).

18 The Aluminum Association (2013). The Environmental Footprint of Semi-Finished Aluminum Products in North America: A Life Cycle Assessment Report.


January 2019

Page | 39

Figure 4 - Contribution of Aluminum production stages to lifecycle GHG emissions

NRCAN data was used to identify the world production of bauxite, alumina and aluminum by country19, as shown in Table 13, Table 14 and Table 15.

Table 13 - World Bauxite Production, by Country

BAUXITE PRODUCTION, 2017, in thousands of tonnes

COUNTRY % CUMULATIVE %

ETS Status

1 Australia 83,000 27.6% 27.6% No ETS in place.

2 China 68,000 22.6% 50.2% Power sector only.

3 Guinea 45,000 15.0% 65.2% No ETS in place.

4 Brazil 36,000 12.0% 77.2% No ETS in place.

5 India 27,000 9.0% 86.2% No ETS in place.

6 Jamaica 8,100 2.7% 88.9% No ETS in place.

7 Russia 5,600 1.9% 90.8% No ETS in place.

8 Other countries

27,830 9.2% 100.0% No ETS in place.

World 300,530 100.0%

As shown in Table 13, none of the major bauxite producing countries run an ETS, except China, in which only the power sector is regulated. Therefore, the production covered by an ETS = 0%.

Table 14 - World Production of Alumina, by Country

ALUMINA PRODUCTION, 2017, in thousands of tonnes


ETS Status



19 https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/facts/aluminum/20510#L2

Aluminum production

(73.92%)

Alumina production

(25.19%)

Bauxite ore production

(0.89%)

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/facts/aluminum/20510#L2


January 2019

Page | 40

ALUMINA PRODUCTION, 2017, in thousands of tonnes


ETS Status

3 Brazil 11,000 8.3% 78.2% No ETS in place.

4 India 6170 4.6% 82.8% No ETS in place.

5 Russia 2800 2.1% 84.9% No ETS in place.

6 Jamaica 1980 1.5% 86.4% No ETS in place.

7 Ireland 1930 1.5% 87.9% European ETS

8 Germany 1900 1.4% 89.3% European ETS

9 Ukraine 1660 1.2% 90.5% No ETS in place.

10 Canada 1,570 1.2% 91.7% Varies

11 Other countries

11070 0.083 100.0% Varies

World 132,980 100.0%

Table 14 shows that in terms of alumina, Ireland and Germany are members of the European ETS. Canada’s alumina production comes entirely from one facility in Quebec (NRCan, 2018) which is covered by an ETS. Therefore, the production covered by an ETS = (1.5% + 1.4% + 1.2%) = 4.1%.

Table 15 - World Production of Aluminum, by Country

PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION, 2017, in thousands of tonnes


ETS Status


2 Russia 3,600 6.00% 60.40% No ETS in place.

3 Canada 3,212 5.40% 65.80% Varies

4 India 3,200 5.30% 71.10% No ETS in place.

5 United Arab Emirates

2,600 4.30% 75.40% No ETS in place.


7 Norway 1,220 2.00% 79.90% European ETS

8 Bahrain 960 1.60% 81.50% No ETS in place.


January 2019

Page | 41

9 Iceland 870 1.50% 83.00% European ETS

10 Brazil 800 1.30% 84.30% No ETS in place.

11 Malaysia 760 1.30% 85.60% No ETS in place.

12 United States 740 1.20% 86.80% Varies

13 Other countries

7,900 13.20% 100.00% Varies

World 59,952 100.00%

Table 15 shows primary aluminum production. In this case, Norway and Iceland are members of the European ETS, and Canada and the US have ETS that operate in individual states but not nationally. As almost all primary aluminum production in Canada is in Quebec (NRCan, 2018), which does have an ETS, this proportion must be included in the calculation of the aluminum discount factor. By contrast, US primary aluminum operations are in Indiana, Kentucky and South Carolina, none of which have ETS in place, and thus the US production does not need to be included in the calculation of the aluminum discount factor. Therefore, production covered by an ETS = (5.4% + 2.0% + 1.5%) = 8.9%.

2.2.2 Aluminum Discount Factor

The Discount Factor associated with Aluminum is thus:

• Aluminum production covered by ETS = (Bauxite Production covered by an ETS * % of

lifecycle GHGs associated with bauxite production) + (Alumina Production covered by an

ETS * % of lifecycle GHGs associated with alumina production) + (Aluminum Production

covered by an ETS * % of lifecycle GHGs associated with aluminum production) = (0% *

0.89%) + (4.1% * 25.19%) + (8.9% * 73.92%)

= (0% + 1.03% + 6.58%) = 7.61%;

• Embedded carbon in archetype PC due to aluminum = 1.4884 MT CO2e per Short Ton (see

Table 12);

• Embedded carbon in archetype PC due to aluminum, which is covered by ETS = 1.4884 *

7.61% = 0.1133 MTCO2e per Short Ton.

• Discount Factor = 0.1133 / Embedded carbon in archetype PC (3.5068, see Table 12)

= 0.1133 / 3.5068 = 3.23% discount factor.

2.2.3 Steel

Steel is produced by smelting together iron ore and coking coal, both of which must be mined. Significant efforts were made to find a lifecycle analysis for steel production, including direct communication with the World Steel Association (whom produce a series of lifecycle GHG assessments for steel products, but were unfortunately unable to provide the breakdown in production stages for these products). However, it has not been possible to apportion the


January 2019

Page | 42

lifecycle GHG emissions from steel production to the individual stages of the production process with any accuracy. Therefore, in line with the principle of conservativeness, the coverage of each stage by an ETS has been summed in its entirety, increasing the discount factor for this material.

Figure 5 - Contribution of Steel production stages to lifecycle GHG emissions

NRCan data was again used to identify iron ore20 and coking coal21 production. No equivalent NRCan data was available for steel production, so World Steel Association data was used instead22. This is shown below in Table 16, Table 17 and Table 18.

Table 16 - World Iron Ore Production, By Country

IRON ORE PRODUCTION, 2017, in millions of tonnes


ETS Status

1 Australia 879 39.8% 39.8% No ETS in place.

2 Brazil 436 19.8% 59.6% No ETS in place.

3 China 191 8.6% 68.2% Power sector only.



6 Ukraine 73 3.3% 83.1% No ETS in place.

7 South Africa 69 3.2% 86.3% No ETS in place.

8 Iran 57 2.6% 88.9% No ETS in place.

9 Canada 49 2.2% 91.1% Varies

10 United States 44 2.0% 93.1% Varies

11 Sweden 27 1.20% 94.3% European ETS

20 https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/facts/iron-ore/20517#L2 21 https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/coal/20071#L4 22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_production

Steel production

Iron ore production

Coking coal production

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/facts/iron-ore/20517#L2

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/coal/20071#L4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_production


January 2019

Page | 43

IRON ORE PRODUCTION, 2017, in millions of tonnes


ETS Status

12 Kazakhstan 13 0.60% 94.9% National ETS – 2018 only

13 Other countries

113 5.10% 100.0%

World 2,206 100.00%

As Table 5 shows, Sweden and Kazakhstan are both covered by an ETS; however, Kazakhstan’s ETS was suspended in 2016 and 2017, resuming operation 1 January 201823 – as such, any discount due to the Kazakhstan ETS is only applicable to the project for the 2018 calendar year. Canada and the US have sub-national schemes. 51% of Canada’s iron ore comes from Quebec, which is covered by an ETS and thus must be include in the DF (NRCan, 2018). By contrast, 97% of US iron ore comes from Michigan and Minnesota24 neither of which run an ETS, so this proportion is not relevant to the DF. As such, the DF associated with iron ore is 1.2% + 0.6% + (2.2% * 51%) = 2.9% for 2018 and is 1.2% + (2.2% * 51%) = 2.3% for 2016 and 2017.

Table 17 - World Coal Production, by Country

COAL PRODUCTION, 2007 - 2017, in millions of tonnes


ETS Status



3 United States 702 9.6% 62.6% No ETS in place.


5 Indonesia 488 6.7% 76.1% No ETS in place.

13 Canada 61 0.80% 76.9% Varies

- Other countries

1,686 23.10% 100.0%

World 7,320 100.00%

As Table 6 shows, only Canada has potential ETS coverage for world coal production. 56% of Canadian coal production is metallurgical i.e. for use in steel making, and 34% of this is produced in the province of AB (NRCan, 2018), which operates a regulated system that covers coal. Thus, the coverage of coal production by an ETS is 0.8% * 56% * 34% = 0.2%.

23 International Carbon Action Partnership (icap) (2018) ETS Detailed Information: Kazakhstan Emissions Trading Scheme (KAZ ETS). Update: 27 November 2018. 24 USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries 2018, https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2018/mcs2018.pdf

https://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2018/mcs2018.pdf


January 2019

Page | 44

Table 18 - World Steel Production, by Country

STEEL PRODUCTION, 2017, in million of tonnes


ETS Status

1 China 831.7 49% 49% No ETS in place.

- European Union

168.7 10% 59% European ETS

2 Japan 104.7 6% 65% Only Tokyo/Saitama.

3 India 101.4 6% 71% No ETS in place.

4 United States

81.6 5% 76% Varies

5 Russia 71.3 4% 80% No ETS in place.

6 South Korea 71.1 4% 85% National ETS

8 Turkey 37.5 2% 87% No ETS in place.

9 Brazil 34.4 2% 89% No ETS in place.

11 Taiwan 23.2 1% 90% No ETS in place.

12 Ukraine 22.7 1% 92% No ETS in place.

13 Iran 21.8 1% 93% No ETS in place.

14 Mexico 20 1% 94% No ETS in place.

17 Canada 13.7 1% 95% Varies

19 Vietnam 10.3 1% 95% No ETS in place.

World 1691.2 100%

The European Union covers 10% of world steel production with an ETS, and South Korea another 4%. Japan, the US and Canada all have sub-national ETS schemes.

• In Japan, a comprehensive investigation of the manufacturing locations of members of

the Japan Iron and Steel Federation25 - checking the locations of each member on their

website - uncovered only two works that operate within Tokyo prefecture: Daido Steel Co

Ltd’s Oji plant and Nippon Steel & Sutimoto Metal Corporation’s Itabushi-ju. Daido Steel

runs 9 plants and produces less than 7% of Japanese steel, and NSSMC runs 14 plants and

produces 45.2% of Japanese Steel, according to World Steel Association data26. As such,

it has been estimated that 3.97% of Japanese Steel production occurs within the

boundaries of the Tokyo ETS27.

• In the US, a similar investigation of major US steel producers (World Steel Association,

2018) uncovered that none of them are running manufacturing works, which produce

25 http://www.jisf.or.jp/en/organize/association/general.html 26https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:f9359dff-9546-4d6b-bed0-

996201185b12/World%2520Steel%2520in%2520Figures%25202018.pdf 27 Daido Steel coverage = 1/9 plants = 11.1% of Daido Steel production. 11.1% of 7% of Japanese production = 0.74%; NSSMC coverage = 1/14 plants = 7.14% of NSSMC production. 7.14% of 45.2% of Japanese production = 3.23%. Total coverage is therefore (0.74 + 3.23) = 3.97%.

http://www.jisf.or.jp/en/organize/association/general.html

https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:f9359dff-9546-4d6b-bed0-996201185b12/World%2520Steel%2520in%2520Figures%25202018.pdf

https://www.worldsteel.org/en/dam/jcr:f9359dff-9546-4d6b-bed0-996201185b12/World%2520Steel%2520in%2520Figures%25202018.pdf


January 2019

Page | 45

sheet steel, within states that run ETS. As such, no US production is included in the

Discount Factor;

• In Canada, Canadian Steel Producers Association information was used to identify steel

producers. Each steel producers’ website was checked for location information. Only

ArcelorMittal runs a sheet steel production facility in Quebec28; however, ArcelorMittal

only includes the following markets in its description of uses for its steel – automotive,

construction, appliances (which specifically lists out “refrigerators, freezers, dryers,

washers, as well as your stove tops, and ovens”29), packaging products and tubes. As

such, no Canadian production is included in the Discount Factor.

Thus the coverage of steel that is included in the Discount Factor is (10% + 4% + (3.97% * 6%)) = 14.4%.

2.2.4 Steel Discount Factor

The Discount Factor associated with Steel, for 2018, is thus:

• Steel production covered by ETS = (Iron Ore Production covered by an ETS + Coking Coal

Production covered by an ETS + Steel Production covered by an ETS)

= (2.9% + 0.2% + 14.4%) = 17.5%;

• Embedded carbon in archetype PC due to steel = 0.6829 MT CO2e per Short Ton (see

Table 12);


17.5% = 0.1195 MTCO2e per Short Ton.


= 0.1195 / 3.5068 = 3.41% discount factor.

The Discount Factor for 2016 and 2017 was calculated in the same manner, less the coverage of the Kazakhstan ETS, and is therefore 3.29%.

2.2.5 Copper

Copper is produced by mining copper ore, and then smelting and refining it. As shown in Figure 6, based on Australian data30, 57% of emissions from the production of copper come from the mining/milling stage (i.e. copper ore production), with the other 43% of lifecycle GHG emissions coming from smelting, gas treatment, electrorefining, converting and slag cleaning (i.e. refined copper production).

28 https://corporate.arcelormittal.com/who-we-are/interactive-map 29 https://dofasco.arcelormittal.com/what-we-do/markets/appliances.aspx 30 Mudd, G.M., Weng, Z., Memary, R., Northey, S. A., Giurco, D., Mohr, S., and Mason, L. (2012) Future greenhouse gas emissions from copper mining: assessing clean energy scenarios. Prepared for CSIRO Minerals Down Under Flagship by Monash University and Institute for Sustainable Futures, UTS. ISBN 978‐1‐922173‐48‐5.

https://corporate.arcelormittal.com/who-we-are/interactive-map

https://dofasco.arcelormittal.com/what-we-do/markets/appliances.aspx


January 2019

Page | 46

Figure 6 - Contribution of Copper production stages to lifecycle GHG emissions

NRCan data was again used to identify geographic distribution of copper mining and refining activity31, as shown in Table 19 and Table 20.

Table 19 - World Copper Production, by Country

COPPER PRODUCTION, 2017, in thousands of tonnes


ETS Status

1 Chile 5,504 27.5% 27.5% No ETS in place.

2 Peru 2,446 12.2% 39.7% No ETS in place.


4 United States 1,285 6.4% 54.6% Varies

5 Congo, D.R. 999 5.0% 59.6% No ETS in place.


7 Zambia 785 3.9% 67.8% No ETS in place.

8 Mexico 768 3.8% 71.6% No ETS in place.


10 Indonesia 637.9 3.20% 78.3% No ETS in place.

11 Kazakhstan 630.9 3.20% 81.5% National ETS – 2018 only.

12 Canada 604.5 3.00% 84.5% Varies

13 Other countries

3,059.10 15.30% 99.8%

World 19,982.70 100.00%

Kazakhstan has a national ETS in place for 2018 only; Canada and the US have sub-national ETS in place. In Canada, 6.4% of copper is produced in QC and is thus covered by an ETS (NRCan,

31 https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/facts/copper/20506

Refined copper production

(43%)

Copper ore production

(57%)

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mining-materials/facts/copper/20506


January 2019

Page | 47

2018); in the US, "Arizona was the leading copper-producing State and was responsible for about 68% of domestic output, followed by Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Montana, Michigan, and Missouri" (USGS, 2018) – none of these states run an ETS and so the US contribution to copper production is ignored for the purpose of developing the DF. Thus, the coverage of copper production by an ETS is 3.2% + (3% * 6.4%) = 3.4% for 2018 and in 2016/2017 it is only (3% * 6.4%) = 0.2%.

Table 20 - World Refined Copper Production, by Country

REFINED COPPER PRODUCTION, 2017, in thousands of tonnes


ETS Status


2 Chile 2,440 10.4% 48.2% No ETS in place.

3 Japan 1,488 6.3% 54.5% Only Tokyo/Saitama.

4 United States

1,079.60 4.60% 59.1% Varies

5 Russia 913.5 3.90% 63.0% No ETS in place.

6 India 822.2 3.50% 66.5% No ETS in place.

7 Congo, D.R. 714.7 3.00% 69.5% No ETS in place.

8 Germany 697.2 3.00% 72.5% European ETS

9 South Korea 672.2 2.90% 75.4% National ETS

10 Poland 522 2.20% 77.6% European ETS

11 Mexico 487.5 2.10% 79.7% No ETS in place.

12 Zambia 464.4 2.00% 81.7% No ETS in place.

13 Spain 415.2 1.80% 83.5% European ETS

14 Belgium 398.9 1.70% 85.2% European ETS

15 Australia 394.7 1.70% 86.9% No ETS in place.

16 Kazakhstan 337.9 1.40% 88.3% National ETS – 2018 only.

17 Peru 335.3 1.40% 89.7% No ETS in place.

18 Canada 331 1.4% 91.1% Varies

19 Other countries

2,105 9.0% 100.0%

World 23,507.60 100.00%

Refined copper production is covered by an ETS in Germany, Poland, Spain, Belgium and Kazakhstan (2018 only). Japan, the US and Canada all have sub-national ETS schemes. Data from the USGS32 indicates that no copper smelters in the US or Japan operate in ETS regions, and that only 1 copper smelter in Canada does so, which represents 1/3rd of Canadian refined copper production (by capacity). Therefore, the discount factor for refined copper = (3.0% + 2.2% + 1.8% + 1.7% + 1.4% + (1.4% * 33.33%)) = 13.5% for 2018.

32 https://mrdata.usgs.gov/copper/

https://mrdata.usgs.gov/copper/


January 2019

Page | 48

For 2016/2017 it is (3.0% + 2.2% + 1.8% + 1.7% + (1.4% * 33.33%)) = 12.1%.

2.2.6 Copper Discount Factor

The Discount Factor associated with Copper, for 2018, is thus:

• Copper production covered by ETS = (Copper Production covered by an ETS * % of lifecycle

GHG emissions associated with copper production) + (Refined Copper Production covered

by an ETS * % of lifecycle GHG emissions associated with refined copper production)

= (3.4% * 57%) + (13.5% * 43%) = (1.93% + 5.79%) = 7.72%;

• Embedded carbon in archetype PC due to copper = 0.4633 MTCO2e per Short Ton (see

Table 12);


7.72%

= 0.0358 MTCO2e per Short Ton.


= 0.0358 / 3.5068 = 1.02% discount factor.

The Discount Factor for 2016 and 2017 was calculated in the same manner, less the coverage of the Kazakhstan ETS, and is therefore 0.70%.

3 Calculation of the Final Discount Factor The total discount factor, to account for potential double monetization across the supply chain for virgin IT equipment, is shown in Table 21 and is 7.22% for 2016 and 2017, and 7.66% for 2018.

Table 21 - Discount Factor

Material Discount Factor (2016 and 2017)

Discount Factor (2018)

Aluminum 3.23% 3.23%

Steel 3.29% 3.41%

Copper 0.70% 1.02%

TOTAL 7.22% 7.66%


January 2019

Page | 49

Appendix B – Bluesource Backup Procedure


January 2019

Page | 50


January 2019

Page | 51

Appendix C – Bluesource Data Retention Policy


January 2019

Page | 52

carbon neutral technology corporation asset reuse …

Documents