03:22 01 Sep 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The DOE is requested to confirm the accuracy of the financial calculations carried out for the investment analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (c).
The DOE is requested to provide further information with reference to the Investment analysis worksheet submitted “Main Relevant Sheet.:
a).For the calculation of the Project IRR, (worksheet “P&L”), under Head “Income”, the entire revenue is assumed to be through sale of power regulated through PPA. Further clarification is sought since the project will sell 704 MW (70.40%) power to the grid, 12 % free power to Himachal Pradesh and the balance power will be sold as Merchant Power to the open market.The component of “Income” obtained through sale of merchant power has not been included in the P&L calculation.
b)Worksheet “Tariff”, Row 22 , refers to the calculation of Tariff Part B1- for sale of tariff regulated by PPA and Row 26 refers to the calculation of Tariff Part B2for sale of Merchant Power.Further explaination is required as to why for calculation of B1 tariff, the formula used is (D19/Para!D24) and not (D19/D21).
2: 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).
a)The DOE is requested to provide further information on how it validated both the “Utility tariff component” as well as the “Merchant Power ”tariff for the project activity.
b)In doing so, the DOE should also substantiate the “Utility tariff” for comparable power projects selling electricity to PTC and provide a basis for the fluctuation tariff as provided in the worksheet “Main Relevant sheet_Tariff ” (Row 22). The DOE is also requested to confirm that the signed PPA doesnot indicate an estimated tariff.
c)Further justification as why there has been no escalation considered for the “Merchant Power” tariff.
3: The DOE is requested to identify if the FSR has been the basis of the investment decision as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 113 (a).
The CDM Board Resolution for this project was passed in June 2003. EB 51 ,Annex 58 paragraph 6 states that “Input values used in all investment analysis should be valid and applicable at the time of the investment decision taken by the project participant”. The DOE is requested to provide further information as how it justified the input values of 2005 for the benchmark analysis and investment analysis purpose when the decision to implement the project with CDM revenues has been undertaken in June 2003.
4: The DOE is requested to address the changes made to the project deign since the global stakeholder consultation was conducted as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 173(c).
Paragraph 173 ( c) of the VVM states Reflect the results of the dialogue between the DOE and the project participants, as well as any adjustments made to the project design following stakeholder consultation. It shall reflect the responses to CARs and CLs, and discussions on and revisions to project documentation.
The DOE is requested to justify how it verified the following changes to be appropriate in the absence of a CAR/CL for the following changes from the GSC PDD:
a)The chronology in the GSCPDD doesnot report the Board resolution of CDM that took place in October 2005.
b).In the GSC PDD,NSE indices had been considered for calculation of WACC.It is observed that in the Final PDD submitted, the market index had been changed to the BSE.However no CAR/CL has been requested by the DOE .
1: The DOE is requested to confirm the accuracy of the financial calculations carried out for the investment analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 114 (c).
The DOE is requested to provide further information with reference to the Investment analysis worksheet submitted “Main Relevant Sheet.:
a).For the calculation of the Project IRR, (worksheet “P&L”), under Head “Income”, the entire revenue is assumed to be through sale of power regulated through PPA. Further clarification is sought since the project will sell 704 MW (70.40%) power to the grid, 12 % free power to Himachal Pradesh and the balance power will be sold as Merchant Power to the open market.The component of “Income” obtained through sale of merchant power has not been included in the P&L calculation.
b)Worksheet “Tariff”, Row 22 , refers to the calculation of Tariff Part B1- for sale of tariff regulated by PPA and Row 26 refers to the calculation of Tariff Part B2for sale of Merchant Power.Further explaination is required as to why for calculation of B1 tariff, the formula used is (D19/Para!D24) and not (D19/D21).
2: 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).
a)The DOE is requested to provide further information on how it validated both the “Utility tariff component” as well as the “Merchant Power ”tariff for the project activity.
b)In doing so, the DOE should also substantiate the “Utility tariff” for comparable power projects selling electricity to PTC and provide a basis for the fluctuation tariff as provided in the worksheet “Main Relevant sheet_Tariff ” (Row 22). The DOE is also requested to confirm that the signed PPA doesnot indicate an estimated tariff.
c)Further justification as why there has been no escalation considered for the “Merchant Power” tariff.
3: The DOE is requested to identify if the FSR has been the basis of the investment decision as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 113 (a).
The CDM Board Resolution for this project was passed in June 2003. EB 51 ,Annex 58 paragraph 6 states that “Input values used in all investment analysis should be valid and applicable at the time of the investment decision taken by the project participant”. The DOE is requested to provide further information as how it justified the input values of 2005 for the benchmark analysis and investment analysis purpose when the decision to implement the project with CDM revenues has been undertaken in June 2003.
4: The DOE is requested to address the changes made to the project deign since the global stakeholder consultation was conducted as per VVM v1.2 paragraph 173(c).
Paragraph 173 ( c) of the VVM states Reflect the results of the dialogue between the DOE and the project participants, as well as any adjustments made to the project design following stakeholder consultation. It shall reflect the responses to CARs and CLs, and discussions on and revisions to project documentation.
The DOE is requested to justify how it verified the following changes to be appropriate in the absence of a CAR/CL for the following changes from the GSC PDD:
a)The chronology in the GSCPDD doesnot report the Board resolution of CDM that took place in October 2005.
b).In the GSC PDD,NSE indices had been considered for calculation of WACC.It is observed that in the Final PDD submitted, the market index had been changed to the BSE.However no CAR/CL has been requested by the DOE .
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: