Was 80 IA benefit considered in the calculation and also 80% Accelerated depreciated available for the project as both of the policy/Scheme or benefits donot fall under E- Policy. DOE to verify

When TNERC has recommended less than 14% post tax return on equity, assumption of cost of equity at 21% is very high. PP has used equity beta, which is not correct. MAT rate has been taken as tax rate for calculating post tax cost of loan, which is incorrect. Assuming debt equity ratio of 80:20 is project specific and is not conforming to guidance on investment analysis. 

The power is used for captive consumption. The tariff considered does not take into consideration all the variable cost. The tariff is much higher. DOE should check the electricity bill and take into account all the variable cost

DOE should go by the purchase order and not Offer letter. The cost given is very high compared to the cost recommended by TNERC. 

PP is providing MAT rate, which is incorrect. These projects are in regular tax brackets. Hence, the tax rate should be regular tax rate and the tax saving due to accelerated depreciation (including additional depreciation of 20% in the first year) should be taken into account in computing financial indicator

PP has not provided any salvage value, which is not correct and not in line with guidance on investment analysis

Which PP will set up a project when it does not yield the benchmark return? If the PP is doing a charity then it can as well do it without any CDM benefits. Either the benchmark is overstated or the financial indicator is not calculated correctly. DOE should reject the project if the financial indicator with CDM does not cross the benchmark.