Solar Power Project by SunBorne Energy Gujarat One Private Limited
Host party(ies) India
Methodology(ies) ACM0002 ver. 12
Standardised Baselines N/A
Estimated annual reductions* 19,421
Start date of first crediting period. 01 Jan 12
Length of first crediting period. 7 years
Period for comments 09 Aug 11 - 07 Sep 11
PP(s) for which DOE have a contractual obligation SunBorne Energy Gujarat One Private 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 (699 KB)
Local stakeholder consultation report: N/A
Impact assessment summary: N/A
Submission of comments to the DOE/AE Compilation of submitted inputs:
•	Why this location has been chosen for this project?
•	Will this project have impact on temperature in surrounding area?
•	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 will be employed at this project during commissioning and operation? 
•	List of stakeholders and minutes of stakeholder meeting is not attached with PDD.

Mahesh Pandya
Environmental Engineer
Paryavaran mitra
502, Raj Avenue, Bhaikakanagar road
Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380059 India
Telefax - 079-26851321/1801
Submitted by: paryavaranmitra

Considering average BPLR in WACC computation does not seem to conform Guidance and the note published by Meth Panel on WACC computation. DOE should check this and ensure appropriate lending rate is taken into account

The given WACC will result in a return of more than 24% on equity, which is very high. GERC has recommended only 14% return and this is higher than EB’s default return on equity

Other projects recently webhosted have taken much higher PLF than 16.14%. GERC has recommended 20% CUF and CERC has recommended 19%. The CUF is very low

GERC order provides only 0.5% for O&M cost and 0.35% for insurance – a total of 0.85%. The project has assumed O&M cost at 0.60%, administrative expenses at 0.75% and insurance at 0.35%  leading to a total of 1.65% which is twice the cost recommended by GERC. This is not correct. At this rate all projects will be additional

Why should this project require receivable financing? No capital is invested in generating energy unlike biomass or thermal power plants. Receivable do not merit consideration

Even though the project is not claiming accelerated depreciation, it is still entitled to 35% depreciation in the first year (additional depreciation is not accounted). 
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