11:16 07 Aug 24
Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: 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) Some sources of the investment cost were available after the date of the investment decision (source /EPC/ and /ECA/). Hence it is not clear how it complies with the EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 6. The DOE is required to validate what investment cost was considered at the time of the investment decision. Furthermore, the DOE has not carried out any crosschecking for the investment cost in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 111 (b); (b) The source of the O&M cost was available after the investment decision. The DOE is required to validate what O&M cost was considered at the time of the investment decision. Furthermore the DOE has not carried out any crosschecking of the O&M cost (VVM version 01.2 paragraph 111 (b)). On page 104, the DOE states "Adding total O&M, Insurance, Administrative Expenses and total other expenses the annual costs are about 2.5 % in the beginning years and about 7 % in the last year (after escalating) of capital expenditures which is assessed as reasonable based on technical literature and experiences gained in other wind power validations in India.". However, it is not clear what technical literature referred by the DOE; (c) The validation report page 78 states that the actual interest payable has been taken into account. However, in the same page it states that in the cash flow analysis the interests have not been taken into account. Furthermore, the IRR spreadsheet has not shown that the interest has been considered in accordance with the EB 62 Annex 5 paragraph 11.
2: 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).
The DOE has not validated the WACC calculation based on the EB default values that is shown in the spreadsheet. Furthermore, the DOE has not explained why the lowest WACC of the three values is not used as the benchmark.
3: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has assessed the existence of the similar projects for common practice analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 121 (b).
The Validation Report has not reported how the DOE has undertaken an assessment of the existence of similar projects, as it is not clear what documents have been used by the DOE to assess/validate the existence of any similar projects.
1: 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) Some sources of the investment cost were available after the date of the investment decision (source /EPC/ and /ECA/). Hence it is not clear how it complies with the EB62 Annex 5 paragraph 6. The DOE is required to validate what investment cost was considered at the time of the investment decision. Furthermore, the DOE has not carried out any crosschecking for the investment cost in line with the VVM version 01.2 paragraph 111 (b); (b) The source of the O&M cost was available after the investment decision. The DOE is required to validate what O&M cost was considered at the time of the investment decision. Furthermore the DOE has not carried out any crosschecking of the O&M cost (VVM version 01.2 paragraph 111 (b)). On page 104, the DOE states "Adding total O&M, Insurance, Administrative Expenses and total other expenses the annual costs are about 2.5 % in the beginning years and about 7 % in the last year (after escalating) of capital expenditures which is assessed as reasonable based on technical literature and experiences gained in other wind power validations in India.". However, it is not clear what technical literature referred by the DOE; (c) The validation report page 78 states that the actual interest payable has been taken into account. However, in the same page it states that in the cash flow analysis the interests have not been taken into account. Furthermore, the IRR spreadsheet has not shown that the interest has been considered in accordance with the EB 62 Annex 5 paragraph 11.
2: 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).
The DOE has not validated the WACC calculation based on the EB default values that is shown in the spreadsheet. Furthermore, the DOE has not explained why the lowest WACC of the three values is not used as the benchmark.
3: The DOE is requested to provide information on how it has assessed the existence of the similar projects for common practice analysis as per VVM v 1.2 paragraph 121 (b).
The Validation Report has not reported how the DOE has undertaken an assessment of the existence of similar projects, as it is not clear what documents have been used by the DOE to assess/validate the existence of any similar projects.
Offset now: visit the United Nations Carbon Offset Platform
Connect with us: