1.	Whether proponents have any prior experience of wind based power generation Kutch area?
2.	If Suzlon is going to operate WEG on behalf of proponents, any agreement has been done for that?
3.	In the same villages, already more than 10 wind based power plants are in operation under CDM projects by various proponents. Hopefully Perry Johnson has validated this particular project in details and depth.
4.	If these much WEG are in same area (same villages and coordinates), does it put pressure on land or surrounding area in terms of noise or other disturbance?
5.	In case of failure of project or any other accident, who would be responsible for it? Suzlon or proponents?
6.	The social, technological and economic benefits would be same in the area without this project also because many other wind power plants are in operation. How this particular project will enhance social, economical or technological situation?
7.	What would be impact of negative environmental conditions of area upon project? What would be alternatives in that case?
8.	How many skilled/unskilled people from surrounding area were employed at this project during commissioning and operation as mentioned in social well being section? 
9.	List of stakeholders and minutes of stakeholder meeting is not attached with PDD.
10.	Whether local villagers would be beneficiary of CDM revenue earned by proponets? Any plan has been develop to earmark certain fund from CDM revenue for community welfare to improve social well being of local people?

From
Hiral Mehta/Mahesh Pandya
Environmental Engineers
Paryavaran mitra
502, Raj Avenue, Bhaikakanagar road
Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380059 India
Telefax - 079-26851321/1801

•	Purpose of the project and how the proposed project activity reduces greenhouse gas emissions are not briefed in the PDD. Refer section A.2.
•	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 de-bundling nature of the project is not justified properly in the section A.4.5. DOE has to validate whether there is no registered project with the PP nor there is an application for registration of any project. PP doesn’t confirm in the PDD that there is no application for registration.
•	Third party certified PLF has to check by DOE, it’s should be use by third party certified PLF only, clarify.
•	As per EB 48, annex 11, option 3(b) failure to apply in the PDD,  is it 23% PLF comes from third party assessment?? Or GERC tariff order, Please clarify, DOE should not allow this.
•	Doe has to check, why PP has not consider PLF in sensitivity analysis, give justification. 
•	The date of board meeting, investment decision meeting, and offer date are not provided in the chronology of events column. 
•	The selection of simple OM based on low cost/must run resources is not adequately justified. Refer B.6.1
•	Ex-ante option of calculating OM is not adequately demonstrated. Step 3 of Refer B.6.1
•	Power plants registered as CDM project activities should be included in the sample group that is used to calculate the operating margin if the criteria for including the power source in the sample group apply. This argument is not demonstrated. B.6.1
•	The selection of option (out of two) for calculating OM is not adequately documented with justification. CEA calculation is based on net electricity generation, the average efficiency of each power unit and the fuel types used in each power unit.
•	Prior consideration of CDM which is important for the determination of additionality is not documented in the section B.5 of the PDD.  
•	Why PP took more than 2 years for webhosting the PDD, give clarification and justification.