Wind Energy Project in Gujarat
Host party(ies) India
Methodology(ies) ACM0002 ver. 12
Standardised Baselines N/A
Estimated annual reductions* 101,268
Start date of first crediting period. 01 Jan 12
Length of first crediting period. 10 years
Period for comments 04 Aug 11 - 02 Sep 11
PP(s) for which DOE have a contractual obligation Vish Wind Infrastructure LLP
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 (1857 KB)
Local stakeholder consultation report: N/A
Impact assessment summary: N/A
Submission of comments to the DOE/AE Compilation of submitted inputs:
- Does project proponent have any experience in wind energy generation?
- What would be impact of negative environmental conditions of area upon project? What would be alternatives in that case?
- How many skilled/unskilled people from surrounding area were employed at this project during commissioning and operation as mentioned in social well being section? 
- Please give details on how 2% revenue will be used towards sustainability and community development measures?

Paryavaran Mitra
502, Raj Avenue, Thaltej
Ahmedabad, India
Submitted by: paryavaranmitra

The return of 18.46% is very high. GERC has recommended a return of only 14%. EB has recommended much lower return. The PDD states that the detailed calculation has been done in benchmark sheet. But this sheet is not enclosed. Why the PP has not given the calculation? PP should be asked to re webhost the PDD with all calculations on benchmark calculations so that global stakeholders can comment. 

When the project is financed 70% by loan how can equity IRR be used as financial indicator? This financial indicator does not meet the requirement of additionality tool. DOE should insist on project IRR only.

O&M cost cannot be more than Rs.6 lakhs and the escalation not more than 5%. Offer letter cannot be used to make the project additional. DOE should check other projects based on Enercon windmills. VVM does not require the DOE to accept the offer letter blindly, but requires it to use its sectoral and local expertise and also not to omit any evidence if it affects additionality. None of the manufacturer’s charge more than 5% escalation. Enercon itself has charged only 5% esacalation in the case of recently registered project No. 3350. DOE should not accept this escalation

DOE should check whether the consultant has taken tax savings into account in calculating financial indicator and the tax holiday. Moreover as the purchase order is released after April and the project is expected to commence operation before March 31, the cash generation in the first year should be deducted from the investment and only net investment should be taken as cash outflow. For this project with given parameters, the IRR cannot be this low.

For a wind mill project where is the question of receivables? What is the finance blocked to generate power. This should not be allowed. O&M cannot be for more than 30 days. DOE should check the O&M agreement. 

DOE should check the purchase order and take the cost as per purchase order and should not blindly go by offer letter
Submitted by: Karthikeyan

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