Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to describe that CDM was seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
In particular, it should be clearly explained in which event and date CDM was seriously considered.

2: The DOE is requested to state whether the data and parameters are conservative and appropriate if they are fixed ex-ante (not need to monitor) during the project activity crediting period as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 91.
In particular, the DOE shall clarify if the grid emission factor will be fixed for the whole crediting period i.e. ex-ante value will be used, or it will be monitored ex-post as PDD page 27 mentions application of ex-ante value for the entire crediting period while page 43 of the validation report mentions monitoring of the grid emission factor. If the ex-ante grid emission factor is used, operating margin and built margin emission factor of the connected grid should be included in the list of parameters available at validation (B.6.2). If it is monitored, monitoring frequency should be included in the PDD.

3: The DOE is requested to provide information on the steps taken to validate the actions taken to secure the CDM status between the project starting date and the start of validation as per EB 62 Annex 13 paragraph 6 b.
In particular, the DOE shall report the evidence that was used to demonstrate the activities, such as signed contracts, indicating the date of signature.

4: The DOE is requested to include information on how it has validated the input values to the financial calculations as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (a).
In particular, it should clarify: a) the relevance of Techno Economic Feasibility Report (TEFR) in connection to the development of the project activity, i.e. whether it is submitted for approval by the local authority or it is a document prepared for internal decision making; and b) the use of PDR mentioned in validation report page 26.

5: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has validated the suitability of the benchmark as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (b).
In particular, the DOE shall address the following inconsistencies:
i) cut-off date for expected market return; VR page 20 indicates July 2010 while the spreadsheet indicates 31 March 2008; and
ii) beta value: VR page 21 indicates 0.8339 while the spreadsheet uses 0.8536.

6: The DOE is requested to provide local and sectoral expertise on the suitability of the input values to the investment analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 113 (c).
In particular, the DOE shall clarify the definition of the SHP in terms of the installed capacity as defined by the "Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources", as the threshold for SHP in India appears to be 3 MW.

7: The DOE is requested to describe the steps undertaken to assess if the monitoring arrangements are feasible to be implemented within the project design as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 124(b).
In particular, the DOE shall clarify the monitoring frequency of the grid emission factor.