Info Report Check
Submission incomplete:
1: The PP/DOE are requested to describe the procedure taken to demonstrate additionality of the project activity as per EB 48 Annex 60 paragraph 10 (a).
1. The DOE is requested to provide further information on how it validated the calculation and appropriateness of the WACC, in particular:
i) Rate of market return given that only five years data from April 2003- March 2008 has been taken (Please refer to the spreadsheet “WACC Drolia_ Calculation Sheet”. The DOE should also justify why a period of 30 years has been used in the algorithm for calculation of WACC (refer to Row 67 in the “Market return sheet ”)?
ii) The appropriateness of the calculation of beta value.


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).
1. The DOE is requested to provide further information on how it validated the suitability of the input parameters used in the IRR calculation in accordance with paragraph 111 (a) , (b) and ( c) of the VVM (1.2), in particular: i) Project activity cost
ii) Man power cost for the operation of WHRB based CPP
iii) PLF of the project.
In doing so , the DOE shall also clarify how it deemed comparison to just one/ two projects sufficient to conclude the suitability of cross checking of these parameters; given that there exists several projects utilizing waste heat recovery technology registered from the host country.
2. The DOE is requested to provide information on how it validated the working capital used in the IRR calculation spreadsheet as no information is available in the Validation Report.
3.The DOE is also requested to clarify on how it closed CAR-13 on Page 126 of the VR (subpart-m) regarding administrative expenses as the response provided by the PP was based only on generic information.
4. The DOE shall substantiate why references to tariff order dated 08/09/2008 have been used for several parameters in the investment analysis which is after the date of the CDM Board resolution.
5.The DOE is requested to provide further information on how it determined the suitability of inclusion and requirement of the 2.26 MVA backup power from the grid in the project scenario [refer to Row 193 of the IRR spreadsheet]. The DOE shall clearly reference to the evidences cross checked against third-party or publicly available sources, or actual invoices in accordance with paragraph 111 (b) of the VVM (1.2). In this regard the DOE shall also substantiate how this grid back up component is also not a part of the baseline scenario? 6. The DOE shall further substantiate the different tariffs used in the project activity and also compare it to the Power Purchase agreement.
7. The DOE is requested to clearly substantiate the relevance of the following parameters and their appropriateness in the IRR calculation worksheet. i) Parallel operating charges payable to the grid ii) Power generation duty payable to the government iii) Water Cess payable to the government iv) Cost of water to be paid to the water supply agency.
8. The DOE is also requested to clearly explain how the cost of power from the grid in the baseline vis-à-vis the cost of power from grid in the project scenario has been computed in the “Calculation of IRR sheet”. (Row 164-Row 215).