The return of 18.46% is very high. APERC has recommended a return of only 16%. EB has recommended much lower return. Why the PP has not given the calculation? The PDD is not transparent. DOE should not have published this PDD. PP should be asked to re webhost the PDD with all calculations on benchmark calculations so that global stakeholders can comment. 

PLF is given as 22% and conveniently third party report is given as the base. There are other projects which have projected much higher PLF. APERC has also recommended higher PLF than what the third party has estimated. DOE should check actual generation and should not accept this PLF if it it higher. DOE is required to use its sectoral and local expertise in validating the input parameters

O&M cost cannot be more than Rs.6 lakhs and the escalation not more than 5%. Offer letter cannot be used to make the project additional. DOE should check other projects based on Enercon windmills. VVM does not require the DOE to accept the offer letter blindly, but requires it to use its sectoral and local expertise and also not to omit any evidence if it affects additionality.

Besides taking a declaration from the PP, DOE should also check the annual accounts of the firm to ensure that the project is not financed by loan. 

It is a LLP. How can MAT be applicable to this firm?  On what basis the consultant is providing for MAT?  Moreover, why will firm apply book depreciation?

DOE should check whether the consultant has taken tax savings into account in calculating financial indicator and the tax holiday. For this project with given parameters, the IRR cannot be this low.

For a wind mill project where is the question of receivables? What is the finance blocked to generate power. This should not be allowed. O&M cannot be for more than 30 days. DOE should check the O&M agreement 

DOE should ensure that consultant does not add any inputs or moddify inputs to make the project additional