7.2 MW grid connected wind electricity generation project in Tamil Nadu, India
[]
Host party(ies) India
Methodology(ies) AMS-I.D. ver. 16
Standardised Baselines N/A
Estimated annual reductions* 14,818
Start date of first crediting period. 31 Aug 11
Length of first crediting period. 10 years
DOE/AE TÜV NORD CERT GmbH
Period for comments 04 Feb 11 - 05 Mar 11
PP(s) for which DOE have a contractual obligation The Kadri Mills (CBE) Limited (TKML)
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 (481 KB)
Local stakeholder consultation report: N/A
Impact assessment summary: N/A
Submission of comments to the DOE/AE Compilation of submitted inputs: 
Purpose of the project and how the proposed project activity reduces greenhouse gas emissions are not briefed in the PDD. Refer section A.1.
•	How environmentally safe and sound technology is used for the project and details of technology transfer is not demonstrated adequately. Refer A.4.2
•	Non- debundling nature of the project activity is not adequately justified as per EB54 Annex 13 (Debundling tool). Refer A.4.5
•	Why has option A (Combined margin) been chosen for calculating emission factor is not justified. Refer B.6
•	The justification of choosing IRR as financial indicator is not adequately justified. Whether it is equity or project IRR, pre-tax or post tax is not mentioned in the PDD. 
•	Basis of choosing PLR as benchmark is not adequately demonstrated in the PDD 
•	All the issues of investment analysis guidelines are not discussed in the PDD. Refer B.5. 
•	Justification of parameters including O&M, insurance, loan, derating, escalation, and tariff are not demonstrated with justification. Refer B.5.
•	Please provide a proof for proposed debt to equity taken at the investment decision. Refer B.5
•	Proof for PLF is not justified. 
•	Date of offer is not provided  
•	Project cost is not as per TNERC norms. Refer B.5.
•	O&M charges and its escalation is not as per TNERC norms 
•	IT rate assumed is not as per standard practice. 
•	CER revenue assumed is not consistently applied 
•	Project cost is not as per TNERC norms
•	Benchmark calculation is not as per WACC tool (EB53 Annex 8)
•	Date of PPA is not mentioned in the prior consideration of CDM
Submitted by: nancy johan

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