Biomass based co-generation project by ACJKEL
Host party(ies) India
Methodology(ies) AMS-I.C. ver. 18
Standardised Baselines N/A
Estimated annual reductions* 39,698
Start date of first crediting period. 01 Feb 12
Length of first crediting period. 10 years
Period for comments 21 Apr 11 - 20 May 11
PP(s) for which DOE have a contractual obligation Amir Chand Jagdish Kumar Exports 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 (952 KB)
Local stakeholder consultation report: N/A
Impact assessment summary: N/A
Submission of comments to the DOE/AE Compilation of submitted inputs:
It is the responsibility of DOE to conduct proper due diligence and contract review before signing any contract. Now DOE to explain what it has done this project case. Why a DOE should work this kind of cooked up and fake CDM projects. How many genuine projects this Big 4 firm has done till to date? This Big 4 firm is responsible for corrupting and spoiling the whole CDM business in India. Why this Big 4 firm not working like any other consultant in the market? Why is it web hosting projects which should be rejected, with drawn, forged (documents changed and forged) and fully problematic projects? 

The Partner of this Big 4 firm is fully responsible for spoiling the CDM business in India. He is totally unprofessional and unethical. He never did any work in a professional and ethical manner in his working. This Big 4 firm should not work with any PP in the market. 

Every project owner and DOE whoever is working with this Partner of Big 4 firm should introspect, understand the implications and stop working with this audit firm. They use the audit practise to force clients to take their CDM services. Their audit team is built on totally wrong foundation with robbed clients allowed wrong doing and cheated the system, deceived the country. One should be ashamed of working with this Audit firm in what so ever manner. He spoiled old DOE’s and recommends clients to bribe the DOE auditors and others in the system.

Every new and old DOE entered in the market was misused by the Partner. How long he wants to spoil CDM business and earn disrepute permanently? What is he finally going to achieve? Some money and bad name for ever? DOE to seek answers from the parent auditing company, on these points and take appropriate actions to save the project owners and CDM business fraternity from this Partner and evil company. Never believe the documents given by this audit company, DOE must cross check all of them as they are the forgery masters. 

DOE to be careful in undertaking any jobs referred by this kind of Big 4 firm, instead they should not take up the job at all in the best interest of CDM business and to protect their interests and reputation. 
Submitted by: Kushwanth Sing

1.	Emission reductions from a biomass cogeneration system can accrue from one of the
following activities:
a)	Electricity supply to a grid;
b)	Electricity and/or thermal energy (steam or heat) production for on-site consumption or     for consumption by other facilities;
2.	DOE to check the source for input values for NCV and price for various fuels to calculate cost of generation.
3.	Sensitivity analysis is not done at all. How DOE has allowed this kind of discrepancy. Pls. clarify. No of hours need to be included in the sensitivity analysis.

4.	 Leakage due to transportation of biomass need to be assessed 

5.	 Project emission due to consumption of electricity in the boiler feed water pump, condensate pump need to be accounted for. Pls. clarify.

6.	 Auxiliary fuel that will be consumed should be monitored. 
7.	Steam generation, pressure of steam temperature of steam, feed water inlet temperature should be monitored on hourly basis. 
8.	Gross generation, auxiliary consumption, in-plant consumption of electricity should be monitored if not possible indirectly.
9.	During tripping of turbine due to emergency, electricity will be imported. This aspect is not discussed in the PDD. 

Submitted by: aravind desouza

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