Renewable Energy Power project by DDWL
Host party(ies) India
Methodology(ies) ACM0002 ver. 17
Standardised Baselines N/A
Estimated annual reductions* 82,220
Proposed start date of PA 22 Mar 16
Start date of first crediting period. 31 Mar 17
Length of first crediting period. 7 years
DOE/AE Earthood Services Private Limited
Period for comments 24 Dec 16 - 22 Jan 17 (23:59:59 GMT)
PP(s) for which DOE have a contractual obligation Dev-Dwarka Windproject Limited
The operational/applicant entity working on this project has decided to make the Project Design Document (PDD) publicly available directly on the UNFCCC CDM website.
PDD PDD (937 KB)
Local stakeholder consultation report: N/A
Impact assessment summary: N/A
Submission of comments to the DOE/AE Compilation of submitted inputs:
Project title: Renewable Energy Power project by DDWL
DOE: Earthood Services Private Limited
PP: Dev-Dwarka Windproject Limited
Email id: 
Start date: 01/04/2016 , 22/03/2016
The benchmark value given in the PDD is a joke. In the era of copy paste your consultants have forgotten simple additions. The final benchmark value is missing, while the value presented as 18.56% and 18.12%, does not match up with the 11.06% and inflation forecast. Now my question is to the DOE, 
Donít you think if the benchmark value changes, this would mean significant changes from the published PDD? Pls. let me know a valid reason if you think this is not a significant change (I hope this new Indian DOE would work diligently, though not sure if they would really work so). 
The assumptions mentions the expected commissioning date to be 31/05/2016 that is with 60 days of start date? Is this practically possible or the consultants have fudged dates? So as to put in the assumptions which are convenient to them. A De-ration assumption of a decade old has been referred, can your WTG supplier concur with this? The technology has improved by leaps and bounds, such things are mentioned only to distort the financial analysis. 
Operative costs escalate by 5% whereas administrative cost by 10% where is the logic. Insurance cost has been adopted on 2001 order, surely there have been so many orders after that? Is the client not aware or they is it the case they intentionally want to project wrong details?
With project cost so low the IRR calculations have been manipulated, the DOE to look into this. 

Common Practice analysis: The start date mentioned in this section is different 05/02/2016 why is this difference? 
The common practice analysis mentioned in the PDD just does not make any sense, is it just to confuse the staekholders or the PP is not able to appoint a good consultant? 
Nall: 3 only 3 projects why have the details not been given? 
While Ndiff: 0,  will the consultant change these values in the final one? 
Again I would ask the DOE to clarify if these changes are not significant? Should the PDD not be re-webhosted so that we can give our comments on the correct values? 
Prior consideration: how many start dates would be mentioned in the PDD? Here it says 22/03/2016. 
LSC Meeting:  Who carried out the LSC Meeting? In case the final PDD provides significant changes in the LSC section I would ask the DOE to web-host this again. 
As per the CDM guidelines the LSC has to be conducted before the start date, in this case there are two start dates mentioned in the PDD and the LSC is conducted after both the dates. Why is so? 
The notice to stakeholders was given on 15/12/2015? Almost 4 months before the LSC meeting? 
Again I would ask the DOE to clarify if these comments are taken into account and the PDD is revised are these changes are not significant? Should the PDD not be re-webhosted so that we can give our comments on the correct values? 
Submitted by: Naveen Dhingra

The comment period is over.
* Emission reductions in metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per annum that are based on the estimates provided by the project participants in unvalidated PDDs