1.	Any contract of O & M should be included in PDD.
2.	What would be impact of negative environmental conditions in area upon project? What would be alternatives?
3.	How many skilled/unskilled people from surrounding area were employed at this project during commissioning and operation? 
4.	Please give details of roads to be constructed in the local area.
5.	Whether NOC from state departments has been issued to this project?
6.	Which CSR activities are planned for local people? Please explain in detail.

From
Hiral Mehta/Mahesh Pandya
Environmental Engineers
Paryavaran mitra
502, Raj Avenue, Bhaikakanagar road
Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380059 India
Telefax - 079-26851321/1801
 

The PP states that they have considered 80% accelerated depreciation. However the PDD is silent on the tax shielding as a result from accelerated depreciation.
PPs cleverly do not consider the accounting tax offsetting in their companies while calculating the IRR. This is evident from the recently registered projects and those requesting registration.  
The DOE is therefore requested to critically analyze how the accelerated depreciation benefit has been taken into account and confirm the accounting of the cash inflows as a result of the negative tax liability in the initial years. DOE should not be misguided by the financial presented by the PP or consultant which are custom made for CDM purposes and not the actual financial considered at the investment decision.
Note that considering cash inflows results in an increase in the IRR making wind projects a profitable venture.

Please also check the offer from WTG supplier and Purchase Order while validating the PLF. It may be so that the third party report may indicate a lower PLF.

The PDD is not at all transparent. The PP and DOE have deliberately not included any of the input parameter used for proving the financial additionality!! How can 

EB tolerate this nonsense by the DOE??? Its high time EB has to take action on such malpractices. How come the DOE missed this critical element in their completeness check??? This only indicates that the DOE and the PP are playing with CDM together! DOE to please answer this... Also, its a fact that the same DOE has validated previous projects of the same PP in past which are currently under vericiation! Any one can make out whats happening!!!