Draft Final Report

PROMOTION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY,

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND GREENHOUSE GAS
ABATEMENT (PREGA)
Indonesia

Utilization of Municipal Solid

Waste for Electricity Generation
A Pre-Feasibility Study Report1

October 2005

1
Prepared by the National Technical Experts from P.T. Chazaro Gerbang Internasional.

i
Table of Contents

Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. ii

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... iv
List of Abbreviations .............................................................................................................v
1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................1
2 Map of the Project..........................................................................................................3
3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................4
4 Background ....................................................................................................................5
4.1 Sector Description..................................................................................................5
4.2 Constraints and issues related to the project sector................................................6
4.3 Sustainable development objectives likely to be achieved by the project .............7
4.4 Government policy and strategy relevant to the project sector..............................8
4.5 Overlap of the government’s and ADB’s policies and strategies in this sector.....9
4.6 Benefits of the project ............................................................................................9
5 General Description of the Proposed Project ...............................................................10
5.1 About the Project .................................................................................................10
5.2 Project goal ..........................................................................................................11
5.3 Project objective...................................................................................................11
5.4 Poverty reduction .................................................................................................11
5.5 Technology transfer .............................................................................................11
5.6 Project partners.....................................................................................................12
5.7 Product or service generated by the project .........................................................12
6 Project Implementation Plan ........................................................................................13
7 Contribution to Sustainable Development ...................................................................13
7.1 Long-term GHG and local pollutants reduction...................................................13
7.2 Other benefits .......................................................................................................13
8 Project Baseline and GHG Abatement Calculation .....................................................14
8.1 Current production and delivery patterns.............................................................14
8.2 Project boundary and monitoring domain............................................................14
8.3 Baseline methodology and calculation of the baseline emissions .......................15
8.3.1 GHG emission from refuse burial ................................................................15
8.3.2 GHG emission from power plants supplying Java-Bali power system........17

ii
 8.4 Calculation of total project GHG emissions and net emission reduction ............18
8.4.1 CH4 recovery................................................................................................18
8.4.2 MSW based power plant ..............................................................................19
8.4.3 Refuse treatment (after sorting) ...................................................................19
9 GHG emission reduction monitoring and verification.................................................20
9.1 Curtailment of methane........................................................................................20
9.1.1 Basic premises..............................................................................................20
9.1.2 Methodology ................................................................................................21
9.2 Curtailment of fossil fuel consumption................................................................21
9.2.1 Basic premises..............................................................................................21
9.2.2 Methodology ................................................................................................21
10 Financial Analysis of the Project .............................................................................22
10.1 Estimation of Overall Cost Estimates ..................................................................22
10.2 Project Financial Analyses...................................................................................22
10.3 Financing Plan......................................................................................................23
11 Economic Analyses..................................................................................................23
11.1 Project Economic Analysis ..................................................................................23
11.2 Statement of poverty reduction impact ................................................................23
11.3 Environment impacts ...........................................................................................24
12 Stakeholders’ comments ..........................................................................................25
12.1 Invitation letters to the Stakeholders....................................................................25
12.2 Comments on the Project by above stakeholders.................................................25
13 Key factors impacting project & baseline emissions ...............................................26
13.1 Key Factors ..........................................................................................................26
13.2 Project Uncertainties ............................................................................................26
14 Conclusion and Recommendation............................................................................27
Annex 1 Technical Description of the Project ........................................................Annex 1-1
Annex 2 Financial and Economic Analyses............................................................Annex 1-1

iii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Map of project location............................................................................................3
Figure 2 Flow Chart of the plant............................................................................................4
Figure 3 Flow of refuse derivation and collection in DKI Jakarta.........................................6
Figure 4 Simplified flow diagram of current MSW management in Jakarta.......................14
Figure 5 Project boundary (activities inside the thin line) ...................................................15
Figure 6 Flow chart of refuse processing................................................................Annex 1-4

List of Tables
Table 1 Daily volume of refuse in DKI Jakarta (m3/day) ......................................................5
Table 2 Annual amount of refuse in DKI Jakarta (tons/year)................................................5
Table 3 Emission coefficients for fuels................................................................................17
Table 4 Breakdown of power generation in Java by source (2000).....................................17
Table 5 Current amount of energy consumption and GHG emissions ................................18
Table 6 Net GHG reduction .................................................................................................20
Table 8 Financing Plan ........................................................................................................23
Table 9 Summary of Technical and Financial Parameters......................................Annex 2-1
Table 10 Weighted Average of Capital Cost ..........................................................Annex 2-3
Table 11 Economic Price Valuation .......................................................................Annex 2-4
Table 12 Financial Analysis....................................................................................Annex 2-6
Table 13 Economic Analysis .................................................................................Annex 2-8
Table 14 Development of Energy Prices in Indonesia.…………………..…..…………Annex 2-
8

iv
List of Abbreviations

BTA Biotechnische Abfallverwertung GmbH.

CDM Clean Development Mechanism
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
DKI Daerah Khusus Ibukota
FFB Fresh Fruit Bunch
GHG Greenhouse Gas
IRROI Internal Rate of Return On Investment
LH Lingkungan Hidup
MPR Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
ODA Official Development Assistant
OJT On the Job Training
PLN Perusahaan Listrik Negara
UN United Nations
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

v
1 Executive Summary
Site Development Rationale
The special metropolitan district of Jakarta (Daerah Khusus Ibukota (DKI) Jakarta), the
capital of the Republic of Indonesia, has a population of approximately 10 million. Its
current solid waste treatment and disposal system has caused the city facing rapidly
worsening waste problems.
About 6,000 tonnes municipal solid waste out of a total 8,000 tonnes per day waste
stream, primarily household, business and commercial waste (collectively termed
municipal solid waste (MSW)), are disposed of by burying in landfills site. The waste
disposal is carried out without any sorting.
Meanwhile, Indonesia is struggling with a chronically tight supply of electrical power. An
increase in power reserve margin and improvement of transmission system are of urgent
tasks. Regarding this issue, PT Acme Cipta Sarana as a private company suggests a
solution to face MSW treatment system for Jakarta. This company offers a technology to
convert organic fraction in MSW into combustible gases. The conversion shall be
conducted in two ways: biological conversion for converting easily degradable wastes into
energy rich gas (methane, CH4) and gasification of other organics to become synthetic
gases (syn-gas) at a limited amount of oxygen. Energy containing gases will eventually be
used in the power generation process.
Objective
The objective of the project is to create a sustainable metropolitan municipal solid waste
management system that supports GHG emission reduction.
The targets of the project are as follows:
a. Reduction of MSW;
b. Increase of value added refuse;
c. Reduction of environmental and social problems at the disposal site;
d. Utilisation of MSW to generate energy; and
e. Improvement of MSW management services.
Technical Description
The main technologies involved are:
a. Fermentation unit for biodegradable waste;
b. Gasification unit for non-biodegradable waste; and
c. Gas utilization unit using steam turbine generation system. The capacity is 3 times
6 MW.
The proposed project will use BTA (Biotechnische Abfallverwertung) patented technology
from BTA GmbH.
Output of the project
The 18MW power plant will be able to supply 83,160 MWh electricity per year (gross
production 99,792 MWh/year) using municipal waste. The generated power will be
supplied to the Java-Bali grid and this means that it will reduce fossil fuel consumption
and CO2 emission. The CO2 emission can reach 786,788 tons CO2 per year. This number

1
excludes emission from plastic combustion and small diesel generator utilisation from the
project emission. Income from selling electricity to the national grid can reach USD
3,742,200.
The project will also generate fertiliser from the anaerobic and gasification processes. The
organic fertiliser is formed from the effluent of anaerobic process while the ash from
gasification process can be utilised as mixture for the fertiliser. Income from fertiliser
sales can reach USD 2,182,950.
Benefit of the project
The benefits of the proposed project are:
a. Reduction of environment pollution (in rivers, sea and ground caused by waste
disposal and air pollution from open burning of waste);
b. Overcome of social issues occurring from illegal waste disposal (open dumping);
c. Conversion of non reusable waste into combustible gases for electricity generation,
for better economic benefits;
d. Utilization of municipal solid waste leading to reduction of the use of fossil fuel;
e. Reduction of GHG emissions;
f. Cleaner environment for better public health (odour, seeping of contaminated or
polluted water, potential spreading of disease);
g. Creation of job opportunities; and
h. Dissemination of a good municipal waste treatment technology to other locations
in Indonesia.
Conclusion
Besides improving the environment, the project is financially and economically feasible.
At 12% discount factor, the FIRR with- and without CER is 28,7% and 19,01%,
respectively. Similarly, the EIRR with- and without CER is found to be 30,11% and
21,79%, respectively.
The project is estimated to generate 83,160 MWh per year and has a potential to reduce
the GHG emission as much as 786,788 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year.
Additionally, the project will produce organic fertiliser (compost) that is also
environmentally friendly.

2
2 Map of the Project

Figure 1 Map of project location

3
3 Introduction

The project consists of anaerobic MSW treatment for producing methane gas (biogas). The
residue from anaerobic process and other organic waste, paper and plastic, are further
processed in the gasification unit to produce combustible gases (syn-gas). The syn gas and
biogas will be fed to the boiler to heat water to become a superheated steam. This steam
would be sent to the steam turbine. Electrical power would be generated by the steam
turbine.
PT Acme Cipta Sarana shall export power to the grid of PLN. A flow chart of the plant is
given in Figure 2. The plant shall be operating for 24 hours a day for about 330 days a
year and thus shall generate annually about 83,160 MWh electricity.
Biogas and gasification product generation from MSW processing are considered to be the
heart of the project. For gas generation under a biomethanation process, the project would
use the BTA (Biotechnische Abfallverwertung) technology, developed and patented by
BTA GmbH. For gasification system, the project would use the fluidised bed gasification
technology.
The expected operational lifetime of the project activity is 20 years.
The project is to be executed by PT Acme Cipta Sarana, a company formed through a
consortium of the following companies and institutions.
a. DKI Jakarta Sanitation Bureau
b. PT PLN
c. PT Skala Teknik
d. PT Gerbang Multindo Nusantara

Figure 2 Flow Chart of the plant

4
4 Background
4.1 Sector Description
The municipal solid waste in Jakarta amounts to an average of just under 8,000 tons per
day. The city sanitation bureau collects around 90% of the waste generated by ordinary
households, offices and business facilities and such sources and 10% by refuse collectors.
Figure 3 shows the flow of refuse derivation and collection in DKI Jakarta. For both cases
MSW is unsorted.

Table 1 Daily volume of refuse in DKI Jakarta (m3/day)

District Volume derived Volume collected Uncertain

Central Jakarta 5,102 4,578 524

North Jakarta 4,580 3,837 743
West Jakarta 5,366 4,511 855
South Jakarta 4,708 4,125 583
East Jakarta 5,442 4,743 699
City government 402 402 0
Total 25,600 22,196 3,404
Source: Informasi pengelolaan kebersihan tahun 2001, Dinas Kebersihan Propinsi DKI Jakarta

Table 2 Annual amount of refuse in DKI Jakarta (tons/year)

District Volume derived Volume collected Uncertain

Central Jakarta 558,669 501,291 57,378

North Jakarta 501,510 420,151 81,359
West Jakarta 587,577 493,954 93,623
South Jakarta 515,526 451,687 63,839
East Jakarta 595,899 519,358 76,541
City government 44,019 44,019 0
Total 2,803,200 2,430,460 372,740
Source: Informasi pengelolaan kebersihan tahun 2001, Dinas Kebersihan Propinsi DKI Jakarta

5
 REFUSE
MARKET FOR
RECOVERY
RECYCLED GOODS
BUSINESS

RECYCLING
ITEMS OF VALUE
BUSINESSES

COLLECTION
UNDER THE
ADMINISTRATION
REFUSE
OF JAKARTA
DERIVATION SCAVENGERS
(METROPOLITAN
25,600 M3/DAY
AND PRIVATE
SERVICES)
>22,196 M3/DAY

FINAL DISPOSAL
RELAY LOCATIONS
SITE

RECOVERY BY THE
DUMPING IN THE JAKARTA
RIVERS/SEA METROPOLITAN
GOVERNMENT

Flow of Flow of
refuse valuable items

Figure 3 Flow of refuse derivation and collection in DKI Jakarta

4.2 Constraints and issues related to the project sector

Final disposal site for its garbage is one of Jakarta’s important issues. DKI Jakarta has
been depending on Bantar Gebang final disposal site in Bekasi. The Bantar Gebang
disposal facility entered into operation in 1989, and is currently capable of taking over
6,000 tons of waste per day, equivalent to around 22,000 m3.
The disposal facility is managed and operated by the DKI Jakarta Sanitation Bureau. As
the site belongs to Bekasi, refuse or MSW cannot be disposed of in landfills at the facility
without the city’s permission. Due to the rise in city and resident awareness, permission is
no longer automatically granted annually as in the past. Contract negotiations are presently
held every year in order to obtain a disposal permit.
Unsorted MSW is only weighted before disposal, and recyclable material, such as
corrugated cardboard, plastic and around 4,000 people known as “scavengers” recover
metals at the site. These people make their living by selling their finds to refuse (waste)
recovery merchants. When waste contains hazardous or otherwise dangerous substances
this would give adverse effects to their health. This would also potentially pollute
environment. At present there has been reports that many scavengers and local residents
complaining of the dangers to their health.
Air pollution and ground water contamination are becoming important environmental
issues. People around the disposal site are usually complaining about this condition and
once every 3 months, DKI Jakarta conducts environment and health monitoring in the
area. Some efforts to address the pollution problems have been conducted.
The DKI Jakarta government has a keen sense of crisis about continued refuse disposal by
soil covering due to the following reasons: (i) the increasing difficulty of obtaining annual
permit from the municipal government of Bekasi; (ii) the increasing amount of payments
to Bekasi; and (iii) the utter lack of clear prospects for building alternative disposal sites
owing to the opposition of residents in their vicinities. The government is consequently
facing the need to prepare plans for MSW disposal by means other than soil covering as

6
promptly as possible, and is exhibiting strong interest in incineration and composting.
Whatever the method used, the prime concern of the city is to decrease the garbage
disposal volumes.
Both options (incineration and composting) would require large sums for the construction
of new treatment and disposal sites by the city, which apparently does not have enough
financial margins to foot the entire bill alone. It also cannot expect to receive grants or
loans from the national government for this purpose. Any new plans for refuse disposal
therefore would come to naught without financial backing or some means of raising funds
for them, and it would consequently be difficult for the DKI Jakarta government to detail
or act on them.
The World Bank supports waste composting at three regions covering: Metropolitan City
of Jakarta, West Java Province and Banten Province. The Ministry of Environment under
the “Municipal Solid Waste Reducing Methane Emission in West Java 2001-2009”
implements the programme. The strategy of the programme is to provide subsidy for each
kilogram of organic compost sold. The amount of subsidy is classified into three
categories depending on the compost production capacity. At the production capacity
below 2 ton/day it is eligible for a subsidy of IDR 350/kg, between 2-5 kg/day is eligible
for subsidy of IDR 250/kg, and for the production above 5 ton/day may receive subsidy of
IDR 200/kg. The total subsidy amounts to 10 Million US$. Taking the maximal case, this
subsidy will able to cover more or less 450,000 tons of MSW compost sold within 2001-
2009 period (MSW collected in Jakarta alone is 2,430,460 per year). According to many
inputs this amount is very unlikely to be achieved, as there are two major problems
restricting the smooth disbursement of the subsidy, i.e. the product must fulfil the agreed
technical standard of organic compost and the subsidy disbursement will be based on the
sales by providing the sales evident or invoice (marketing barrier). Therefore, the
supported World Bank composting program can be considered complementary to the
proposed project.
One of the important constraints for alternative energy development in the past is because
of the relatively cheap price of fossil fuels due to the subsidy. As the availability of oil
reserve in Indonesia is already very limited, it has become the government commitment
that oil subsidy will be removed. Table 14 (Annex page 13) summarized the development
of energy prices in Indonesia 2000-2003.

4.3 Sustainable development objectives likely to be achieved by the project

The main objective of the project is to develop a technically, financially and
environmentally feasible MSW treatment facility to generate electricity. The project is an
alternative technology.
From the standpoint of Indonesian policy, the project would have two major aspects: that
of contribution to solution of environmental and social problems related to MSW disposal
in DKI Jakarta, and that of infra structural conditioning through a scheme other than
official development assistance (ODA), assuming that the project is certified as a CDM
project.
Aside from reducing GHG emissions, the project is expected to have various effects that
are in line with policy measures in Indonesia. These include reduction of emission of
methane gas from the final disposal site, and reduction of CO2 emission through the
replacement of coal thermal power by MSW power plant.

7
4.4 Government policy and strategy relevant to the project sector
In order to encourage proper disposal of municipal waste, a program called ADIPURA
was launched in 1986 to clean up Indonesia’s towns and cities. Under this program, towns
that have been cleaned up by different methods such as eliminating illegal dumping of
municipal waste are granted public recognition by the Minister. Unfortunately, there is no
systematic law in Indonesia that lays down standards on the construction of incineration
facilities and landfill sites for the disposal of municipal waste. Regarding hazardous waste,
a law to rectify the disposal of hazardous waste and identify measures to be adopted in
promoting the proper management of such waste will soon be enacted. Construction of
facilities for storage and disposal of hazardous waste in Central Java, East Java and East
Kalimantan is planned, and if completed, it will be able to store 15,000 tons of hazardous
waste from 128 industries.
Policy on the level of national government sets forth the basic guidelines for measures
related to refuse incineration; it does not make specific reference to incineration. The
guidelines are as follows.
a. Reduction of refuse derivation volumes and utilization of environment-friendly
materials for packaging, etc.;
b. Promotion of the 3Rs - reduction, recycling, and reuse;
c. Enhancement of social concern about MSW problem through various campaign-
type activities (e.g., promotion of pre-sorting and 3R campaigns, encourage the use
of environment-friendly products, and encourage citizen awareness of MSW and
wastewater);
d. Provision for the application and dissemination of environment-friendly
technology;
e. Instruction of appropriate refuse disposal and treatment in society as a whole;
f. Promotion of cooperation among local government, private firms, and other parties
concerned with MSW disposal;
g. Promotion of environment-friendly production and consumption;
h. Development of schemes for subsidizing solid refuse disposal;
i. Provision of refuse disposal facilities to local governments; and
j. Promotion of the enactment and enforcement of rules related to refuse disposal.
Although schemes of subsidy are mentioned in the guidelines as noted above, the central
government does not provide official subsidies to local governments for MSW disposal. In
the facility aspect, it has supported installation of small incinerators (with a capacity of 8
m3) by the DKI Jakarta government, and about 40 of such incinerators are now in
operation. However, environmental assessments are not carried out under supervision of
the central government, and incinerators may be operated without following
environmental regulations.
As this suggests, the central government is not actively involved in MSW incineration as
regards policy measures, thus the responsibility is left to the local government.

8
4.5 Overlap of the government’s and ADB’s policies and strategies in this
sector
At the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, 155 countries signed the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which entered into effect
in 1994. The goal of the UNFCCC is to stabilize concentrations of carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases, and it calls on developed countries (including Russia and the
countries of Eastern Europe), known as the Annex I Parties, to lead the way in taking steps
to cut down GHG emissions so that emissions in 2000 are at the same level as in 1990.
Indonesia signed the UNFCCC on June 5, 1992. On August 1, 1994, the President
approved the UNFCCC Ratification Law (Law No. 6/1994), and on August 23, 1994, the
instrument of ratification was submitted to the UN Secretary General and Indonesia
became a signatory country.
Indonesia signed the Kyoto Protocol in July 1998. Subsequently, the Environment
Minister established a National Committee on Climate Change and Environment to tackle
the problem of global warming. The translation of the Kyoto Protocol has now been
completed, and a translation certificate obtained from the UNFCCC. In the future, the LH
is to prepare a bill for ratification of the Protocol that will be submitted to the President via
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is expected to be ratified by the Majelis
Permusyawaratan Rakyat (MPR) after approval by the President.
Indonesia has drawn up a master plan for promoting the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) with support from Germany and the Netherlands. Although the members of the
above National Committee on Climate Change and Environment have been chosen, the
chairman has yet to be appointed. CDM approval procedures and an approval agency are
also lacking, and urgent action is required to establish the necessary agencies and
structures for the practical implementation and operation of CDM projects.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB), World Bank and a number of European countries
are making an important contribution to the CDM in Indonesia. In 1998, the ADB
formulated a strategy for Indonesia’s to reduce its GHG emissions through the ALGAS
(Asia Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy) Project, and this was published in
a report entitled “Asian Least-Cost Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy Project
(ALGAS): Indonesia”.

4.6 Benefits of the project

The proposed project will result in significant environmental and health benefits from
improved collection, transportation, disposal and reduction of MSW and illicit dumping.
This will lead to a cleaner environment, less water and soil pollution, with a resulting
positive impact on economic and health.
Life-cycle-based assessments of the major environmental impacts (or sustainability
indicators) of MSW have shown the positive benefits to be gained from MSW energy
recovery. These gains are in the form of:
a. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions;
b. Reduction of acid gas emissions;
c. Reduction in depletion of natural resources (fossil fuels and materials);
d. Reduction of impact on water (leaching); and
e. Reduction of land contamination.

9
The benefits of the proposed project are:
• Reduction of environment pollution (in rivers, sea and ground caused by waste
disposal and air pollution from open burning of waste);
• Overcome social issues occurred from illegal waste disposal (open dumping);
• Conversion of non reusable waste into combustible gases for electricity generation,
for a better economic benefit;
• Utilization of municipal solid waste would reduce the use of fossil fuel;
• Reduction of GHG emissions;
• Cleaner environment for a better public health (odour, seeping of contaminated or
polluted water, potential spreading of disease);
• Creation of job opportunities; and
• Dissemination of a good municipal waste treatment technology in other locations
in Indonesia.

5 General Description of the Proposed Project

5.1 About the Project
Project Title
Utilisation of Municipal Solid Waste for Electricity Generation
Location
Sub District : Cilincing
District/Regency : East Jakarta
Province : DKI (Daerah Khusus Ibukota) Jakarta
Country : Indonesia
Total required area : 4 Ha
Landfill disposal of MSW in DKI Jakarta is now becoming problematic in numerous
respects. Several government agencies, university research institutes and other
organizations have examined environmentally friendly composting method, but
unfortunately, the public is unfamiliar with such method. Recycling also offers good
solution but the refuse is not sorted so it makes difficult for recycling. Reducing the
amount of refuse is hard to achieve.
Conversion of MSW to fertilizer (composting) and incineration are the usual proposed
waste disposal systems. Recently, the plan for the construction of a 350,000-ton per year
triple system composting facility has been put forward. It is unclear (status January 2004)
whether this plan will actually be implemented or not. If this plan were to be realized,
rigorous sorting would be required to remove hazardous materials from the waste
collected for composting. Waste for composting would have to be even more thoroughly
sorted than that would be fed for incineration. The mixed and unsorted refuse collected
from households and commercials would be unsuitable for fertilizer production. As

10
described previously, the organic composting scheme will be complementary to the
proposed project.
Disposal of MSW by incineration offers secondary benefits as it allows electricity to be
generated using waste products. In view of the increasingly tight power supply situation
from 2003 (the ratio of reserve capacity will enter the critical zone), any amount of power
generated, no matter how little, should make some contribution to meet supply and
demand.
The drawback of building refuse incinerators is the huge cost involved. Even if maximum
use were to be made of public funds, it would be extremely difficult to build and operate
waste incinerators.
The proposed project does not adopt a conventional method of using waste to generate
electricity, but it employs what is called the “anaerobic digestion process combined
gasification and power generation” method instead, to increase revenues from the sale of
electricity. Being a CDM project, the present project is of enormous significance vis-à-vis
the economic assessment of the reduction in GHG emissions as a result of its
implementation.

5.2 Project goal

The goal of this project is to establish a sustainable metropolitan municipal solid waste
management system that supports the reduction of GHG emission.

5.3 Project objectives

The objectives of the project are:
a. Reduction of municipal solid waste;
b. The increase of value added of refuse;
c. Solving the refuse problems in Jakarta;
d. Reduction of environmental and social problems at the disposal area;
e. Utilisation of solid waste to generate energy; and
f. Improvement of solid waste management services.

5.4 Poverty reduction

The system will open new job opportunities for communities in the surrounding areas of
the disposal site. The system will need operators and also maintenance personnel. This
new job market will certainly increase the economic condition of the people.
The fertilizer produced by the system will also give economic benefit. People can take the
fertilizer and sell it to the customers. Thus their change from being scavengers to become
fertilizer dealers is a big possibility. This new career may open new opportunities for
better living condition and improved quality of lives of the people.

5.5 Technology transfer

The component of technology transfer is very important. The design of a feasible landfill
system may need to be transferred locally. Correct and save system will prevent leachate
from leaking to the ground and create pollution. The leachate should be collected and then
treated in an anaerobic system. The collection system and also treatment system is very
important technology to be transferred.

11
The gasification system and also purification system, regardless where the technology
comes from, is also important to be transferred. At the first stage the maintenance and
problem solving techniques should be transferred. At the later stages the design process
and also manufacturing process should also be transferred.
For power generation technology, it would be advisable to work through the operation and
maintenance personnel of the PLN. The connection technology of electricity generation
system to the commercial electricity (PLN) has been mastered domestically. Installation of
additional condensing turbine will use proven technology.
This project assumes application of the technology of manufacturers from Indonesia and
other countries for plant construction. The know-how needed for operation and
maintenance of this technology would have to be gradually transferred to the Indonesian
side.
The basic steps in the procedure of technology transfer will be as follows.
a. Outline of the facilities and instruction on applied technology, etc. (classes and on-
site training);
b. On-site posting at the time of plant construction for learning about the facility
structure, array, etc. (On the Job Training or OJT);
c. On-site posting during operation for learning about the mode of facility operation;
and
d. Enhancement of skills through routine management, periodic checking, and
trouble-shooting.

5.6 Project partners

The project has two aspects: MSW disposal and power generation. In the generation
aspect, this enterprise would confer with PLN (the state utility and purchaser of the
electrical power generated by the project) about grid interconnection, conclude the related
power sales contract, and engage in the power sales.
In the waste disposal aspect, the DKI Jakarta sanitation bureau has the following positions:
(i) as a customer consigning refuse to the enterprise; and (ii) as a supervisor of the work of
the enterprise. The discussions between the concerned parties and the project enterprise
could proceed smoothly with the institution of a team for examination within the sanitation
bureau, which is now engaged in refuse disposal.

5.7 Product or service generated by the project

The capacity of MSW Power Plant will be designed on the basis of 3 power plants
@6MW
Total sales amount of power per year (kWh)
= (net output) MW x 24 hours x 330 days/year
= 3 x 6MW x 24 hour x 330 days/year x 0.7
= 83,160,000 kWh/year
Gross electricity product per year (kWh)
= (gross output) MW x 24 hours x 365 days/year x availability
= 18 MW x 24 hours x 365 days/year x 0.7

12
 = 99,792,000 kWh/year
Area Required = 4 Hectares

6 Project Implementation Plan

The following project activities and milestones are foreseen:
Pre Feasibility Study : End 2003
Feasibility Study and Basic Engineering : End 2004
Detail Engineering : Mid 2005
Procurement : End 2005
Construction : End 2005-2006
Test run : End 2006
Commercial operation : 1st quarter 2007
Life time of the project : 20 years

7 Contribution to Sustainable Development

7.1 Long-term GHG and local pollutants reduction
Electricity generation using biogas and also syn-gas instead of fossil fuels (coal, oil, or
gas) will reduce GHG emissions especially CO2. Emissions of other air pollutants, i.e.
NOx, CO, SOx and also particulates can also be reduced.
The current practice of MSW disposal in Jakarta is mainly using landfill technique. But
this technique emits CH4 due to anaerobic process. Capturing CH4 will reduce GHG
emission significantly, and odour problem, that can cause respiratory sickness. Converting
the MSW to ashes utilizing gasification system that will produce syn-gas can do capturing
potential CH4 emission.
MSW landfills can also produce leachete that may contaminate water body/soil creating
water/soil pollution. Treating leachete can produce useful products such as fertilizer and
biogas (in the form of CH4) thus reducing water and soil pollution.

7.2 Other benefits

MSW will be converted into combustible gases to generate electricity to supply the Java-
Bali power system. The project is expected to reduce fossil fuel consumption at the
thermal power plants.
Most MSW in Indonesia is disposed of in landfills, burnt, or illegally dumped, as there is
no special government regulation on MSW treatment. Therefore, the technology adopted
for this project could have good prospects for diffusion throughout Indonesia (applied in
all cities and areas).
The nonbiodegradable materials recovered by scavengers are in many cases unsuitable for
anaerobic digestion and gasification processes. Removal of such materials by scavengers
prior to treatment would also help to increase the dependability of operation as well as the
operating rate. According to the private MSW collectors, even if rules were established for

13
pre-sorting, almost all of the parties producing MSW would probably not obey them. So
scavengers could still be given work by allowing them to hand-sort the waste.
In Indonesia, the supply of electrical power is tight and the increase in installed generated
capacity cannot keep abreast of the demand growth. The PLN views a power reserve rate
of at least 30% as necessary for a stable electricity supply, but the rate fell below this level
in 2003. The 18 MW estimated output in this project represents about 0.1% of the entire
installed grid capacity of 400 MW. The construction of this project therefore would
increase the reserve rate by 0.5%.

8 Project Baseline and GHG Abatement Calculation

8.1 Current production and delivery patterns
The current system of MSW management does not utilise the CH4 released from the
landfilling practice. The biogas collectors are just releasing the gases to the atmosphere.
This condition shows that there are much GHG emissions from the landfill practice.
Below is a simple flow diagram of current MSW management at disposal site.

Figure 4 Simplified flow diagram of current MSW management in Jakarta

This practice does not produce electricity at all but it does emit GHG to the atmosphere.
Java-Bali power system is supplied by several thermal power plants such as Paiton and
Muara Karang.

8.2 Project boundary and monitoring domain

The project boundary is defined in accordance with Decision 17 of the Marrakech Accord
as “including all significant anthropogenic GHG emissions attributable to project activity
and manageable by project executors”.

14
 Figure 5 Project boundary (activities inside the thin line)

Refuse collection and transport is excluded from the boundary because it occurs outside
the disposal area. The Java-Bali generation system is out of project’s manageable area.
This condition has made the Java-Bali system is out of the project’s boundary.
There are two important points in calculating the GHG emissions reduction: (i) recovery
of CH4 (avoided GHG emission), and (ii) electricity production using available gas
(avoided GHG emission due to conventional power generation). Based on these
calculations, monitoring the project can be done at two different locations. The first is at
the gas production point (both biogas and also syn-gas). The second is at the electricity
production point (kWh meter production).

8.3 Baseline methodology and calculation of the baseline emissions

The baseline of the project is the current delivery system. There are two delivery systems,
the first is the current MSW management, and the second is the current Java-Bali power
system. From the first current system, the baseline should identify the emission of GHG
from landfill (refuse burial) activities. From the second system, the baseline should
identify the emission of GHG from electricity generation.

8.3.1 GHG emission from refuse burial

GHG emissions consist of the so-called "landfill gas" emissions of methane gas from
MSW buried at the site
A calculation was made to estimate methane emissions from MSW buried at the disposal
site. At present, these emissions are not monitored, thus data is not available. To obtain
reliable data, it would require monitoring for many years at dozens of points in the vast
disposal site in order to derive average values. Then, it consequently decided that actual
measurements could not be taken for this study. For this reason, the 1996 revised
guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been adopted to
calculate methane gas emitted from buried MSW. This section presents calculation of
annual methane gas emission under the IPCC guidelines based on 1,500 tons MSW per
day processed in the project. The IPCC guidelines recommend calculation by the
following formula.

15
CH 4 (Gg / year ) = ( MSWT × MSWF × MCF × DOC × DOC F × F × 16 ( 12)− R) × (1 − O X )

Where:
MSWT = Total amount of refuse derivation (Gg/year)
MSWF = Share occupied by refuse transported to the disposal site
MCF = Methane formation compensation coefficient (managed disposal site: 1.0)
DOC = Weight in tons based share of degradable organic carbon
DOC = 0.4 (A) +0.17 (B) +0.15 (C) +0.30 (D)
A = weight in tons based share occupied by paper and cloth
B = weight in tons based share occupied by refuse from gardens and parks
and by non-food corrosive refuse
C = weight in tons based share occupied by food refuse
D = weight in tons based share occupied by wood and foliage
*1 In the IPCC report, the DOC value for Indonesia in 1995 was 0.17, but
1999 data for the refuse breakdown in Jakarta yielded a figure of 0.16
through the following calculation.
DOC = (0.4 × 0.1256) + (0.17 × 0) + (0.15 × 0.6505) + (0.3 × 0.0312)
DOCF = Share occupied by DOC carbon that converts into landfill gas
= 0.014T + 0.28 (T: temperature, °C) = 0.77
(Use of a temperature of 35°C contained in the IPCC report for anaerobic
bacteria layer)
F = landfill gas methane concentration (use of the IPCC value of 0.5)
R = Methane recovery - zero
Ox = Share of methane oxidation in the upper layer of soil - zero
The premise of this project is processing of 1,500 tons of MSW per day for 330 days a
year. The yearly level (in terms of the wet weight) would come to 495,000 tons per year
(=MSWT × MSWF). The yearly amount of methane emission reduction at the disposal site
therefore may be calculated as follows:
CH4 (Gg/year) = 495 Gg /year × 1.0 × 0.16 × 0.77 × 0.5 × 16/12 = 40.65 Gg/year
The next step is to convert this figure into CO2. When the global warming indicator for
CO2 is assigned value 1, the indicator for methane is 21. In the revised guidelines,
biomass-derived CO2 is not taken into consideration in GHG emissions. The reason is that
biomass grows through absorption of CO2 (for a minus 1 CO2 value), and merely releases
this CO2 again during decomposition (for a plus 1 CO2 value), resulting in a net value of
zero.
The landfill methane gas could be regarded as a result of conversion into methane instead
of CO2 after decomposition. In this view, the growth of biomass through absorption of
CO2 (for a minus 1 CO2 value) would be joined by a discharge of methane due to methane
fermentation (for a plus 21 CO2 value), resulting in a net CO2 emission value of plus 20.
So to calculate the Methane Emission the formula uses GWP value 20 instead of 21.

16
 CH4 (Gg /year) = 40.65 × 20 = 813 (813,000 tons CO2 eq/ year)

8.3.2 GHG emission from power plants supplying Java-Bali power system
Electricity supply to the system from the project is designed at 83,160 MWh/year. GHG
emission can be calculated using the following formula.
GHG emission rate x generated output
Here, the GHG emission rate is equivalent to the GHG emissions per unit of generated
output (tons CO2/MWh), and the generated output is the aforementioned figure of 83,160
MWh per year. The following section presents a calculation of GHG emissions, followed
by determination of the current amounts of energy use and GHG emissions.
GHG emission rate
The Small-Scale CDM Panel of the CDM Executive Board recommends application of
one of the following calculations of the GHG emission rate for power system.
a. Average for all power sources
b. Average for operating margin and build margin
The average is calculated by dividing total CO2 emitted from every power generation
source by the total generated output. The GHG emissions entailed by fossil fuel
consumption can be calculated by the following formula:
GHG emission = Amount of fuel Consumption × Carbon emission rate × Carbon
oxidation rate coefficient × CO2 unit conversion coefficient
Table 3 shows the coefficients for each fuel in the 1996 revised IPCC guidelines.

Table 3 Emission coefficients for fuels

Coal Oil Natural gas
Carbon emission rate (tons C/TJ) 27.6 20.0 15.3
Carbon oxidation rate coefficient 0.98 0.99 0.995
CO2 unit conversion coefficient 44/12 44/12 44/12

Table 4 Breakdown of power generation in Java by source (2000)

Item Generated output Energy consumption
(GWh/year) (TJ/year)
Coal-fired thermal power 26,178 296,860
Oil-fired thermal power 9,872 104,267
Gas-fired thermal power 21,608 220,496
Thermal power total 57,659 621,623
Hydropower 6,310 0
Geothermal 2,649 0
Total 66,617 621,623

Calculation of the total GHG emissions for each type of fuel using these coefficients
yielded the following figure for the total amount of GHG emissions accompanying power
generation in the island of Java.

17
Total GHG emissions:
Kt CO2/year (296,860 (TJ/year) × 27.6 (tons C/TJ) × 0.98 × 44/12) + (104,267 (TJ/ year) ×
20.0 (tons C/TJ) × 0.99 × 44/12) + (220,496 (TJ/ year) ×15.3 (tons C/TJ) ×
0.995 × 44/12)
= 49,319 kt CO2/year
The GHG emission rate can be obtained by dividing this figure by the total generated
output.
GHG emission rate = [49,319 ktons CO2/year] / [66,617 GWh/year]
= 0.740 tons CO2/ MWh
Current energy use and GHG emissions
The final step is to calculate the current amounts of energy use and GHG emissions.
a. Energy use
Based on supply of 83,160 MWh per year to the Java-Bali power system, the
current energy used to generate this power may be calculated as in the following:
[10.78 GJ/MWh] × [83,160 MWh/year] = 896.464 TJ/year
According to the IPCC guidelines, Indonesian oil has an energy level of 42.66
TJ/kt. The amount in oil-equivalent terms would therefore be as follows:
[896.464 TJ/ year] / [42.66 TJ/kt] = 21,014 toe/year
b. GHG emissions
The GHG emissions from existing power plant commensurate with the electrical
energy generated in this project may be calculated as follows:
[0.740 tons CO2 / MWh] × [83,160 MWh/year] = 61,538 tons CO2/year
Table 5 shows the current energy consumption and GHG emissions in each of the two
boundaries.
Table 5 Current amounts of energy consumption and GHG emissions
Energy consumption GHG emissions
toe/y tons CO2/y
Buried disposal site 0 813,000
Existing power plants 21,014 61,538

8.4 Calculation of total project GHG emissions and net emission

reduction
The project has the following main components that either reduce GHG emission or
increase GHG emission.

8.4.1 CH4 recovery

In connection with selection of buried disposal as a baseline, the section above presented a
calculation of the amount of methane emitted as landfill gas. The biomass refuse
incinerated by this project would be completely burnt, and the burial of the ash from it
would not produce any landfill gas. As a result, the methane gas emission reduction from

18
this project would consist entirely of the aforementioned landfill gas calculation. In CO2
equivalent terms, this would amount to 813,000 tons CO2 /year

8.4.2 MSW based power plant

Calculation was already made based on CO2 emissions that resulted from power
generation by the existing power plants without the supply of 83,160 MWh per year by
this project to the Java-Bali power system. This is, at the same time, the amount of
decrease in CO2 emissions due to implementation of the project. With application of the
figure of 0.740 tons CO2/MWh for the GHG emission rate, this reduction would amount to
61,538 tons CO2/year

8.4.3 Refuse treatment (after sorting)

There are two factors of increase in GHG emissions due to refuse process treatment. One
is the increase in CO2 emissions associated with combustion of the plastic contained in the
refuse. In the baseline case of disposal by burying, the plastic remains not decomposed. Its
combustion in this project will lead to the formation of additional CO2 emissions in a
commensurate amount. The second is increase in CO2 emissions due to the combustion of
diesel fuel for additional of waste (refuse) power generation.
Increase in GHG emissions due to plastic combustion
On the dry weight basis, plastic accounts for 11% of the refuse derived in DKI Jakarta,
which is the subject of this project. As a result:
Dry 1,500 (tons refuse/day) × 220 (days/year) × 0.674 × 0.11 24,466 tons
Season
Wet 1,500 (tons refuse/day) × 110 (days/year) × 0.446 × 0.11 8,095 tons
Season
Total per year 32,561 tons

The objective here is to calculate the amount of CO2 emitted in the combustion of plastic.
The GHG emission rate from combustion of plastic is 2.6 tons CO2 per ton plastic
(assuming 99.5% combustion of the plastic). Therefore, the amount of CO2 emitted due to
plastic combustion may be calculated as follows:
GHG emissions due to plastic combustion
= 32,561 (tons plastic /year) × 2.6 (tons CO2/tons plastic) × 0.995
= 84,235 (tons CO2/year)
Increase in GHG emissions due to diesel fuel combustion
The amount of CO2 emissions due to combustion of the diesel fuel used as additional fuel
in the power generation system may be calculated as follows.
74 (tons CO2/TJ) × 1,138,920 (Litres/year) x 41.709 kJ/litre = 3,515 (tons CO2/year)
Therefore, the combined CO2 emissions from the combustion of plastic and the
combustion of diesel fuel would come to 87,750 tons CO2/year.

Table 6 summarizes the GHG reduction effect during each phase of the project. The
methane gas curtailment is the effect for curtailing "landfill gas" emissions of methane gas

19
due to the project. The curtailment of the existing amount of power generation is
equivalent to the effect of the project power supply for curtailing CO2 emissions deriving
from the fuel consumption at the existing thermal power plants. The project power
generation is the amount of CO2 emissions derived from combustion of diesel oil used in
the refuse power generation system in this project. The plastic combustion is the CO2
emitted as a result of the combustion of plastic in the refuse from the project. The total
amount of reduction is the net value from these effects of GHG decrease and increase.

Table 6 Net GHG reductions

Unit Year of the Project term - Project term - Project term -
project cumulative cumulative cumulative
start (2007) (2008 - 2012) (2008 - 2017) (2008 - 2027)
tons CO2/y tons CO2 tons CO2 tons CO2
Curtailment of 813,000 4,065,000 8,130,000 16,260,000
methane gas
Curtailment of 61,538 334,805 669,610 1,339,220
the existing
amount of
power
generation
Project power -3,515 -17,575 -35,150 -70,300
generation
(diesel fuel
utilization)
Plastic -84,235 -421,175 -842,350 -1,684,700
combustion
Total amount of 786,788 3,933,940 7,867,880 15,735,760
decrease

9 GHG emission reduction monitoring and verification

Like the baseline case, monitoring must apply a methodology already recognized by the
CDM Executive Board. Use of a new methodology would require advance application to
the Board for its approval. The CDM Board is scheduled to examine baseline and
monitoring methodology in an ad-hoc panel, and has not yet approved any methods. This
section therefore presents a monitoring methodology devised by the study team.
There are two boundaries in which the project would help in reducing GHG emissions: 1)
curtailment of emissions of methane (a GHG) from buried refuse, and 2) reduction of CO2
emissions by an amount commensurate with the reduction of fossil fuel consumption at the
thermal power plants due to the supply of power from the project. The following sections
discuss the methodology for calculation of the amounts of GHG emission reduction in
these two boundaries, as well as the methodology for measurement of baseline fluctuation.

9.1 Curtailment of methane

9.1.1 Basic premises
As noted in the account on baseline selection, in case the project is not implemented, the
MSW to be processed would instead be buried at the disposal site. Buried organic waste is

20
decomposed by anaerobic bacteria in the ground. During decomposition process, methane
is formed as a by-product and discharged into the atmosphere.
The process of refuse along with implementation of this project would mean a
commensurate reduction in the amount of refused disposed of by burying it, and curtail the
amount of methane emitted from the controlled landfill site.

9.1.2 Methodology
The amount of methane reduction can be calculated by following these steps.
a. Measurement and recording of the amount (tons per day) and composition of
refuse put into the project from the transport trucks
b. Calculation and recording of the dry weight of biomass refuse used for methane
fermentation
c. Calculation and recording of the amount of methane emissions (tons CH4 per day)
based on the IPCC guidelines
d. Conversion of the result into CO2 equivalent (tons CO2 per day), and recording of
the same
e. Summing of the cumulative amount of methane reduction and the CO2 equivalent
over a prescribed period (one month; (tons CH4 and tons CO2 per month)

9.2 Curtailment of fossil fuel consumption

9.2.1 Basic premises
The supply of power from the project to the Java-Bali power system would reduce the
consumption of fossil fuel in other thermal power plants connected to that system, and
result in a commensurate decrease in CO2 emissions. Nevertheless, the CO2 emitted from
fossil fuel consumption and combustion of the plastic contained in MSW would be
considered as a factor to add in GHG emission.

9.2.2 Methodology
The amount of CO2 emission reduction is derived from the following steps:
a. Measurement and recording MSW quantity (tons per day) and MSW composition
considered in the project from the transport trucks
b. Calculation and recording the dry weight of plastic refuse (tons of plastic per day)
c. Calculation and recording of the amount of CO2 emitted from combustion of
plastic refuse (tons of CO2 per day)
d. Measurement and recording the quantity of diesel oil consumed in the project (kilo
liter per day)
e. Calculation and recording the quantity of CO2 emitted from combustion of diesel
oil
f. Measurement and recording quantity of power supplied to the Java-Bali power
system by the project
g. Calculation and recording quantity of CO2 reduction at other thermal power plants
as a result of this supply

21
 h. Calculation of the gap between amounts of CO2 emission increase and decrease,
and calculation and recording the net amount of GHG reduction (tons CO2 per day)
i. Sum of cumulative amount of CO2 reduction and CO2 equivalent over a prescribed
period (one month; (tons CH4 and tons CO2 per month)).
In order to prepare and execute monitoring plans, the project principal will collect and
analyse the data shown in Table 7.
Table 7 Monitoring Data
No Monitoring items Monitoring interval Monitoring method
1 Amount of refuse Every day Weighing at the time
of hauling-in
2 Refuse composition Every season Analysis of
composition
3 Amount of power transmitted from the Every day Measurement with an
project generating system integrating watt meter
4 Amount of diesel oil consumption Every day Measurement with an
integrating flow meter
5 Calorific value of the diesel oil 4 times a year Calculation based on
analysis of constituents
6 Generated power of each type power Once a year Acquisition of data
plant connected to the Java-Bali power from PLN
system
7 Fuel consumed by each type power once a year Acquisition of data
plant connected to the Java-Bali power from PLN
system
8 Calorific value of this fuel Once a year Acquisition of data
from PLN
9 Average plant-use rate at each type Once a year Acquisition of data
power plant connected to the Java-Bali from PLN
power system

10 Financial Analysis of the Project

10.1 Estimation of Overall Cost Estimates
Financial analysis is aimed at determining a better picture on the profitability of the
project.
Based on the technical and financial parameters as summarized in Table 9 in the Annex,
one can see that the total cost of the project would be USD 36,963,000. With the total
revenue from electricity sales, refuse processing, fertilizer sales, and CER revenue, the
project is estimated to generate an annual income of USD 12,948,000.

10.2 Project Financial Analyses

The financial analysis as shown in Table 12 in the Annexes indicates that at 12% discount
factor it generates the FIRR 28,70% and 19,01%, respectively the FIRR with- and without
CER revenue into account. Similarly, it provides FNPV IDR 321,086 million and IDR
124,737 million for FNPV with- and without CER revenue, respectively.

22
Taking the discount factor equals to WACC of 4.77% (see Table 11 and financial plan in
Table 8), the FNPV with CER revenue will be IDR 816,750 million, and FNPV without
CER revenue will be IDR 441,405 million.
Thus one can conclude that the project is financially feasible.

10.3 Financing Plan

Table 8 Financing Plan
Local Foreign Total %
USD '000 USD '000 USD '000

FUND REQUIRED
Proposed Project
Capital Expenditure 17,551 14,636 32,186 87.08%
Operating Expenditure 1,558 441 1,999 5.41%
Financial charges during development 2,778 - 2,778 7.52%

TOTAL PROJECT REQUIREMENT 21,887 15,076 36,963 100.00%

SOURCES OF FUNDS
Proposed ADB loan - 27,722 27,722 75.00%
Other loan 3,696 - 3,696 10.00%
Equity or capital contributions -
Government 1,848 - 1,848 5.00%
Other sources 3,696 - 3,696 10.00%
Subsidies for operation - - - 0.00%
Internal cash generation - - - 0.00%

TOTAL SOURCES 9,241 27,722 36,963 100.00%

11 Economic Analyses
11.1 Project Economic Analysis
The detailed calculation is presented in Table 13 in the Annex.
The economic analysis shows that at 12% discount factor, the EIRR is determined to be
30,11% with CER revenue, and 21,79% without CER revenue. At similar discount factor,
the ENPV will be IDR 299,033 million for ENPV with CER revenue and IDR 151,967
million for ENPV without CER revenue.
Meanwhile if use the discount factor equal to WACC of 4.77% (see Table 10 and financial
plan Table 8), the ENPV with CER revenue will be IDR 744,516 million, and ENPV
without CER revenue will be IDR 463,383 million.
This concludes that the project is economically justifiable.

11.2 Statement of poverty reduction impact

The project will be using skilled and unskilled labour. Majority of the unskilled labour
come from the poor villages and communities. Realization of this project will promote the
development of alternative energy for electricity in Indonesia that electricity is highly

23
beneficial for improving public welfare, enhancing the intellectual life of the nation,
making the development other economic sectors, and advancing the economy. It is
expected that national standards will be improved due to the creation of social capital,
assurance of wage income and improvement in living conditions.

11.3 Environment impacts

The implementation of the project could possibly exert an impact to the vicinity in terms
of reducing items such as air, water, noise, and vibrations. The study of this area
concluded that the project would not exert an adverse environmental impact to the
vicinity. The process facilities in question would be designed and constructed in
accordance with the environmental standards applied in Indonesia. On the contrary, the
project would act to improve the environment in the vicinity of the Cilincing disposal site
if this would clearly reduce the MSW volumes.
In implementing the project, the following environmental impact issues are to be
considered.
Air pollution
The air concentration in DKI Jakarta is thought to meet the country’s air pollution
standards, with the exception in few districts. The MSW processing facilities to be
installed for this project would be designed and built to meet the standards, and it is
inconceivable that their operation would exert adverse impacts to the surrounding
environment.
In the final disposal site at Cilincing, the concentrations of total solid particle (TSP) and
hydrocarbon (HC) are much higher than the standards. A reduction of MSW disposed of
by burying it from project implementation would likely to improve atmospheric
environment in the site and its vicinity to some degree.
The Cilincing area, which is the prospective site for the project facilities, is now a vacant
lot where refuse is illegally dumped and burned (the latter being a source of dioxin
emissions). The construction of a refuse processing facility at Cilincing will presumably
eliminate this burning of refuse in the open, and the facilities will be in conformance with
Indonesian standards for dioxin countermeasures. The atmospheric environment in the
vicinity should improve as a result.
Water pollution
Indonesia has enacted regulatory standards for water quality, but its water environment is
in worse shape than the atmospheric environment. It is clearly seen in the rivers flowing
through the city that the water pollution standards are largely ignored. The refuse
processing facilities would apply Indonesian wastewater discharge standards, which are
tougher than those for common river water in Indonesia. This indicates that the facilities
would not pollute the water in the vicinity.
In contrast to this project, the discharge of leachate from the Cilincing site into the river
has caused river water concentrations exceeding standard values, for items such as NH3,
Mn, and H2S. Similarly, the study of well water found values above the standards for
acidity and lead, among others. Therefore, a reduction of MSW to be disposed of along
with operation of the MSW processing facilities would somewhat mitigate water pollution.

24
12 Stakeholders’ Comments
12.1 Invitation letters to the Stakeholders
The project outline, the risks and benefits were explained to interested institutions or
organizations that have been contacted personally or by mail. They have been asked for
their comments or no objection regarding the technical, environmental and social issues.
The stakeholders identified for the project are as follows.
• DKI Jakarta Sanitation Bureau
• Electricity National State Company or PT PLN (Persero)
• The Ministry of Environment
• The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources
• The Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology
• Residential/local people
• Scavengers

12.2 Comments on the Project by above stakeholders

All organizations have agreed with the project concept and most of them emphasized the
environmental importance of the project in addressing the waste disposal problems in
Jakarta, Indonesia and in particular the Bantar Gebang area. Fifty percent of all contacted
stakeholders recognize the project’s contribution to the mitigation of global warming
impacts.
DKI Jakarta Sanitation Bureau as the primary project partner hopes that this project can be
implemented as soon as possible.
Electricity National State Company or PT PLN (Persero), buyer of the electricity power,
PLN is a major stakeholder in the project. PLN holds the key to the commercial success of
the project.
The Ministry of Environment prescribes standards for environmental compliance and
monitors the adherence to the standards. The Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources,
through the Directorate General of Electricity and Energy Development, has been
promoting energy conservation, new and renewable energy projects that include MSW
utilization. The MSW utilization project is in line with the national policy on energy
diversification. This project consistently takes into account the preservation of
environmental functions, energy conservation and energy diversification as set forth in the
national energy policy. The project also use local and renewable energy sources that is in
line with the Law of the Republic of Indonesia number 20 of 2002 concerning electricity
in the chapter III Article 4.
The Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology (BPPT) is interested in
developing and using renewable energy. BPPT is responsible for assessing technologies,
which do not exist, and developing the ones that already exist in Indonesia. It assesses the
technology that will be applied in Indonesia from the points of view of its feasibility, its
economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts. BPPT conducts the assessment and

25
application of technology particularly in the efforts of finding energy alternative for
energy resources, which may help in reducing the dependence on fossil oil.
The proposed project will still employ the scavengers during refuge selections in the
tipping floor and will allow them to benefit from the project.

13 Key Factors impacting project & baseline emissions

13.1 Key Factors
The baseline development of emissions
Legal: currently no government policy enacted for the development of emission in
Bantar Gebang
Social: the low awareness of the people to minimize waste, the commonly use river
water for household activities, having a car is considered a must for people living in
Jakarta especially as there is not enough public transport facility for the population.
Economic: people tends to use materials that are easier and cheaper to purchase like
plastic, public transportation are commonly buses fuelled by solar and most private
cars are fuelled by leaded gasoline
Technology: the technology has made plastics material easier and cheaper to
produce. Most of manufactures and power plant are still using fossil fuel
considering of its low fuel price.
Political: Although the government attempt to scrap petroleum products the price is
still lower than the international price.
The project’s activity level and GHG emissions
Legal: local government regulation change in time
Social: the low awareness of the people to minimize waste, the commonly use of
non degradable materials such as plastic for bags and bottle
Economic: plastic materials are easier and cheaper to be purchase than paper,
Technology: the technology has made plastics material easier and cheaper to
produce. This also contribute to the change of the people from paper user to plastic
user due to its strong and durable properties of plastic
Political: the government try to reduce the use of fossil fuel for electricity generation
in order to retard energy resources depletion. The government also encourages the
use of renewable energy

13.2 Project Uncertainties

For the smooth implementation of the project, the following would have to be considered.
• Disasters such as flooding, extreme drought.
• Nature that are beyond human control

26
14 Conclusion and Recommendation
The 18MW power plant will be able to supply 83,160 MWh electricity per year (gross
production 99,792 MWh/year) using municipal waste into Java-Bali grid. The CO2
emission reduction can reach 786,788 tons CO2 per year. This number excludes emission
from plastic combustion and small diesel generator utilisation. Income from selling
electricity to the national grid can reach USD 3,742,200.
The project will also generate fertiliser from the anaerobic and the gasification processes.
The organic fertiliser is formed from the effluent of anaerobic process while the ash from
gasification process can be utilised as mixture for the fertiliser. Income from fertiliser
sales can reach USD 2,182,950.
The project will provide many benefits, such as:
a. Reduction of environment pollution (in rivers, sea and ground caused by waste
disposal and air pollution from open burning of waste);
b. Overcoming social issues occurred from illegal waste disposal (open dumping);
c. Conversion of non reusable waste into combustible gases for electricity generation,
for better economic benefit;
d. Utilization of municipal solid waste to reduce the use of fossil fuel;
e. Reduction of GHG emissions;
f. Cleaner environment for a better public health (odour, seeping of contaminated or
polluted water, potential spreading of disease);
g. Creation of job opportunities;
h. Dissemination of a good municipal waste treatment technology to other locations
in Indonesia.
Besides improving the environment, the project is financially and economically feasible.
At 12% discount factor, the FIRR with- and without CER is 28,7% and 19,01%,
respectively. Similarly, the EIRR with- and without CER is found to be 30,11% and
21,79%, respectively.

27
Annex 1 Technical Description of the Project

Plan View of Project Site

Annex 1– 1
 0
C ton/hour
425 81.4
BarG Kcal/kg
61 772

18 MW, 50 HZ
CONDENSING
TURBINE

GENERATOR

425 43.5 425 43.5

STEAM HEADER
61 772 61 772
60 76.8

DRIVING STEAM
0.2 62.3
BarA
42 4350
- 5.6
STEAM 30m 42
EJECTOR
61 772
CONDENSER
Flow Diagram of Power Plant

IN 32 4350 LOSS 2%
OUT
Amount of Energy 30m 32
COOLING
68,250,000 Kcal/hr TOWER
DEAERATOR
No.1 60 83.4
BOILER 50 T/H 105 44.5
65 BarG 10 60
CONDENSATE PUMP
70 105 COOLING WATER PUMP
COOLING
WATER BASIN

MOTOR DRIVEN
FEED WATER PUMP CONDENSATE
WATER TANK
STACK RAW WATER

MOTOR DRIVEN
30 1.5 DEAERATOR LIFT PUMP

30 30
No.2
BOILER 50 T/H
65 BarG 105 44.5
RAW WATER PUMP

70 105
BLOW 276 2
DOWN
TANK 70 276

WATER
MOTOR DRIVEN TREATMENT CLARIFIER
FEED WATER PUMP TANK TANK

STACK PRESSURE
FEED WATER PUMP FILTER
CLARIFIER
FILTER WATER
WATER BASIN
BASIN

SOFTENER FEEDING PUMP FILTER PUMP

Prepared Drawn Checked Approved Costumer Drawing no.

Title
PT ACME
PT. SCALE ENGNERING
POWER PLANT FLOW DIAGRAM CONSULTING, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION Sc ale Sheet Revision
Jakarta N.S. 1/1 0

Annex 1– 2
Refuse Processing
The main equipment involved are:
a. Fermentation unit
b. Gasification unit
c. Gas utilization unit using steam turbine generation system.
The MSW from the trucks are dumped on to the receiving floor, in which they are
temporarily stored for further treatment. From the receiving floor, the MSW will then be
pickup mechanically by overhang arms to conveyor’s hoppers. Leachate that may be
excreted during the storage will be collected into a collection tank prior to further
treatment.
The MSW will then be transported to grinders by a long conveyor. The operator will be
placed along the conveyors that will sort valuables, recyclables and large articles that may
harm process equipment. The process will be undertaken manually by a large number of
operators that will have two beneficial effects: (i) providing workplaces for unemployed as
well as (ii) reducing any possible social upheaval that may stop the production process.
From the conveyor, the MSW will then be processed in size reduction equipment (grinder)
so that universal size of around 5 to 10 cm is obtained. During the process, most readily
degradable material will be squeezed out and form organic-rich leachate. Ground MSW
will then be fed into a hydro-pulper in which organic material will undergo further size
reduction and further excretion of suspended organic material so that pulp-like materials is
obtained. Materials that cannot be pulped and have high density like glass, battery and
stones will sink in the operation.
The partly pulped MSW is then fed into a rotating trommel in which fine MSW and slurry
leach out onto the open tray underneath. The retained coarse MSW will be retained and
are taken out at another end of the trommel. The slurry and fine organics will be pumped
out into the acidification reactor while coarse materials will be dried in a dedicated dryer.
Within acidification reactor, the organic materials will undergo a series of biochemical
reactions leading to acid formation. During the formation of acid, gases such as hydrogen,
methane and carbon dioxide will also be produced. Process operation will be maintained at
optimum condition that most of the hydrogen produced will bio-chemically be converted
into methane to avoid serious toxicity.
The acidified solution will be pumped into the second stage reactors in which acids and
non-degraded organics are further mineralised into the final product, the methane. The
whole process will only partly utilize the organic, while the non-easily degradable will
form sludge that needs further treatment.
The coarse organic and slurry from the second stage reactors will be dried in the gravi-
separator. The end products are relatively dry organic matter (sludge and coarse organics)
and water. Dry organic matter is passed into drying tank while water will be pumped into
water treatment facility.
In the gravi-separator, most of water will have been squeezed out so that the organic
material is relatively dry. The organic material is then further dried in a dedicated drying
chamber using hot exhaust gas. The material is expected to have relatively low moisture
content of around 20-30% prior to feeding to a gasification chamber.

Annex 1– 3
Dry organic material is then fed into the gasification chamber through a feed-lock
mechanism. The organics are combusted in a dedicated tank at a limited amount of air at
temperatures of 500-7000C. At that temperature, the organic material will be cracked
down into energy-containing gases and exhaust gases. The synthetic gas produced from
gasification and methane from anaerobic digestion is then combusted in a boiler to raise
steam, which is then expanded through a turbine.
Non-combustible materials like ash will be produced from the gasification process. The
ash is rich in mineral that will be used as raw material for the production of fertilizer or
will be used for brick material. The effluent resulted from the anaerobic digestion process
will be treated through a series of filter (alumino-silica) anaerobic and aerobic ponds. The
mineral-rich –alumino-silica powder will be harvested once they are saturated and will be
used as a fertilizer.

Figure 6 Flow chart of refuse processing

Annex 1– 4
Annex 2 Financial and Economic Analyses
Table 9 Summary of Technical and Financial Parameters
TECHNICAL
Capacity MW 18
Operating hours hours/day 24
days/year 330
Annual 7,920
Available hours 70% Annual 5,544
Annual power generation MWh 99,792
Losses 17% MWh 16,632
Annual power generation sales MWh 83,160
Refuse disposal ton/day 1,500
Composting process ton/year 495,000
Organic matter 35% ton/year 173,250
Fertilizer 36% ton/year 62,370
GHG reduction ton co2/year 786,788
Lifespan years 20

REVENUE
Power sales price USD Cent/kWh 4.50
Annual power generation income USD 3,742,200
Refuse Processing Fee USD/ton 6.24
Refuse processing income USD 3,088,800
Fertilizer price USD/ton 35
Annual fertilizer sales USD 2,182,950
CER price USD/ton CO2 5
CER revenue USD 3,933,940

ESTIMATION OVERALL COST

Investment Cost
Construction cost
1 Preparatory works USD 900,000
2 Civil and Building Works USD 1,700,000
3 Vehicle and office equipment USD 225,000
4 Mechanical works USD 17,139,522
5 Electrical works USD 1,360,478
6 Factory equipment USD 700,000

Sum 1-6 22,025,000

Others
7 D/D fee 1% USD 220,250
8 E/S fee 4% USD 881,000

Sum 7-8 1,101,250

9 Land (4 Ha) USD 4,250,000

Contingencies
10 Civil contingencies 10% USD 170,000
11 Mech. Contingencies 7.50% USD 1,285,464
12 Electr. Contingencies 5% USD 68,024

Sum 10-13 1,523,488

Sum 1-13 USD 28,899,738
VAT 10% 2,889,974

Total construction cost 31,789,712

Annex 2– 1
 Table 9 Summary of Technical and Financial Parameters (continued)
Other investment cost
13 Construction insurance 0.30% USD 95,369
14 Regulatory fees USD 10,000
15 Site establishment USD 141,176
16 Certification USD 100,000
17 Transfer of knowledge USD 50,000

Sum 14-18 396,545

32,186,257
Own funds USD 4,827,939
Loan USD 27,358,319
Total USD 32,186,258
Capitalized financial Cost
18 Interest during construction 8.00% USD 2,094,418
19 Up front fee 1.00% USD 273,583
20 Success fee 0.50% USD 136,792
21 Bank guarantee 1.00% USD 273,583
2,778,376
34,964,633
Annual operation & maintenance cost
Fixed O&M cost
1 Maintenance USD 160,000
2 Labour USD
Skilled USD 7,060
Unskilled USD 229,450
USD 236,510
3 General & administrative ( p.a.) USD 85,000
4 Building tax USD 4,250
5 Property insurance USD 41,000
6 Life cycle maintenance USD 46,000
7 Contingencies USD 25,000
Sum 1-7 USD 597,760
Variable O&M cost
1 Solid waste USD -
2 Supplies USD 622,500
3 Diesel fuel USD 248,285
Sum 1-3 870,785

WORKING CAPITAL USD 530,000

OTHERS
Exchange rate US$ 1 IDR 8,500
Inflation rate 7.00%
Discount rate 12.00%

Annex 2– 2
 Table 10-Weighted Average of Capital Cost
Equity
Foreign Domes-tic Govern-
ADB loan participatio Total
loans loans ment funds
n

A Amount ($) 27,722 0 3,696 1,848 3,696 36,963

B Weighting 75.0% 0.0% 10.0% 5.0% 10.0% 100.0%
C Nominal cost 6.7% 6.7% 17.0% 7.0% 10.0%
D Tax rate 40.0% 40.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0%
E Tax adjusted normal cost
[Cx(1-D)] 4.0% 4.0% 11.9% 10.0% 10.0%
F Inflation rate 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%
G Real cost [(1+E)/(1+F)-1] 4.0% 4.0% 4.6% 2.8% 2.8%
H Minimum rate 4.0% 4.0% 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%
I Weighted component of WACC 3.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.4% 0.7% 4.8%

WACC real 4.8%

Annex 2– 3
 Table 11 Economic Price Valuations

Financial Economic
price Financial price Adjustment price
(USD '000) IDR (mil) IDR (mil) IDR (mil)
REVENUE
Annual power generation income 3,742 31,809 1.000 31,809
Refuse processing income 3,089 26,255 0.885 23,235
Annual fertilizer sales 2,183 18,555 1.000 18,555
CER revenue 3,934 33,438 0.749 25,045
12,948 110,057 98,645
ESTIMATION OVERALL COST
Investment Cost
Construction cost
1 Preparatory works 900 7,650 0.938 7,178
2 Civil and Building Works 1,700 14,450 0.938 13,558
3 Vehicle and office equipment 225 1,913 0.938 1,794
4 Mechanical works 17,140 145,686 0.938 136,688
5 Electrical works 1,360 11,564 0.938 10,850
6 Factory equipment 700 5,950 0.938 5,583
7 D/D fee 220 1,872 0.938 1,756
8 E/S fee 881 7,489 0.938 7,026
9 Land (4 Ha) 4,250 36,125 0.854 30,857
10 Civil contingencies 170 1,445 0.938 1,356
11 Mech. Contingencies 1,285 10,926 0.938 10,252
12 Electr. Contingencies 68 578 0.938 542
13 TAX 2,890 24,565 0.000 -
14 Construction insurance 95 811 0.938 761
15 Regulatory fees 10 85 0.938 80
16 Site establishment 141 1,200 0.938 1,126
17 Certification 100 850 0.938 798
18 Transfer of knowledge 50 425 0.938 399
Sum 1-17 32,186 273,583 230,602
Capitalized financial Cost 684 5,814 0.938 5,455
Total 32,870 279,397 236,057

Annex 2– 4
 Table 11 Economic Price Valuation (continued)

Annual operation & maintenance cost

Fixed O&M cost
1 Maintenance 160 1,360 0.938 1,276
2 Labour
Skilled 7 60 0.938 56
Unskilled 229 1,950 0.692 1,350
237 2,010 1,407
3 General & administrative ( p.a.) 85 723 0.938 678
4 Building tax 4 36 0.000 -
5 Property insurance 41 349 0.938 327
6 Life cycle maintenance 46 391 0.938 367
7 Contingencies 25 213 0.938 199
Sum 1-7 598 5,081 4,254
Variable O&M cost
1 Solid waste - - 0.938 -
2 Supplies 623 5,291 0.938 4,964
3 Diesel fuel 248 2,110 0.938 1,980
Sum 1-3 871 7,402 6,945
Total 1,469 12,483 11,198

Working Capital 530 4,505 0.938 4,227

Interest During Construction

1 Year - 1 497 4,222 0.938 3,961
2 Year - 2 1,598 13,581 0.938 12,742
2,094 17,803 16,703
Total cost 36,963 314,187 0.854 268,184

Annex 2– 5
 Table 12 Financial Analysis

Total Total
Working Net Benefit Net Benefit
Year Revenue Revenue Total Cost
Capital with CER without CER
with CER without CER

IDR (mil) IDR (mil) IDR (mil) IDR (mil) IDR (mil) IDR (mil)

0 2005 - - - 127,020 (127,020) (127,020)

1 2006 - - - 170,180 (170,180) (170,180)
2 2007 110,057 76,619 4,505 12,483 93,069 59,631
3 2008 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
4 2009 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
5 2010 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
6 2011 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
7 2012 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
8 2013 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
9 2014 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
10 2015 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
11 2016 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
12 2017 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
13 2018 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
14 2019 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
15 2020 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
16 2021 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
17 2022 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
18 2023 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
19 2024 110,057 76,619 - 12,483 97,574 64,136
20 2025 110,057 76,619 (4,505) 12,483 102,079 68,641

PV @ 12.00% 646,250 449,901 2,790 322,374 321,086 124,737

With CER Revenue Without CER Revenue

FIRR 28.70% 19.01%

FNPV @ 4.77% 816,750 441,405
FNPV @ 28.70% 0 (69,745)
FNPV @ 12.00% 321,086 124,737

Annex 2– 6
Annex 2– 7
 Table 13 Economic Analysis

Total
Total Net Benefit
Benefit Working Net Benefit
Year Benefit with Total Cost without
without Capital with CER
CER CER
CER

IDR (mil) IDR (mil) IDR (mil) IDR (mil) IDR (mil) IDR (mil)

0 2005 - - - 108,021 (108,021) (108,021)

1 2006 - - - 144,738 (144,738) (144,738)
2 2007 98,645 73,599 4,227 11,198 83,220 58,174
3 2008 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
4 2009 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
5 2010 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
6 2011 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
7 2012 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
8 2013 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
9 2014 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
10 2015 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
11 2016 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
12 2017 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
13 2018 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
14 2019 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
15 2020 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
16 2021 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
17 2022 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
18 2023 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
19 2024 98,645 73,599 - 11,198 87,447 62,401
20 2025 98,645 73,599 (4,227) 11,198 91,673 66,628

PV @ 12.00% 579,237 432,171 2,617 277,587 299,033 151,967

With CER Revenue Without CER Revenue

EIRR = 30.11% 21.79%

ENPV @ 4.77% = 744,516 463,383
ENPV @ 30.11% = 0 (48,813)
ENPV @ 12.00% = 299,033 151,967

Annex 2– 8
 Table 14 Development of Energy Prices in Indonesia

Planned time Percentage fuel price rising Remarks

From April 1, 2000 12% increase in fuel prices Postponed just before implementation due to
increasing vociferous demonstrations and
(planned)
growing protests.
on October 1, 2000 Average of 12% increase Price of gasoline increased as a result from 1,000
IDR/liter to 1,150 IDR/liter. This price raises
(implemented)
generated protests from workers and students,
leading to temporary concerns over worsening
public order and price rises.
From April 2001 20% rise in fuel prices The rise of fuel price of ordinary use (excluding
(planned) industry) postponed due to state of public order
and economic conditions on March 14, 2001.

from June 15, 2001 average of 30% rise in fuel As a result of this, the price of gasoline increased
prices from 1,150 IDR/liter to 1,450 IDR/liter, kerosene
(implemented)
from 350 IDR/liter to 400 IDR/liter, and diesel
from 600 IDR/liter to 900 IDR/liter.
in January 2002 Electricity rates raised 6% A total of four price rises are planned in this year,
raising prices by a total of 24% altogether
compared with the last year.
from January 17, Average 22% rise in fuel As a result, price of gasoline increases from
2002 prices 1,450 IDR/liter to 1,550 IDR/liter, kerosene from
350 IDR/liter to 400 IDR/liter, and diesel from
600 IDR/liter to 900 IDR/liter. In the future, a
floating price regime linked to the Mid Oil Platt
Singapore (MOPS) price is to be introduced.
from January 1, Petroleum product prices and electricity rates also raised by 6%
2003 raised by a maximum of
Following on from 2002, electricity rates are
22%
scheduled to be raised 6% each quarter
Start from January price of gasoline is 1,810 IDR/liter, kerosene is
20, 2003 700 IDR/liter, diesel 1650 IDR/liter

Annex 2– 9