1.	In Section B. 2, Justification of Project category , the applicability that, 
The project activity comprises the installation of several wind energy generation units that supply electricity to a distribution system that is also supplied by several fossil-fuel-fired generating units, and therefore, it complies with applicability condition of methodology Type ID (“Grid connected renewable electricity generation”) is explained.
The fact that the project is displacing a part of the energy distribution system which is predominantly supplied by fossil-fuel generating units has not been explained clearly in section A.2. As this is the main applicability condition on which the project is said to qualify the applied methodology, it has to be stated clearly in Section A.2.

2.	According to revised meth AMS ID ver 14, The physical, geographical site of the renewable generation source delineates the project boundary. This has not been stated in Section B.3 and accordingly the statement “According to project category I.D, the project boundary encompasses the physical, geographical site of the renewable generation source” has to be changed to confirm to the new version of AMS ID.

3.	In Section B 6.1, Baseline emissions from electricity generation (methodology I.D) states the equation to calculate Baseline Emissions. The Equation given is not in line with the AMS ID Ver. I4 with respect to the notations used and their explanations given below.


4.	In section, D.2, it states that “An Environmental Impact Assessment was undertaken as required by Uruguayan regulations for power plants with capacity larger than 10 MW. No negative environmental impacts have been identified.” As it is imperative that the Uruguay govt. rules specify the EIA study, it should be conclusively proved that no significant negative impacts occurred based on the analysis of the study. The statement that No environmental impacts were identified is misleading.