	As per section B.5, CDM Consultancy agreement on 11 May, 2009 and 29 March, 2010 and Local stakeholders’ meeting on December 2007. But why did it take such a long time i.e., more than 2 years to sign ERPA for sale of CERs on 25 January, 2010. This is clear indication that, the PP was not interested in CDM as the project itself was doing well, i.e., financial viable. Only the consultant (with the help of DOE) to get financial benefits from the PP, have created fake documents. I request the EB has to look into this.
	PLF should be based on EB48 Annex 11guideline which says The plant load factor provided to banks and/or equity financiers while applying the project activity for project financing, or to the government while applying the project activity for implementation approval; (b) The plant load factor determined by a third party contracted by the project participants (e.g. an engineering company); But PDD doesn’t demonstrate how PLF has been arrived at.
	PDD does not clearly describe the stakeholders involved in Project or the information provided to them. The PDD mentions stakeholders have been invited,” but no details which of these stakeholders actually participated in the process. The PDD does not describe the information provided to stakeholders with sufficient clarity, such as whether adverse environmental impacts were described along with the benefits that were mentioned.
	The PDD does not explain about identified training, monitoring and maintenance as per the Technology requirements for contractors / engineers by the client. There is no mention of field quality Assurance systems & procedures that are available at site, field quality plans and their approval.
	Time schedule of key events does not speak about the status of project activity and why DOE has taken so long days to just web host the PDD. What is the reason for the delay? This kind of delays shows how serious PP in getting CDM benefits.
	Also the chronology of events do not mention any offer letter?.. Then how DoE has made due diligence that the project confirms to UNFCCC guidelines?. 
	There are neither links nor documents mentioned for proof of the parameters assumed for the IRR? 
	How is PLF estimated to be in accordance to UNFCCC guidelines? 
	Also the tariff rate has been assumed based on rate existing at investment decision. But does it account for the escalation and why it has been assumed at a flat rate?
	When is the board meeting and date of investment decision? It is not explicitly mentioned in the PDD.  
	Why barrier analysis is not discussed in the PDD. If there is no barrier, then it should be mentioned in the PDD. 
	Interest rate tax has been taken from FSR. Relevant guidance to be applied
	The Meth mentions that if investment analysis option is used, apply the following: 

a)	Apply an investment comparison analysis, as per Step 3 of the .Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality., if more than one alternative is remaining after Step 2 and if the remaining alternatives include scenarios P1 and P3;

b)	Apply a benchmark analysis, as per Step 2b of the .Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality. If more than one alternative is remaining after Step 2 and if the remaining alternatives include scenarios P1 and P2.
But PP failed to apply like this. Pls. clarify.

	The project is claimed to be run of river hydro project. So the calculation of reservoir is wrong. The criterion 3 is applicable only to pumped storage or accumulation hydro projects. What does reservoir refer to as per PP?