06:27 26 Dec 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
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).
1) The DOE is requested to further report on how it has validated the WACC benchmark considering that the sources of the input values applied to calculate the WACC benchmark are not consistent with regard to the country; in particular the DOE shall further justify how the cost of equity (16%) is sourced from the government of India while the gearing (50%:50%) and tax seems to be sourced from the government of Bhutan.
2) The DOE is requested to further report on how it has validated the input values of the project IRR calculation; in particular how:
(a) the projects costs increment from 1095 MW to 1200 MW taken from 2007 DPR and 2008 revised DPR document, respectively, are justified as the added 105 MW capacity increased the unit of investment costs from 38 to 46 million NU/MW for from 1095 to 1200 MW respectively.
(b) similarly, the DOE shall also justify the increment of the O&M and maintenance spares costs.
(c) the project costs of some parameters were extrapolated from the rates considered for the 1095 MW capacity as stated in the validation report page 31.
(d) the DOE justifies the differences between O&M costs and maintenance spares; please do provide a detail breakdown of these two different costs.
(e) the DOE has cross-checked the eligibility of all input values applied in the IRR calculation as from the 20 parameters listed in pages 30-37 only three (3) of them (project capacity, design and electricity generated) are reported as cross-checked.
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).
1) The DOE is requested to further report on how it has validated the WACC benchmark considering that the sources of the input values applied to calculate the WACC benchmark are not consistent with regard to the country; in particular the DOE shall further justify how the cost of equity (16%) is sourced from the government of India while the gearing (50%:50%) and tax seems to be sourced from the government of Bhutan.
2) The DOE is requested to further report on how it has validated the input values of the project IRR calculation; in particular how:
(a) the projects costs increment from 1095 MW to 1200 MW taken from 2007 DPR and 2008 revised DPR document, respectively, are justified as the added 105 MW capacity increased the unit of investment costs from 38 to 46 million NU/MW for from 1095 to 1200 MW respectively.
(b) similarly, the DOE shall also justify the increment of the O&M and maintenance spares costs.
(c) the project costs of some parameters were extrapolated from the rates considered for the 1095 MW capacity as stated in the validation report page 31.
(d) the DOE justifies the differences between O&M costs and maintenance spares; please do provide a detail breakdown of these two different costs.
(e) the DOE has cross-checked the eligibility of all input values applied in the IRR calculation as from the 20 parameters listed in pages 30-37 only three (3) of them (project capacity, design and electricity generated) are reported as cross-checked.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: