It is evident from the PDD that the values are consistent and it is definitely forged and cooked up values to show a non CDM project as a CDM project. What is this? DoE to check the Detailed Project Report and Feasibility Report which is submitted to the other agencies and Banks by Project owner and ensure that the values match with the DPR/FR  submitted to DoE also. After careful study of PDD it is found that DPR/FR is in different versions made and submitted with different purposes to different agencies which is totally unacceptable, illegal and unethical. PP/Consultant may show some undertaking letter from bank manager to DoE stating that both DPR’s are same. These kinds of letters should not be accepted and entertained by DoE. While collecting the DPR/FR from banks and other agencies, all DPR/FR pages should be counter signed by Banks and other agencies so that the real DPR/FR given to other parties by the PP/Consultant is same as the one submitted to DOE. In this particular project there is clear cut evidence that DPR/FR values are changed/ fabricated mischievously and intentionally. This must be probed fully. DOE must take a written undertaking from the PP/Consultant about the list of parties to whom this DPR/FR is submitted and for what purposes. Then DOE should cross check with all the parties and confirm that the same DPR/FR is submitted to all the parties correctly without any changes. DOE must not accept any reports and undertakings from PP/Consultant. DOE must make independent evaluation and use totally different parties without informing the PP or Consultant to cross check the facts. DOE to write to the party who prepared the DPR/FR which is submitted to the banks and other agencies and the same is verified against the one submitted to the DOE by PP/Consultant. This project is a fabricated and fake CDM project and must be rejected by the DOE right away. DOE should not support this kind of projects otherwise CDM EB should suspend this DOE for at least one year. 

If you carefully read through the PDD it is confirmed that this is not a genuine CDM project at all. What is the exact project cost? The project cost is covering what? The machinery is second hand purchased or fresh and new from an OEM? In either case DOE to check all the quotations, proposals, purchase orders, invoices, way bills, transport bills, proof of payments like bank statements. 
DOE to check with banks by way of written confirmation the amount transacted, to whom the money is paid, when the money is paid, is the party paid is the correct party as shown in the purchase orders. It is very clear that the values, party names, dates are fabricated and misrepresented in this project. DOE should terminate their contract for this project immediately. This is the only way out to protect the value of CDM process. It looks like PP is purchasing second hand or second quality equipment by inflating the purchase order values and invoices. This must be probed thoroughly and real values to taken for additionality calculation. Then I’m sure the additionality is not there at all in this project. How is the base line defined in this project? Base line is hypothetically defined with no proper evidences and proper justification. 
DOE cannot take the base line as suggested by the PDD.  Please note that there are no emissions beyond the real and factual base line. This project definitely qualifies for zero CER’s, not even one CER. DOE cannot assume values and things as giving by this PP. Whatever values are considered throughout the project in all documents including the real DPR (not the one prepared for CDM, the one given to the banks and others), they must be validated, verified and double checked. Do not ask PP for DPR. Ask the parties who have been given DPR by the PP. Get directly from the bank and others by each page of the DPR and Feasibulity report signed. Such document can be considered as a real DPR or FR. This project is genuinely a fabricated, false and misinterpreted project with no base line and additionality.  

manager to DoE stating that both DPR’s are same. These kinds of letters should not be accepted and entertained by DoE at face value, but must be checked independently. While collecting the DPR/FR from banks and other agencies, all DPR/FR pages should be counter signed by Banks and other agencies so that the real DPR/FR given to other parties by the PP/Consultant is same as the one submitted to DOE. 
5)	DPR/FR values must be probed fully. DOE must take a written undertaking from the PP/Consultant about the list of parties to whom this DPR/FR is submitted and for what purposes. Then DOE should cross check with all the parties and confirm that the same DPR/FR is submitted to all the parties correctly without any changes. DOE must not accept any reports and undertakings from PP/Consultant. DOE must make independent evaluation and use totally different parties without informing the PP or Consultant to cross check the facts. 
6)	DOE to write to the party who prepared the DPR/FR which is submitted to the banks and other agencies and the same is verified against the one submitted to the DOE by PP/Consultant. 
7)	DOE must not entertain this project any more if found the DPR/FR is tamprered with at any point in time. PP can not give different DPR’s and FR’s. They must submit only the one given to Banks and other agencies while obtaining loans and decision making time. 

8)	Has the PP considered the CDM revenues while envisaging the project? Without CDM the project was not viable, is it right? This project is having a debt component? Then how bankers or lenders gave the loan? Have the bankers or lenders considered the CDM revenues while agreeing to give loan to this projects? If not this project should be rejected right away by DOE by terminating the contract forthwith. If yes, where is the proof? What is the date of the evidence document from bank? Is this document printed now a days or earlier. DOE to independently check the same. If the document is  available from Bank it must be checked from all angles so that it is genuine and not forged and date changed by putting back dated. This is normally done, DOE to be aware of this please. Please check the communication the PP had during that time with banks, emails and postal receipts and the weights and dates mentioned on the receipts. Do not believe in courier bills and receipts since these can be cooked up easily. Insist on government owned postal service receipts only. If the project is fully equity project then on what basis the PP has invested full equity in to the project while considering the CDM revenue? DOE to check the same in detail and bring out the facts. Is there any past record of this PP to invest or not to invest at returns what he is talking about in this project? Proper evidences must be reviewed and digged out by the DOE and take decision on the project based on established facts. Do not ask documents from PP, DOE to collect the same from different sources to do independent evaluation. 

9)	Is the project equipment purchased second hand equipment or sourced from cheap foreign sources? If yes, the issue must be probed by DOE since invoices will invariably be inflated and forged. Total project costs mentioned by PP will not be the same as originals. Hence no additionality. These facts must be probed in full by DOE by checking all documents and money transactions along with bank statements and certified accounts by a legally acceptable financial analyst. 

10)	From DOE side which auditor has done marketing and business development for acquiring this business of validating this project? With whom he or she was co-ordinating at PP or CER buyer? The same person who has done the marketing and business development to acquire the business do validation or participate in any manner what so ever in the validation process? One cannot do like that. It is against the accreditation rules and norms followed since ages. DOE should send auditors from different offices or countries to do this validation audit. DOE must take care of impartiality and accreditation rules. Due to the targets set by the DOE managements auditors are doing marketing and meeting clients and giving promises that the project will be taken care. Is it acceptable and fair? This must be stopped. No auditor should do marketing. Only non-auditing staff should do marketing. DOE to ensure the same please. 


11)	If applicable only: Is these machines, equipment was a part of any bundle of CDM activity envisaged and developed earlier. DOE to check the same through independent sources also. Once some bundles are non-additional and getting negative validation from a DOE, PP is rolling out the same project as an individual project which is not a CDM project at all. DOE to verify the same from independent sources and also take undertaking in the form of an affidavit from the PP’s that any misrepresentation or false statement with respect this would attract strict legal action from UNFCCC and DOE. Furthermore the registered project must be de-registered in case of any future findings contradicting the submissions made by the project owner.  

12)	DOE to be more careful so that this is a genuine CDM project. What is the exact project cost? The project cost is covering what? Each value considered must be validated with proof. The machinery is second hand purchased or fresh and new from an OEM? In either case DOE to check all the quotations, proposals, purchase orders, invoices, way bills, transport bills, proof of payments like bank statements. DOE to check with banks by way of written confirmation the amount transacted, to whom the money is paid, when the money is paid, is the party paid is the correct party as shown in the purchase orders. It may so happen that the values, party names, dates are fabricated and misrepresented in this project. DOE should terminate their contract for this project immediately. This is the only way out to protect the value of CDM process. If the PP is purchasing second hand or second quality equipment and inflating the purchase order values and invoices, this must be probed thoroughly and real values to taken for additionality calculation. Then I’m sure the additionality is not there at all in such a situation.

13)	 How is the base line defined in this project? Is Base line hypothetically defined with no proper evidences and proper justification? In such case, DOE cannot take the base line as suggested by the PDD.  Please check that there are real emission reductions beyond the real and factual base line. It may so happen that this project qualifies for no CER’s. DOE cannot assume values and things as giving by this PP. Whatever values are considered throughout the project in all documents including the real DPR (not the one prepared for CDM, the one given to the banks and others), they must be validated, verified and double checked. Do not ask PP for DPR. Ask the parties who have been given DPR by the PP. Get directly from the bank and others by each page of the DPR and Feasibility report signed. Such document can be considered as a real DPR or FR. UNFCCC CDM process cannot be degraded by fabricating and misinterpreting the project base line and additionality.  

manager to DoE stating that both DPR’s are same. These kinds of letters should not be accepted and entertained by DoE at face value, but must be checked independently. While collecting the DPR/FR from banks and other agencies, all DPR/FR pages should be counter signed by Banks and other agencies so that the real DPR/FR given to other parties by the PP/Consultant is same as the one submitted to DOE. 
5)	DPR/FR values must be probed fully. DOE must take a written undertaking from the PP/Consultant about the list of parties to whom this DPR/FR is submitted and for what purposes. Then DOE should cross check with all the parties and confirm that the same DPR/FR is submitted to all the parties correctly without any changes. DOE must not accept any reports and undertakings from PP/Consultant. DOE must make independent evaluation and use totally different parties without informing the PP or Consultant to cross check the facts. 
6)	DOE to write to the party who prepared the DPR/FR which is submitted to the banks and other agencies and the same is verified against the one submitted to the DOE by PP/Consultant. 
7)	DOE must not entertain this project any more if found the DPR/FR is tamprered with at any point in time. PP can not give different DPR’s and FR’s. They must submit only the one given to Banks and other agencies while obtaining loans and decision making time. 

8)	Has the PP considered the CDM revenues while envisaging the project? Without CDM the project was not viable, is it right? This project is having a debt component? Then how bankers or lenders gave the loan? Have the bankers or lenders considered the CDM revenues while agreeing to give loan to this projects? If not this project should be rejected right away by DOE by terminating the contract forthwith. If yes, where is the proof? What is the date of the evidence document from bank? Is this document printed now a days or earlier. DOE to independently check the same. If the document is  available from Bank it must be checked from all angles so that it is genuine and not forged and date changed by putting back dated. This is normally done, DOE to be aware of this please. Please check the communication the PP had during that time with banks, emails and postal receipts and the weights and dates mentioned on the receipts. Do not believe in courier bills and receipts since these can be cooked up easily. Insist on government owned postal service receipts only. If the project is fully equity project then on what basis the PP has invested full equity in to the project while considering the CDM revenue? DOE to check the same in detail and bring out the facts. Is there any past record of this PP to invest or not to invest at returns what he is talking about in this project? Proper evidences must be reviewed and digged out by the DOE and take decision on the project based on established facts. Do not ask documents from PP, DOE to collect the same from different sources to do independent evaluation. 

9)	Is the project equipment purchased second hand equipment or sourced from cheap foreign sources? If yes, the issue must be probed by DOE since invoices will invariably be inflated and forged. Total project costs mentioned by PP will not be the same as originals. Hence no additionality. These facts must be probed in full by DOE by checking all documents and money transactions along with bank statements and certified accounts by a legally acceptable financial analyst. 

10)	From DOE side which auditor has done marketing and business development for acquiring this business of validating this project? With whom he or she was co-ordinating at PP or CER buyer? The same person who has done the marketing and business development to acquire the business do validation or participate in any manner what so ever in the validation process? One cannot do like that. It is against the accreditation rules and norms followed since ages. DOE should send auditors from different offices or countries to do this validation audit. DOE must take care of impartiality and accreditation rules. Due to the targets set by the DOE managements auditors are doing marketing and meeting clients and giving promises that the project will be taken care. Is it acceptable and fair? This must be stopped. No auditor should do marketing. Only non-auditing staff should do marketing. DOE to ensure the same please. 


11)	If applicable only: Is these machines, equipment was a part of any bundle of CDM activity envisaged and developed earlier. DOE to check the same through independent sources also. Once some bundles are non-additional and getting negative validation from a DOE, PP is rolling out the same project as an individual project which is not a CDM project at all. DOE to verify the same from independent sources and also take undertaking in the form of an affidavit from the PP’s that any misrepresentation or false statement with respect this would attract strict legal action from UNFCCC and DOE. Furthermore the registered project must be de-registered in case of any future findings contradicting the submissions made by the project owner.  

12)	DOE to be more careful so that this is a genuine CDM project. What is the exact project cost? The project cost is covering what? Each value considered must be validated with proof. The machinery is second hand purchased or fresh and new from an OEM? In either case DOE to check all the quotations, proposals, purchase orders, invoices, way bills, transport bills, proof of payments like bank statements. DOE to check with banks by way of written confirmation the amount transacted, to whom the money is paid, when the money is paid, is the party paid is the correct party as shown in the purchase orders. It may so happen that the values, party names, dates are fabricated and misrepresented in this project. DOE should terminate their contract for this project immediately. This is the only way out to protect the value of CDM process. If the PP is purchasing second hand or second quality equipment and inflating the purchase order values and invoices, this must be probed thoroughly and real values to taken for additionality calculation. Then I’m sure the additionality is not there at all in such a situation.

13)	 How is the base line defined in this project? Is Base line hypothetically defined with no proper evidences and proper justification? In such case, DOE cannot take the base line as suggested by the PDD.  Please check that there are real emission reductions beyond the real and factual base line. It may so happen that this project qualifies for no CER’s. DOE cannot assume values and things as giving by this PP. Whatever values are considered throughout the project in all documents including the real DPR (not the one prepared for CDM, the one given to the banks and others), they must be validated, verified and double checked. Do not ask PP for DPR. Ask the parties who have been given DPR by the PP. Get directly from the bank and others by each page of the DPR and Feasibility report signed. Such document can be considered as a real DPR or FR. UNFCCC CDM process cannot be degraded by fabricating and misinterpreting the project base line and additionality.  

manager to DoE stating that both DPR’s are same. These kinds of letters should not be accepted and entertained by DoE at face value, but must be checked independently. While collecting the DPR/FR from banks and other agencies, all DPR/FR pages should be counter signed by Banks and other agencies so that the real DPR/FR given to other parties by the PP/Consultant is same as the one submitted to DOE. 
5)	DPR/FR values must be probed fully. DOE must take a written undertaking from the PP/Consultant about the list of parties to whom this DPR/FR is submitted and for what purposes. Then DOE should cross check with all the parties and confirm that the same DPR/FR is submitted to all the parties correctly without any changes. DOE must not accept any reports and undertakings from PP/Consultant. DOE must make independent evaluation and use totally different parties without informing the PP or Consultant to cross check the facts. 
6)	DOE to write to the party who prepared the DPR/FR which is submitted to the banks and other agencies and the same is verified against the one submitted to the DOE by PP/Consultant. 
7)	DOE must not entertain this project any more if found the DPR/FR is tamprered with at any point in time. PP can not give different DPR’s and FR’s. They must submit only the one given to Banks and other agencies while obtaining loans and decision making time. 

8)	Has the PP considered the CDM revenues while envisaging the project? Without CDM the project was not viable, is it right? This project is having a debt component? Then how bankers or lenders gave the loan? Have the bankers or lenders considered the CDM revenues while agreeing to give loan to this projects? If not this project should be rejected right away by DOE by terminating the contract forthwith. If yes, where is the proof? What is the date of the evidence document from bank? Is this document printed now a days or earlier. DOE to independently check the same. If the document is  available from Bank it must be checked from all angles so that it is genuine and not forged and date changed by putting back dated. This is normally done, DOE to be aware of this please. Please check the communication the PP had during that time with banks, emails and postal receipts and the weights and dates mentioned on the receipts. Do not believe in courier bills and receipts since these can be cooked up easily. Insist on government owned postal service receipts only. If the project is fully equity project then on what basis the PP has invested full equity in to the project while considering the CDM revenue? DOE to check the same in detail and bring out the facts. Is there any past record of this PP to invest or not to invest at returns what he is talking about in this project? Proper evidences must be reviewed and digged out by the DOE and take decision on the project based on established facts. Do not ask documents from PP, DOE to collect the same from different sources to do independent evaluation. 

9)	Is the project equipment purchased second hand equipment or sourced from cheap foreign sources? If yes, the issue must be probed by DOE since invoices will invariably be inflated and forged. Total project costs mentioned by PP will not be the same as originals. Hence no additionality. These facts must be probed in full by DOE by checking all documents and money transactions along with bank statements and certified accounts by a legally acceptable financial analyst. 

10)	From DOE side which auditor has done marketing and business development for acquiring this business of validating this project? With whom he or she was co-ordinating at PP or CER buyer? The same person who has done the marketing and business development to acquire the business do validation or participate in any manner what so ever in the validation process? One cannot do like that. It is against the accreditation rules and norms followed since ages. DOE should send auditors from different offices or countries to do this validation audit. DOE must take care of impartiality and accreditation rules. Due to the targets set by the DOE managements auditors are doing marketing and meeting clients and giving promises that the project will be taken care. Is it acceptable and fair? This must be stopped. No auditor should do marketing. Only non-auditing staff should do marketing. DOE to ensure the same please. 


11)	If applicable only: Is these machines, equipment was a part of any bundle of CDM activity envisaged and developed earlier. DOE to check the same through independent sources also. Once some bundles are non-additional and getting negative validation from a DOE, PP is rolling out the same project as an individual project which is not a CDM project at all. DOE to verify the same from independent sources and also take undertaking in the form of an affidavit from the PP’s that any misrepresentation or false statement with respect this would attract strict legal action from UNFCCC and DOE. Furthermore the registered project must be de-registered in case of any future findings contradicting the submissions made by the project owner.  

12)	DOE to be more careful so that this is a genuine CDM project. What is the exact project cost? The project cost is covering what? Each value considered must be validated with proof. The machinery is second hand purchased or fresh and new from an OEM? In either case DOE to check all the quotations, proposals, purchase orders, invoices, way bills, transport bills, proof of payments like bank statements. DOE to check with banks by way of written confirmation the amount transacted, to whom the money is paid, when the money is paid, is the party paid is the correct party as shown in the purchase orders. It may so happen that the values, party names, dates are fabricated and misrepresented in this project. DOE should terminate their contract for this project immediately. This is the only way out to protect the value of CDM process. If the PP is purchasing second hand or second quality equipment and inflating the purchase order values and invoices, this must be probed thoroughly and real values to taken for additionality calculation. Then I’m sure the additionality is not there at all in such a situation.

13)	 How is the base line defined in this project? Is Base line hypothetically defined with no proper evidences and proper justification? In such case, DOE cannot take the base line as suggested by the PDD.  Please check that there are real emission reductions beyond the real and factual base line. It may so happen that this project qualifies for no CER’s. DOE cannot assume values and things as giving by this PP. Whatever values are considered throughout the project in all documents including the real DPR (not the one prepared for CDM, the one given to the banks and others), they must be validated, verified and double checked. Do not ask PP for DPR. Ask the parties who have been given DPR by the PP. Get directly from the bank and others by each page of the DPR and Feasibility report signed. Such document can be considered as a real DPR or FR. UNFCCC CDM process cannot be degraded by fabricating and misinterpreting the project base line and additionality.  

manager to DoE stating that both DPR’s are same. These kinds of letters should not be accepted and entertained by DoE at face value, but must be checked independently. While collecting the DPR/FR from banks and other agencies, all DPR/FR pages should be counter signed by Banks and other agencies so that the real DPR/FR given to other parties by the PP/Consultant is same as the one submitted to DOE. 
5)	DPR/FR values must be probed fully. DOE must take a written undertaking from the PP/Consultant about the list of parties to whom this DPR/FR is submitted and for what purposes. Then DOE should cross check with all the parties and confirm that the same DPR/FR is submitted to all the parties correctly without any changes. DOE must not accept any reports and undertakings from PP/Consultant. DOE must make independent evaluation and use totally different parties without informing the PP or Consultant to cross check the facts. 
6)	DOE to write to the party who prepared the DPR/FR which is submitted to the banks and other agencies and the same is verified against the one submitted to the DOE by PP/Consultant. 
7)	DOE must not entertain this project any more if found the DPR/FR is tamprered with at any point in time. PP can not give different DPR’s and FR’s. They must submit only the one given to Banks and other agencies while obtaining loans and decision making time. 

8)	Has the PP considered the CDM revenues while envisaging the project? Without CDM the project was not viable, is it right? This project is having a debt component? Then how bankers or lenders gave the loan? Have the bankers or lenders considered the CDM revenues while agreeing to give loan to this projects? If not this project should be rejected right away by DOE by terminating the contract forthwith. If yes, where is the proof? What is the date of the evidence document from bank? Is this document printed now a days or earlier. DOE to independently check the same. If the document is  available from Bank it must be checked from all angles so that it is genuine and not forged and date changed by putting back dated. This is normally done, DOE to be aware of this please. Please check the communication the PP had during that time with banks, emails and postal receipts and the weights and dates mentioned on the receipts. Do not believe in courier bills and receipts since these can be cooked up easily. Insist on government owned postal service receipts only. If the project is fully equity project then on what basis the PP has invested full equity in to the project while considering the CDM revenue? DOE to check the same in detail and bring out the facts. Is there any past record of this PP to invest or not to invest at returns what he is talking about in this project? Proper evidences must be reviewed and digged out by the DOE and take decision on the project based on established facts. Do not ask documents from PP, DOE to collect the same from different sources to do independent evaluation. 

9)	Is the project equipment purchased second hand equipment or sourced from cheap foreign sources? If yes, the issue must be probed by DOE since invoices will invariably be inflated and forged. Total project costs mentioned by PP will not be the same as originals. Hence no additionality. These facts must be probed in full by DOE by checking all documents and money transactions along with bank statements and certified accounts by a legally acceptable financial analyst. 

10)	From DOE side which auditor has done marketing and business development for acquiring this business of validating this project? With whom he or she was co-ordinating at PP or CER buyer? The same person who has done the marketing and business development to acquire the business do validation or participate in any manner what so ever in the validation process? One cannot do like that. It is against the accreditation rules and norms followed since ages. DOE should send auditors from different offices or countries to do this validation audit. DOE must take care of impartiality and accreditation rules. Due to the targets set by the DOE managements auditors are doing marketing and meeting clients and giving promises that the project will be taken care. Is it acceptable and fair? This must be stopped. No auditor should do marketing. Only non-auditing staff should do marketing. DOE to ensure the same please. 


11)	If applicable only: Is these machines, equipment was a part of any bundle of CDM activity envisaged and developed earlier. DOE to check the same through independent sources also. Once some bundles are non-additional and getting negative validation from a DOE, PP is rolling out the same project as an individual project which is not a CDM project at all. DOE to verify the same from independent sources and also take undertaking in the form of an affidavit from the PP’s that any misrepresentation or false statement with respect this would attract strict legal action from UNFCCC and DOE. Furthermore the registered project must be de-registered in case of any future findings contradicting the submissions made by the project owner.  

12)	DOE to be more careful so that this is a genuine CDM project. What is the exact project cost? The project cost is covering what? Each value considered must be validated with proof. The machinery is second hand purchased or fresh and new from an OEM? In either case DOE to check all the quotations, proposals, purchase orders, invoices, way bills, transport bills, proof of payments like bank statements. DOE to check with banks by way of written confirmation the amount transacted, to whom the money is paid, when the money is paid, is the party paid is the correct party as shown in the purchase orders. It may so happen that the values, party names, dates are fabricated and misrepresented in this project. DOE should terminate their contract for this project immediately. This is the only way out to protect the value of CDM process. If the PP is purchasing second hand or second quality equipment and inflating the purchase order values and invoices, this must be probed thoroughly and real values to taken for additionality calculation. Then I’m sure the additionality is not there at all in such a situation.

13)	 How is the base line defined in this project? Is Base line hypothetically defined with no proper evidences and proper justification? In such case, DOE cannot take the base line as suggested by the PDD.  Please check that there are real emission reductions beyond the real and factual base line. It may so happen that this project qualifies for no CER’s. DOE cannot assume values and things as giving by this PP. Whatever values are considered throughout the project in all documents including the real DPR (not the one prepared for CDM, the one given to the banks and others), they must be validated, verified and double checked. Do not ask PP for DPR. Ask the parties who have been given DPR by the PP. Get directly from the bank and others by each page of the DPR and Feasibility report signed. Such document can be considered as a real DPR or FR. UNFCCC CDM process cannot be degraded by fabricating and misinterpreting the project base line and additionality.  

manager to DoE stating that both DPR’s are same. These kinds of letters should not be accepted and entertained by DoE at face value, but must be checked independently. While collecting the DPR/FR from banks and other agencies, all DPR/FR pages should be counter signed by Banks and other agencies so that the real DPR/FR given to other parties by the PP/Consultant is same as the one submitted to DOE. 
5)	DPR/FR values must be probed fully. DOE must take a written undertaking from the PP/Consultant about the list of parties to whom this DPR/FR is submitted and for what purposes. Then DOE should cross check with all the parties and confirm that the same DPR/FR is submitted to all the parties correctly without any changes. DOE must not accept any reports and undertakings from PP/Consultant. DOE must make independent evaluation and use totally different parties without informing the PP or Consultant to cross check the facts. 
6)	DOE to write to the party who prepared the DPR/FR which is submitted to the banks and other agencies and the same is verified against the one submitted to the DOE by PP/Consultant. 
7)	DOE must not entertain this project any more if found the DPR/FR is tamprered with at any point in time. PP can not give different DPR’s and FR’s. They must submit only the one given to Banks and other agencies while obtaining loans and decision making time. 

8)	Has the PP considered the CDM revenues while envisaging the project? Without CDM the project was not viable, is it right? This project is having a debt component? Then how bankers or lenders gave the loan? Have the bankers or lenders considered the CDM revenues while agreeing to give loan to this projects? If not this project should be rejected right away by DOE by terminating the contract forthwith. If yes, where is the proof? What is the date of the evidence document from bank? Is this document printed now a days or earlier. DOE to independently check the same. If the document is  available from Bank it must be checked from all angles so that it is genuine and not forged and date changed by putting back dated. This is normally done, DOE to be aware of this please. Please check the communication the PP had during that time with banks, emails and postal receipts and the weights and dates mentioned on the receipts. Do not believe in courier bills and receipts since these can be cooked up easily. Insist on government owned postal service receipts only. If the project is fully equity project then on what basis the PP has invested full equity in to the project while considering the CDM revenue? DOE to check the same in detail and bring out the facts. Is there any past record of this PP to invest or not to invest at returns what he is talking about in this project? Proper evidences must be reviewed and digged out by the DOE and take decision on the project based on established facts. Do not ask documents from PP, DOE to collect the same from different sources to do independent evaluation. 

9)	Is the project equipment purchased second hand equipment or sourced from cheap foreign sources? If yes, the issue must be probed by DOE since invoices will invariably be inflated and forged. Total project costs mentioned by PP will not be the same as originals. Hence no additionality. These facts must be probed in full by DOE by checking all documents and money transactions along with bank statements and certified accounts by a legally acceptable financial analyst. 

10)	From DOE side which auditor has done marketing and business development for acquiring this business of validating this project? With whom he or she was co-ordinating at PP or CER buyer? The same person who has done the marketing and business development to acquire the business do validation or participate in any manner what so ever in the validation process? One cannot do like that. It is against the accreditation rules and norms followed since ages. DOE should send auditors from different offices or countries to do this validation audit. DOE must take care of impartiality and accreditation rules. Due to the targets set by the DOE managements auditors are doing marketing and meeting clients and giving promises that the project will be taken care. Is it acceptable and fair? This must be stopped. No auditor should do marketing. Only non-auditing staff should do marketing. DOE to ensure the same please. 


11)	If applicable only: Is these machines, equipment was a part of any bundle of CDM activity envisaged and developed earlier. DOE to check the same through independent sources also. Once some bundles are non-additional and getting negative validation from a DOE, PP is rolling out the same project as an individual project which is not a CDM project at all. DOE to verify the same from independent sources and also take undertaking in the form of an affidavit from the PP’s that any misrepresentation or false statement with respect this would attract strict legal action from UNFCCC and DOE. Furthermore the registered project must be de-registered in case of any future findings contradicting the submissions made by the project owner.  

12)	DOE to be more careful so that this is a genuine CDM project. What is the exact project cost? The project cost is covering what? Each value considered must be validated with proof. The machinery is second hand purchased or fresh and new from an OEM? In either case DOE to check all the quotations, proposals, purchase orders, invoices, way bills, transport bills, proof of payments like bank statements. DOE to check with banks by way of written confirmation the amount transacted, to whom the money is paid, when the money is paid, is the party paid is the correct party as shown in the purchase orders. It may so happen that the values, party names, dates are fabricated and misrepresented in this project. DOE should terminate their contract for this project immediately. This is the only way out to protect the value of CDM process. If the PP is purchasing second hand or second quality equipment and inflating the purchase order values and invoices, this must be probed thoroughly and real values to taken for additionality calculation. Then I’m sure the additionality is not there at all in such a situation.

13)	 How is the base line defined in this project? Is Base line hypothetically defined with no proper evidences and proper justification? In such case, DOE cannot take the base line as suggested by the PDD.  Please check that there are real emission reductions beyond the real and factual base line. It may so happen that this project qualifies for no CER’s. DOE cannot assume values and things as giving by this PP. Whatever values are considered throughout the project in all documents including the real DPR (not the one prepared for CDM, the one given to the banks and others), they must be validated, verified and double checked. Do not ask PP for DPR. Ask the parties who have been given DPR by the PP. Get directly from the bank and others by each page of the DPR and Feasibility report signed. Such document can be considered as a real DPR or FR. UNFCCC CDM process cannot be degraded by fabricating and misinterpreting the project base line and additionality.  

manager to DoE stating that both DPR’s are same. These kinds of letters should not be accepted and entertained by DoE at face value, but must be checked independently. While collecting the DPR/FR from banks and other agencies, all DPR/FR pages should be counter signed by Banks and other agencies so that the real DPR/FR given to other parties by the PP/Consultant is same as the one submitted to DOE. 
5)	DPR/FR values must be probed fully. DOE must take a written undertaking from the PP/Consultant about the list of parties to whom this DPR/FR is submitted and for what purposes. Then DOE should cross check with all the parties and confirm that the same DPR/FR is submitted to all the parties correctly without any changes. DOE must not accept any reports and undertakings from PP/Consultant. DOE must make independent evaluation and use totally different parties without informing the PP or Consultant to cross check the facts. 
6)	DOE to write to the party who prepared the DPR/FR which is submitted to the banks and other agencies and the same is verified against the one submitted to the DOE by PP/Consultant. 
7)	DOE must not entertain this project any more if found the DPR/FR is tamprered with at any point in time. PP can not give different DPR’s and FR’s. They must submit only the one given to Banks and other agencies while obtaining loans and decision making time. 

8)	Has the PP considered the CDM revenues while envisaging the project? Without CDM the project was not viable, is it right? This project is having a debt component? Then how bankers or lenders gave the loan? Have the bankers or lenders considered the CDM revenues while agreeing to give loan to this projects? If not this project should be rejected right away by DOE by terminating the contract forthwith. If yes, where is the proof? What is the date of the evidence document from bank? Is this document printed now a days or earlier. DOE to independently check the same. If the document is  available from Bank it must be checked from all angles so that it is genuine and not forged and date changed by putting back dated. This is normally done, DOE to be aware of this please. Please check the communication the PP had during that time with banks, emails and postal receipts and the weights and dates mentioned on the receipts. Do not believe in courier bills and receipts since these can be cooked up easily. Insist on government owned postal service receipts only. If the project is fully equity project then on what basis the PP has invested full equity in to the project while considering the CDM revenue? DOE to check the same in detail and bring out the facts. Is there any past record of this PP to invest or not to invest at returns what he is talking about in this project? Proper evidences must be reviewed and digged out by the DOE and take decision on the project based on established facts. Do not ask documents from PP, DOE to collect the same from different sources to do independent evaluation. 

9)	Is the project equipment purchased second hand equipment or sourced from cheap foreign sources? If yes, the issue must be probed by DOE since invoices will invariably be inflated and forged. Total project costs mentioned by PP will not be the same as originals. Hence no additionality. These facts must be probed in full by DOE by checking all documents and money transactions along with bank statements and certified accounts by a legally acceptable financial analyst. 

10)	From DOE side which auditor has done marketing and business development for acquiring this business of validating this project? With whom he or she was co-ordinating at PP or CER buyer? The same person who has done the marketing and business development to acquire the business do validation or participate in any manner what so ever in the validation process? One cannot do like that. It is against the accreditation rules and norms followed since ages. DOE should send auditors from different offices or countries to do this validation audit. DOE must take care of impartiality and accreditation rules. Due to the targets set by the DOE managements auditors are doing marketing and meeting clients and giving promises that the project will be taken care. Is it acceptable and fair? This must be stopped. No auditor should do marketing. Only non-auditing staff should do marketing. DOE to ensure the same please. 


11)	If applicable only: Is these machines, equipment was a part of any bundle of CDM activity envisaged and developed earlier. DOE to check the same through independent sources also. Once some bundles are non-additional and getting negative validation from a DOE, PP is rolling out the same project as an individual project which is not a CDM project at all. DOE to verify the same from independent sources and also take undertaking in the form of an affidavit from the PP’s that any misrepresentation or false statement with respect this would attract strict legal action from UNFCCC and DOE. Furthermore the registered project must be de-registered in case of any future findings contradicting the submissions made by the project owner.  

12)	DOE to be more careful so that this is a genuine CDM project. What is the exact project cost? The project cost is covering what? Each value considered must be validated with proof. The machinery is second hand purchased or fresh and new from an OEM? In either case DOE to check all the quotations, proposals, purchase orders, invoices, way bills, transport bills, proof of payments like bank statements. DOE to check with banks by way of written confirmation the amount transacted, to whom the money is paid, when the money is paid, is the party paid is the correct party as shown in the purchase orders. It may so happen that the values, party names, dates are fabricated and misrepresented in this project. DOE should terminate their contract for this project immediately. This is the only way out to protect the value of CDM process. If the PP is purchasing second hand or second quality equipment and inflating the purchase order values and invoices, this must be probed thoroughly and real values to taken for additionality calculation. Then I’m sure the additionality is not there at all in such a situation.

13)	 How is the base line defined in this project? Is Base line hypothetically defined with no proper evidences and proper justification? In such case, DOE cannot take the base line as suggested by the PDD.  Please check that there are real emission reductions beyond the real and factual base line. It may so happen that this project qualifies for no CER’s. DOE cannot assume values and things as giving by this PP. Whatever values are considered throughout the project in all documents including the real DPR (not the one prepared for CDM, the one given to the banks and others), they must be validated, verified and double checked. Do not ask PP for DPR. Ask the parties who have been given DPR by the PP. Get directly from the bank and others by each page of the DPR and Feasibility report signed. Such document can be considered as a real DPR or FR. UNFCCC CDM process cannot be degraded by fabricating and misinterpreting the project base line and additionality.  

The Proposed project activity with a start date before 2 August 2008, for which the start date is prior to the date of publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation, are required to demonstrate that the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to implement the project activity. If your project does not comes under this category please ignore the relevant comments as given below:
1)	It looks like from the PDD the start date of the project is tampered. This must be verified and let the truth come out. The culprits of forgery and malpractices must be brought to book if it happened. If found the dates are tampered, the DOE must terminate this project immediately. DOE to check the offer letters originals and get the same verified in writing from the OEM’s and submitted parties. Where is the OEM supplier agreement original? DOE to check for the same. Is it prepared later with date and amounts changed to suit the project workings? If yes, this is not acceptable. DOE to check all purchase orders originals with the receiver of purchase orders i.e. the supplier of equipment. This PO confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. 
2)	Same analysis and due diligence work to be repeated for “Notice to Proceed” as written in the case of Purchase order as above. DOE to check all “Notice to Proceed” originals with the receiver of “Notice to Proceed” i.e. the supplier of equipment or Engineering Procurement & Construction Contractor. This “Notice to proceed” and EPC contract confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier and EPC contractor to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. DOE to check OEM supplier agreements, EPC contractor agreements, “Notice to proceed” letters, and Invoices raised. I’m sure DOE will unearth the real story of what happened in this project. All the parties involved in this matter must be brought to justice if found guilty. DOE cannot afford to simply keep validating these kind of old projects just like that. 
3)	Is PP showing ERPA as a part of real and continuous action? If yes, How come the PP is showing an ERPA and telling that there is real and continuous action? In what way PP can prove that the ERPA what is mentioned is genuine? This ERPA is dated what? Are there any emails exchanged during those ERPA signing days between PP and CER Buyer? Let PP show the real evidence that this particular ERPA was really signed on that date by showing the exchange of emails during those days. Any government owned postal receipt copies to prove the transmission of documents?  Any way EPRA has no meaning even if they prove that ERPA was signed those days. ERPA is not a concluding evidence to show real and continuous action. Why the party has not signed any validation agreement with a DOE? Do they have a signed CDM validation agreement with any DOE? If yes, have they paid money to DOE so that we can conclusively prove that PP has considered CDM and serious real and continuous action was there. If the PP has not paid to the DOE the advance amount towards CDM validation, then we can conclusively say that no real and continuous action in this project at all. In such case, this project does not merit any further validation, DOE must tell the PP to with draw the project from CDM. Alternatively DOE should issue a negative validation report and protect their reputation and future. When did PP apply for host country approval? Why delay? DOE to probe fully. Is it a case where PP has never considered CDM revenue to establish the project? Is it case, where one consultant must have given this fraud idea of applying for CDM revenues when the PP has almost forgot the project activity itself since it is a done project without envisaging any CDM revenues? DOE must be careful in taking up this kind of projects. What due diligence and checks the DOE has done prior to accepting this job? 

The Proposed project activity with a start date before 2 August 2008, for which the start date is prior to the date of publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation, are required to demonstrate that the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to implement the project activity. If your project does not comes under this category please ignore the relevant comments as given below:
1)	It looks like from the PDD the start date of the project is tampered. This must be verified and let the truth come out. The culprits of forgery and malpractices must be brought to book if it happened. If found the dates are tampered, the DOE must terminate this project immediately. DOE to check the offer letters originals and get the same verified in writing from the OEM’s and submitted parties. Where is the OEM supplier agreement original? DOE to check for the same. Is it prepared later with date and amounts changed to suit the project workings? If yes, this is not acceptable. DOE to check all purchase orders originals with the receiver of purchase orders i.e. the supplier of equipment. This PO confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. 
2)	Same analysis and due diligence work to be repeated for “Notice to Proceed” as written in the case of Purchase order as above. DOE to check all “Notice to Proceed” originals with the receiver of “Notice to Proceed” i.e. the supplier of equipment or Engineering Procurement & Construction Contractor. This “Notice to proceed” and EPC contract confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier and EPC contractor to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. DOE to check OEM supplier agreements, EPC contractor agreements, “Notice to proceed” letters, and Invoices raised. I’m sure DOE will unearth the real story of what happened in this project. All the parties involved in this matter must be brought to justice if found guilty. DOE cannot afford to simply keep validating these kind of old projects just like that. 
3)	Is PP showing ERPA as a part of real and continuous action? If yes, How come the PP is showing an ERPA and telling that there is real and continuous action? In what way PP can prove that the ERPA what is mentioned is genuine? This ERPA is dated what? Are there any emails exchanged during those ERPA signing days between PP and CER Buyer? Let PP show the real evidence that this particular ERPA was really signed on that date by showing the exchange of emails during those days. Any government owned postal receipt copies to prove the transmission of documents?  Any way EPRA has no meaning even if they prove that ERPA was signed those days. ERPA is not a concluding evidence to show real and continuous action. Why the party has not signed any validation agreement with a DOE? Do they have a signed CDM validation agreement with any DOE? If yes, have they paid money to DOE so that we can conclusively prove that PP has considered CDM and serious real and continuous action was there. If the PP has not paid to the DOE the advance amount towards CDM validation, then we can conclusively say that no real and continuous action in this project at all. In such case, this project does not merit any further validation, DOE must tell the PP to with draw the project from CDM. Alternatively DOE should issue a negative validation report and protect their reputation and future. When did PP apply for host country approval? Why delay? DOE to probe fully. Is it a case where PP has never considered CDM revenue to establish the project? Is it case, where one consultant must have given this fraud idea of applying for CDM revenues when the PP has almost forgot the project activity itself since it is a done project without envisaging any CDM revenues? DOE must be careful in taking up this kind of projects. What due diligence and checks the DOE has done prior to accepting this job? 

The Proposed project activity with a start date before 2 August 2008, for which the start date is prior to the date of publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation, are required to demonstrate that the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to implement the project activity. If your project does not comes under this category please ignore the relevant comments as given below:
1)	It looks like from the PDD the start date of the project is tampered. This must be verified and let the truth come out. The culprits of forgery and malpractices must be brought to book if it happened. If found the dates are tampered, the DOE must terminate this project immediately. DOE to check the offer letters originals and get the same verified in writing from the OEM’s and submitted parties. Where is the OEM supplier agreement original? DOE to check for the same. Is it prepared later with date and amounts changed to suit the project workings? If yes, this is not acceptable. DOE to check all purchase orders originals with the receiver of purchase orders i.e. the supplier of equipment. This PO confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. 
2)	Same analysis and due diligence work to be repeated for “Notice to Proceed” as written in the case of Purchase order as above. DOE to check all “Notice to Proceed” originals with the receiver of “Notice to Proceed” i.e. the supplier of equipment or Engineering Procurement & Construction Contractor. This “Notice to proceed” and EPC contract confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier and EPC contractor to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. DOE to check OEM supplier agreements, EPC contractor agreements, “Notice to proceed” letters, and Invoices raised. I’m sure DOE will unearth the real story of what happened in this project. All the parties involved in this matter must be brought to justice if found guilty. DOE cannot afford to simply keep validating these kind of old projects just like that. 
3)	Is PP showing ERPA as a part of real and continuous action? If yes, How come the PP is showing an ERPA and telling that there is real and continuous action? In what way PP can prove that the ERPA what is mentioned is genuine? This ERPA is dated what? Are there any emails exchanged during those ERPA signing days between PP and CER Buyer? Let PP show the real evidence that this particular ERPA was really signed on that date by showing the exchange of emails during those days. Any government owned postal receipt copies to prove the transmission of documents?  Any way EPRA has no meaning even if they prove that ERPA was signed those days. ERPA is not a concluding evidence to show real and continuous action. Why the party has not signed any validation agreement with a DOE? Do they have a signed CDM validation agreement with any DOE? If yes, have they paid money to DOE so that we can conclusively prove that PP has considered CDM and serious real and continuous action was there. If the PP has not paid to the DOE the advance amount towards CDM validation, then we can conclusively say that no real and continuous action in this project at all. In such case, this project does not merit any further validation, DOE must tell the PP to with draw the project from CDM. Alternatively DOE should issue a negative validation report and protect their reputation and future. When did PP apply for host country approval? Why delay? DOE to probe fully. Is it a case where PP has never considered CDM revenue to establish the project? Is it case, where one consultant must have given this fraud idea of applying for CDM revenues when the PP has almost forgot the project activity itself since it is a done project without envisaging any CDM revenues? DOE must be careful in taking up this kind of projects. What due diligence and checks the DOE has done prior to accepting this job? 

The Proposed project activity with a start date before 2 August 2008, for which the start date is prior to the date of publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation, are required to demonstrate that the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to implement the project activity. If your project does not comes under this category please ignore the relevant comments as given below:
1)	It looks like from the PDD the start date of the project is tampered. This must be verified and let the truth come out. The culprits of forgery and malpractices must be brought to book if it happened. If found the dates are tampered, the DOE must terminate this project immediately. DOE to check the offer letters originals and get the same verified in writing from the OEM’s and submitted parties. Where is the OEM supplier agreement original? DOE to check for the same. Is it prepared later with date and amounts changed to suit the project workings? If yes, this is not acceptable. DOE to check all purchase orders originals with the receiver of purchase orders i.e. the supplier of equipment. This PO confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. 
2)	Same analysis and due diligence work to be repeated for “Notice to Proceed” as written in the case of Purchase order as above. DOE to check all “Notice to Proceed” originals with the receiver of “Notice to Proceed” i.e. the supplier of equipment or Engineering Procurement & Construction Contractor. This “Notice to proceed” and EPC contract confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier and EPC contractor to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. DOE to check OEM supplier agreements, EPC contractor agreements, “Notice to proceed” letters, and Invoices raised. I’m sure DOE will unearth the real story of what happened in this project. All the parties involved in this matter must be brought to justice if found guilty. DOE cannot afford to simply keep validating these kind of old projects just like that. 
3)	Is PP showing ERPA as a part of real and continuous action? If yes, How come the PP is showing an ERPA and telling that there is real and continuous action? In what way PP can prove that the ERPA what is mentioned is genuine? This ERPA is dated what? Are there any emails exchanged during those ERPA signing days between PP and CER Buyer? Let PP show the real evidence that this particular ERPA was really signed on that date by showing the exchange of emails during those days. Any government owned postal receipt copies to prove the transmission of documents?  Any way EPRA has no meaning even if they prove that ERPA was signed those days. ERPA is not a concluding evidence to show real and continuous action. Why the party has not signed any validation agreement with a DOE? Do they have a signed CDM validation agreement with any DOE? If yes, have they paid money to DOE so that we can conclusively prove that PP has considered CDM and serious real and continuous action was there. If the PP has not paid to the DOE the advance amount towards CDM validation, then we can conclusively say that no real and continuous action in this project at all. In such case, this project does not merit any further validation, DOE must tell the PP to with draw the project from CDM. Alternatively DOE should issue a negative validation report and protect their reputation and future. When did PP apply for host country approval? Why delay? DOE to probe fully. Is it a case where PP has never considered CDM revenue to establish the project? Is it case, where one consultant must have given this fraud idea of applying for CDM revenues when the PP has almost forgot the project activity itself since it is a done project without envisaging any CDM revenues? DOE must be careful in taking up this kind of projects. What due diligence and checks the DOE has done prior to accepting this job? 

The Proposed project activity with a start date before 2 August 2008, for which the start date is prior to the date of publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation, are required to demonstrate that the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to implement the project activity. If your project does not comes under this category please ignore the relevant comments as given below:
1)	It looks like from the PDD the start date of the project is tampered. This must be verified and let the truth come out. The culprits of forgery and malpractices must be brought to book if it happened. If found the dates are tampered, the DOE must terminate this project immediately. DOE to check the offer letters originals and get the same verified in writing from the OEM’s and submitted parties. Where is the OEM supplier agreement original? DOE to check for the same. Is it prepared later with date and amounts changed to suit the project workings? If yes, this is not acceptable. DOE to check all purchase orders originals with the receiver of purchase orders i.e. the supplier of equipment. This PO confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. 
2)	Same analysis and due diligence work to be repeated for “Notice to Proceed” as written in the case of Purchase order as above. DOE to check all “Notice to Proceed” originals with the receiver of “Notice to Proceed” i.e. the supplier of equipment or Engineering Procurement & Construction Contractor. This “Notice to proceed” and EPC contract confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier and EPC contractor to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. DOE to check OEM supplier agreements, EPC contractor agreements, “Notice to proceed” letters, and Invoices raised. I’m sure DOE will unearth the real story of what happened in this project. All the parties involved in this matter must be brought to justice if found guilty. DOE cannot afford to simply keep validating these kind of old projects just like that. 
3)	Is PP showing ERPA as a part of real and continuous action? If yes, How come the PP is showing an ERPA and telling that there is real and continuous action? In what way PP can prove that the ERPA what is mentioned is genuine? This ERPA is dated what? Are there any emails exchanged during those ERPA signing days between PP and CER Buyer? Let PP show the real evidence that this particular ERPA was really signed on that date by showing the exchange of emails during those days. Any government owned postal receipt copies to prove the transmission of documents?  Any way EPRA has no meaning even if they prove that ERPA was signed those days. ERPA is not a concluding evidence to show real and continuous action. Why the party has not signed any validation agreement with a DOE? Do they have a signed CDM validation agreement with any DOE? If yes, have they paid money to DOE so that we can conclusively prove that PP has considered CDM and serious real and continuous action was there. If the PP has not paid to the DOE the advance amount towards CDM validation, then we can conclusively say that no real and continuous action in this project at all. In such case, this project does not merit any further validation, DOE must tell the PP to with draw the project from CDM. Alternatively DOE should issue a negative validation report and protect their reputation and future. When did PP apply for host country approval? Why delay? DOE to probe fully. Is it a case where PP has never considered CDM revenue to establish the project? Is it case, where one consultant must have given this fraud idea of applying for CDM revenues when the PP has almost forgot the project activity itself since it is a done project without envisaging any CDM revenues? DOE must be careful in taking up this kind of projects. What due diligence and checks the DOE has done prior to accepting this job? 

1)	Purpose of the project and how the proposed project activity reduces greenhouse gas emissions are not briefed in the PDD. Refer section A.2.
2)	How environmentally safe and sound technology is used for the project and details of technology transfer is not demonstrated adequately. Refer A.4.2
3)	Non- debundling nature of the project activity is not adequately justified as per EB54 Annex 13 (Debundling tool). Refer A.4.5.
4)	Please check the project boundary of the project activity is not based on the guidance of the applicable project category.
5)	Why has option A (Combined margin) been chosen for calculating emission factor is not justified. Refer B.6
6)	The justification of choosing IRR as financial indicator is not adequately justified. Whether it is equity or project IRR, pre-tax or post tax is not mentioned in the PDD. 
7)	The emission factor for the project electricity system can be calculated either for grid power plants only or, as an option, can include off-grid power plants.
8)	Basis of choosing PLR as benchmark is not adequately demonstrated in the PDD 
9)	All the issues of investment analysis guidelines are not discussed in the PDD. Refer B.5. 
10)	Justification of parameters including O&M, insurance, loan, derating, escalation, and tariff are not demonstrated with justification. Refer B.5.
11)	Please provide a proof for proposed debt to equity taken at the investment decision. Refer B.5 
12)	Proof for PLF is not justified. 
13)	Date of offer is not provided  
14)	Project cost is not as per state norms. Refer B.5.
15)	O&M charges and its escalation is not as per  norms 
16)	IT rate assumed is not as per standard practice. 
17)	The application of MAT which is based on tax holiday while calculating WACC is not appropriate. 
18)	The PP has not explained and justified the key assumptions and rationale.
19)	The PP and consultant has not Illustrate in a transparent manner all data used to determine the baseline emissions.
20)	Not demonstrated that the proposed project activity is additional as per options provided under attachment A to Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities.
21)	National policies and circumstances relevant to the baseline of the proposed project activity are not being summarized clarify.
22)	Explain and justify all relevant methodological choices for the proposed project activity
23)	Data that is calculated with equations provided in the approved category or default values specified in the category should not be included in the compilation.
24)	CER revenue assumed is not consistently applied 
25)	Project cost is not as per  norms, DOE has to check and clarify.
26)	The project cost of the project should be based on offer and not on purchase order or tariff order.
27)	O&M charges considered are on higher side. Pls. clarify. 
28)	Benchmark calculation is not as per WACC tool (EB53 Annex 8)
29)	Whether pre-tax or post tax IRR is selected is not demonstrated in the PDD.
30)	The basis of calculation of benchmark is not documented in the section B.5. PLR is not acceptable benchmark for the project. WACC based on Government bonds, risk premiums should be taken.
31)	Prior consideration of CDM which is important for the determination of additionality is not documented in the section B.5 of the PDD.  
32)	Date of PPA is not mentioned in the prior consideration of CDM 
33)	The selection of simple OM based on low cost/must run resources is not adequately justified. Refer B.6.1
34)	PP has not provided for each parameter the chosen value or, where relevant, the qualitative information.
35)	Please Provide the actual value applied. Where time series of data is used, where several measurements are undertaken or where surveys have been conducted, provide detailed information.
36)	Explain and justify the choice for the source of data.
37)	Ex-ante option of calculating OM is not adequately demonstrated. Step 3 of Refer B.6.1
38)	Power plants registered as CDM project activities should be included in the sample group that is used to calculate the operating margin if the criteria for including the power source in the sample group apply. This argument is not demonstrated. B.6.1
39)	The selection of option (out of two) for calculating OM is not adequately documented with justification. CEA calculation is based on net electricity generation, the average efficiency of each power unit and the fuel types used in each power unit. Step 4 of B.6.1
40)	The argument that CEA data for build margin is calculated as per Emission factor tool is not documented.  B.6.1
41)	Spread sheet is not provided. The data should be presented in a manner that enables reproducing of the calculation of OM, BM, and CM. 
42)	The justification of negligible project emissions for wind project is not as per AMS. I. D ver 16.0 EB 54). 
43)	The emission factor value (Southern grid) for calculating baseline emission is wrong. Refer B.6.3
44)	Net electricity should be continuously monitored, hourly measured and at least monthly recorded. Refer B.7.1
45)	Metering regulations as per CEA norms is not adequately followed in monitoring plan. Refer B.7.2.
46)	 Where the values have been measured, include a description of the measurement methods and procedures that comply with the guidance provided under general guidance.
47)	Provide a detailed description of the monitoring plan, including an identification of the data to be monitored and the procedures that will be applied during monitoring.
48)	The PP should include sources of data that will be actually used for the proposed project activity (e.g. which exact national statistics, actual measurement etc. ).
49)	Where the parameters are to be measured in accordance with the guidance of the approved project category or the general guidance to the indicative methodologies, specify the measurement methods and procedures including accepted industry standards or national or international standards which will be applied, which measurement equipment is used, how the measurement is undertaken.
50)	Which calibration procedures are applied, what is the accuracy of the measurement method, who is the responsible person / entity that should undertake the measurements and what is the measurement interval?
51)	Please provide a detailed description of the monitoring plan. Describe the operational and management structure that the project operator will implement in order to monitor emission reductions.
52)	Clearly indicate the responsibilities for and institutional arrangements for data collection and archiving.
53)	The monitoring plan should reflect good monitoring practice appropriate to the type of project activity. Provide any relevant further background information.
54)	Please describe the process by which comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled. An invitation for comments by local stakeholders shall be made in an open and transparent manner, in a way that facilities comments to be received from local stakeholders and allows for a reasonable time for comments to be submitted.
55)	Project participants shall describe a project activity in a manner which allows the local stakeholders to understand the project activity.

1)	Purpose of the project and how the proposed project activity reduces greenhouse gas emissions are not briefed in the PDD. Refer section A.2.
2)	How environmentally safe and sound technology is used for the project and details of technology transfer is not demonstrated adequately. Refer A.4.2
3)	Non- debundling nature of the project activity is not adequately justified as per EB54 Annex 13 (Debundling tool). Refer A.4.5.
4)	Please check the project boundary of the project activity is not based on the guidance of the applicable project category.
5)	Why has option A (Combined margin) been chosen for calculating emission factor is not justified. Refer B.6
6)	The justification of choosing IRR as financial indicator is not adequately justified. Whether it is equity or project IRR, pre-tax or post tax is not mentioned in the PDD. 
7)	The emission factor for the project electricity system can be calculated either for grid power plants only or, as an option, can include off-grid power plants.
8)	Basis of choosing PLR as benchmark is not adequately demonstrated in the PDD 
9)	All the issues of investment analysis guidelines are not discussed in the PDD. Refer B.5. 
10)	Justification of parameters including O&M, insurance, loan, derating, escalation, and tariff are not demonstrated with justification. Refer B.5.
11)	Please provide a proof for proposed debt to equity taken at the investment decision. Refer B.5 
12)	Proof for PLF is not justified. 
13)	Date of offer is not provided  
14)	Project cost is not as per state norms. Refer B.5.
15)	O&M charges and its escalation is not as per  norms 
16)	IT rate assumed is not as per standard practice. 
17)	The application of MAT which is based on tax holiday while calculating WACC is not appropriate. 
18)	The PP has not explained and justified the key assumptions and rationale.
19)	The PP and consultant has not Illustrate in a transparent manner all data used to determine the baseline emissions.
20)	Not demonstrated that the proposed project activity is additional as per options provided under attachment A to Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities.
21)	National policies and circumstances relevant to the baseline of the proposed project activity are not being summarized clarify.
22)	Explain and justify all relevant methodological choices for the proposed project activity
23)	Data that is calculated with equations provided in the approved category or default values specified in the category should not be included in the compilation.
24)	CER revenue assumed is not consistently applied 
25)	Project cost is not as per  norms, DOE has to check and clarify.
26)	The project cost of the project should be based on offer and not on purchase order or tariff order.
27)	O&M charges considered are on higher side. Pls. clarify. 
28)	Benchmark calculation is not as per WACC tool (EB53 Annex 8)
29)	Whether pre-tax or post tax IRR is selected is not demonstrated in the PDD.
30)	The basis of calculation of benchmark is not documented in the section B.5. PLR is not acceptable benchmark for the project. WACC based on Government bonds, risk premiums should be taken.
31)	Prior consideration of CDM which is important for the determination of additionality is not documented in the section B.5 of the PDD.  
32)	Date of PPA is not mentioned in the prior consideration of CDM 
33)	The selection of simple OM based on low cost/must run resources is not adequately justified. Refer B.6.1
34)	PP has not provided for each parameter the chosen value or, where relevant, the qualitative information.
35)	Please Provide the actual value applied. Where time series of data is used, where several measurements are undertaken or where surveys have been conducted, provide detailed information.
36)	Explain and justify the choice for the source of data.
37)	Ex-ante option of calculating OM is not adequately demonstrated. Step 3 of Refer B.6.1
38)	Power plants registered as CDM project activities should be included in the sample group that is used to calculate the operating margin if the criteria for including the power source in the sample group apply. This argument is not demonstrated. B.6.1
39)	The selection of option (out of two) for calculating OM is not adequately documented with justification. CEA calculation is based on net electricity generation, the average efficiency of each power unit and the fuel types used in each power unit. Step 4 of B.6.1
40)	The argument that CEA data for build margin is calculated as per Emission factor tool is not documented.  B.6.1
41)	Spread sheet is not provided. The data should be presented in a manner that enables reproducing of the calculation of OM, BM, and CM. 
42)	The justification of negligible project emissions for wind project is not as per AMS. I. D ver 16.0 EB 54). 
43)	The emission factor value (Southern grid) for calculating baseline emission is wrong. Refer B.6.3
44)	Net electricity should be continuously monitored, hourly measured and at least monthly recorded. Refer B.7.1
45)	Metering regulations as per CEA norms is not adequately followed in monitoring plan. Refer B.7.2.
46)	 Where the values have been measured, include a description of the measurement methods and procedures that comply with the guidance provided under general guidance.
47)	Provide a detailed description of the monitoring plan, including an identification of the data to be monitored and the procedures that will be applied during monitoring.
48)	The PP should include sources of data that will be actually used for the proposed project activity (e.g. which exact national statistics, actual measurement etc. ).
49)	Where the parameters are to be measured in accordance with the guidance of the approved project category or the general guidance to the indicative methodologies, specify the measurement methods and procedures including accepted industry standards or national or international standards which will be applied, which measurement equipment is used, how the measurement is undertaken.
50)	Which calibration procedures are applied, what is the accuracy of the measurement method, who is the responsible person / entity that should undertake the measurements and what is the measurement interval?
51)	Please provide a detailed description of the monitoring plan. Describe the operational and management structure that the project operator will implement in order to monitor emission reductions.
52)	Clearly indicate the responsibilities for and institutional arrangements for data collection and archiving.
53)	The monitoring plan should reflect good monitoring practice appropriate to the type of project activity. Provide any relevant further background information.
54)	Please describe the process by which comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled. An invitation for comments by local stakeholders shall be made in an open and transparent manner, in a way that facilities comments to be received from local stakeholders and allows for a reasonable time for comments to be submitted.
55)	Project participants shall describe a project activity in a manner which allows the local stakeholders to understand the project activity.

This PDD presents a unique case. PDD states in several places the data has been given to DOE during site visit or the investment analysis sheet containing assumptions and evidences has been submitted to DOE for Validation. PDD does not contain even a single input parameter and assumption based on which financial indicator has been calculated. It is not known how the DOE accepted the proposal for web hosting.
 
The natural conclusion for this is that the project is not additional. The PP/Consultant has tried their level best to contain the IRR on the one hand and increase the benchmark on the other. Though no input parameters have been given, one example (which the PP/Consultant could not hide) will highlight that the input parameters used in the financial analysis are not dependable. 

PLF has been considered at 23.45%. How much the PLF has been understated to make the project additional will become clear if the projects already registered (all located in Coimbatore district) is looked into. Let the DOE look at registered projects 4484, 3642, 4081 and also another project webhosted by the very same DOE - 6 MW wind power project of Asian Star Company Limited at Tamil Nadu, India.  If this is any indication, then all the input parameters and assumptions must have been used to make the project additional with the help of DOE. Otherwise there is no reason as to why the PP/Consultant should hide the information and DOE web host the project despite knowing the PDD does not conform to the requirements. 

Coming to the benchmark, the computation is a bundle of inappropriate and incorrect figures done without understanding the concept with sole objective of arriving at as higher a benchmark as possible so that the project becomes additional. For example

-	PP/Consultant uses interest rates on government securities as risk free return. Is the PP/consultant aware that in India government securities cannot be purchased at par in the primary market or in secondary market? 
-	The PDD states that the weighted average interest rate on Central Government date Securities i.e. bond rate during year 2006-07 is 8.12%.   This rate pertains to 2007-08. If the investment decision was taken in January 2008 and March 2008, will the PP get the weighted average interest rate for 2007-08 at the time of decision making? Does the PP/Consultant know when the data gets published?
-	The market return based on Sensex is stated as 19.63%. it does not state for what duration. There are so many indices and PDD does not state why Sensex has been selected out of them?
-	Equity beta has been considered. VVM specifically states that only project related risk should be taken into account, whereas the beta considered incorporates both leverage and project risk. 
-	Beta is 1.33. In India, beta for power projects is not even 1. This has been arrived at by choosing incorrect duration and exclusion of some companies or inclusion of inappropriate companies. That appears to be the reason why the PDD does not disclose the companies or the duration considered
-	Post cost of debt is taken at 11.084% and pre cost at 12.5%. How can the MAT be taken into consideration for calculating post tax cost (and that too incorrect rate), when the main objective of setting up this project is to save tax? 

No wonder, with so many inaccuracies, the return on equity works out to 23.84%. Is the PP/Consultant aware of the RoE recommended by TNERC and EB in its 61st meeting? This return is very high compared to TNERC recommended Return and EB recommended return in its 61st meeting. Conveniently, PP/Consultant states that the data has been given to DOE during site visit or at the time of validation. There is no reason as to why it should not be made available to global stakeholders unless the PP/consultant is aware of the incorrectness.

Of the bundle, one project envisages using the generated power for captive consumption. The PDD uses the approved methodology AMS ID ver.16 for all projects. How can AMS I-D be used for all projects? 

This project is entitled to 100% depreciation – 80% regular rate and 20% additional depreciation in the first year; this will result in tax saving which should be accounted for in the cash inflow in the year in which it occurs; since the start date of the project is May 2008, it should have commenced generation before September 30, 2008 and hence the first year operation of 6 months should be accounted for; it is eligible for tax holiday. It is doubtful, whether the project has taken into consideration all these factors while computing the financial indicator. 

This PDD should be re-webhosted with all input parameters and assumptions before taken up for validation.  EB may kindly ensure that it is not accepted for registration if submitted without re-webhosting with all input parameters and assumptions.

1)	Purpose of the project and how the proposed project activity reduces greenhouse gas emissions are not briefed in the PDD. Refer section A.2.
2)	How environmentally safe and sound technology is used for the project and details of technology transfer is not demonstrated adequately. Refer A.4.2
3)	Non- debundling nature of the project activity is not adequately justified as per EB54 Annex 13 (Debundling tool). Refer A.4.5.
4)	Please check the project boundary of the project activity is not based on the guidance of the applicable project category.
5)	Why has option A (Combined margin) been chosen for calculating emission factor is not justified. Refer B.6
6)	The justification of choosing IRR as financial indicator is not adequately justified. Whether it is equity or project IRR, pre-tax or post tax is not mentioned in the PDD. 
7)	The emission factor for the project electricity system can be calculated either for grid power plants only or, as an option, can include off-grid power plants.
8)	Basis of choosing PLR as benchmark is not adequately demonstrated in the PDD 
9)	All the issues of investment analysis guidelines are not discussed in the PDD. Refer B.5. 
10)	Justification of parameters including O&M, insurance, loan, derating, escalation, and tariff are not demonstrated with justification. Refer B.5.
11)	Please provide a proof for proposed debt to equity taken at the investment decision. Refer B.5 
12)	Proof for PLF is not justified. 
13)	Date of offer is not provided  
14)	Project cost is not as per state norms. Refer B.5.
15)	O&M charges and its escalation is not as per  norms 
16)	IT rate assumed is not as per standard practice. 
17)	The application of MAT which is based on tax holiday while calculating WACC is not appropriate. 
18)	The PP has not explained and justified the key assumptions and rationale.
19)	The PP and consultant has not Illustrate in a transparent manner all data used to determine the baseline emissions.
20)	Not demonstrated that the proposed project activity is additional as per options provided under attachment A to Appendix B of the simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities.
21)	National policies and circumstances relevant to the baseline of the proposed project activity are not being summarized clarify.
22)	Explain and justify all relevant methodological choices for the proposed project activity
23)	Data that is calculated with equations provided in the approved category or default values specified in the category should not be included in the compilation.
24)	CER revenue assumed is not consistently applied 
25)	Project cost is not as per  norms, DOE has to check and clarify.
26)	The project cost of the project should be based on offer and not on purchase order or tariff order.
27)	O&M charges considered are on higher side. Pls. clarify. 
28)	Benchmark calculation is not as per WACC tool (EB53 Annex 8)
29)	Whether pre-tax or post tax IRR is selected is not demonstrated in the PDD.
30)	The basis of calculation of benchmark is not documented in the section B.5. PLR is not acceptable benchmark for the project. WACC based on Government bonds, risk premiums should be taken.
31)	Prior consideration of CDM which is important for the determination of additionality is not documented in the section B.5 of the PDD.  
32)	Date of PPA is not mentioned in the prior consideration of CDM 
33)	The selection of simple OM based on low cost/must run resources is not adequately justified. Refer B.6.1
34)	PP has not provided for each parameter the chosen value or, where relevant, the qualitative information.
35)	Please Provide the actual value applied. Where time series of data is used, where several measurements are undertaken or where surveys have been conducted, provide detailed information.
36)	Explain and justify the choice for the source of data.
37)	Ex-ante option of calculating OM is not adequately demonstrated. Step 3 of Refer B.6.1
38)	Power plants registered as CDM project activities should be included in the sample group that is used to calculate the operating margin if the criteria for including the power source in the sample group apply. This argument is not demonstrated. B.6.1
39)	The selection of option (out of two) for calculating OM is not adequately documented with justification. CEA calculation is based on net electricity generation, the average efficiency of each power unit and the fuel types used in each power unit. Step 4 of B.6.1
40)	The argument that CEA data for build margin is calculated as per Emission factor tool is not documented.  B.6.1
41)	Spread sheet is not provided. The data should be presented in a manner that enables reproducing of the calculation of OM, BM, and CM. 
42)	The justification of negligible project emissions for wind project is not as per AMS. I. D ver 16.0 EB 54). 
43)	The emission factor value (Southern grid) for calculating baseline emission is wrong. Refer B.6.3
44)	Net electricity should be continuously monitored, hourly measured and at least monthly recorded. Refer B.7.1
45)	Metering regulations as per CEA norms is not adequately followed in monitoring plan. Refer B.7.2.
46)	 Where the values have been measured, include a description of the measurement methods and procedures that comply with the guidance provided under general guidance.
47)	Provide a detailed description of the monitoring plan, including an identification of the data to be monitored and the procedures that will be applied during monitoring.
48)	The PP should include sources of data that will be actually used for the proposed project activity (e.g. which exact national statistics, actual measurement etc. ).
49)	Where the parameters are to be measured in accordance with the guidance of the approved project category or the general guidance to the indicative methodologies, specify the measurement methods and procedures including accepted industry standards or national or international standards which will be applied, which measurement equipment is used, how the measurement is undertaken.
50)	Which calibration procedures are applied, what is the accuracy of the measurement method, who is the responsible person / entity that should undertake the measurements and what is the measurement interval?
51)	Please provide a detailed description of the monitoring plan. Describe the operational and management structure that the project operator will implement in order to monitor emission reductions.
52)	Clearly indicate the responsibilities for and institutional arrangements for data collection and archiving.
53)	The monitoring plan should reflect good monitoring practice appropriate to the type of project activity. Provide any relevant further background information.
54)	Please describe the process by which comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled. An invitation for comments by local stakeholders shall be made in an open and transparent manner, in a way that facilities comments to be received from local stakeholders and allows for a reasonable time for comments to be submitted.
55)	Project participants shall describe a project activity in a manner which allows the local stakeholders to understand the project activity.