Project title: Solar Power Project by Fortum FinnSurya Energy Pvt Ltd 
DOE: LGAI
PP: Fortum FinnSurya Energy Private Limited
Fortum Group: Awadhesh.Jha@fortum.com 

Comments on Additionality:

Why has fortum published contradicting information in the CDM PDD. The IRR from the project is mentioned as 8.96%, whereas on its website they publicly disclose a ROE of 22.7%. Surely in all its solar project this high ROE was never mentioned then how is such a scenario possible. What has been hidden for public comments needs to be checked. 
The benchmark value given in the PDD is ludicrous. In the era of copy paste your consultants have forgotten simple additions. The benchmark presented as 18.106%, does not match up with the 11.06% and inflation forecast of 5%. Further the PDD mentions benchmark as 18.10% (5 year) then 18.23% (10years) and the conservative of the two selected has a value of 18.106%. Where did these 3 different values came from. Can Mr. Awadhesh confirm that the project has employed this benchmark? If not, now my question is to the DOE, 
Don’t you think if the benchmark value changes, this would mean significant changes from the published PDD? Pls. let me know a valid reason if you think this is not a significant change (I hope the team from Spain looks into it as its Indian counterparts would overrule such things). 
Where are the assumptions? If the assumptions are added in a later stage, again I would ask the DOE to clarify if these changes are not significant? Should the PDD not be re-webhosted so that we can give our comments on the assumptions? 
Common Practice analysis: Total of 60 project of that size in Karnataka, why have the details not been mentioned. 
Here the start date mentioned is 20th Jan 2016, can Fortum Group not provide consistency in even one assumption? What kind of joke this PDD is? 
What has been mentioned in the PDD just does not make any sense, is it just to confuse the staekholders or Fortum is not able to appoint a good consultant? 
Nsolar: 60
Nall: 100, Ndiff: 69 and then in step 5 calculations are done on a totally different number. 
Again I would ask the DOE to clarify if these changes are not significant? Should the PDD not be re-webhosted so that we can give our comments on the correct values? 
Calibration: Why 5 years have been mentioned when the PPA from Karnataka government has a standard of annual calibration? 
LSC Meeting: Fortum group conducts LSC meeting in such manner? Your website says something totally different. 
Who carried out the LSC Meeting? In case the final PDD provides significant changes in the LSC section I would ask the DOE to web-host this again. 
I can’t find a single Local stakeholder from the current PDD. No name, no location, the date mentioned is wrong (how many errors can one make in one single document, this is an art to be learnt from the Fortum team). 

One request to Fortum is please don’t rely on you previous consultant, its your stake and impression that gets affected. Get a good decent consultant or at least have some sense to look what is being presented in the documents as these go in the name of Fortum. 
DOE please ensure a correct check, with all your previous experiences I doubt you will work ethically, still I am hopefull that the spain office will take action and re publish such shitty PDD with correct data and values for the stakeholder to judge.