Natural gas based combined heat & power generation by H&R Johnson (India) Limited Village-Khardevli, Gadab, Taluka - Pen, District- Raigad, Maharashtra
[]
Host party(ies) India
Methodology(ies) AMS-II.H.
Standardised Baselines N/A
Estimated annual reductions* 24,634
Start date of first crediting period. 01 Jun 10
Length of first crediting period. 10 years
DOE/AE TÜV SÜD South Asia Private Limited
Period for comments 11 Feb 10 - 12 Mar 10
PP(s) for which DOE have a contractual obligation H&R Johnson (India) 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 (673 KB)
Local stakeholder consultation report: N/A
Impact assessment summary: N/A
Submission of comments to the DOE/AE Compilation of submitted inputs: 
Dear DOE,

I request you to consider the below points during validation:

1.	The start date is mentioned to be 08/04/2009 as the 'date of signing the gas agreement' however; the weblink http://www.iocl.com/AboutUs/AnnualReports/DirectorReview%28PBD%29.pdf indicates that Indian Oil has supplied LNG to HR Johnson Pen during the year 2008-09.
	Also see http://www.petronetlng.com/Corporate_Presentation_-_25August_2008.pdf 

2.	The price of the RLNG is assumed to be INR 16.85/scm based on the average prices for Jan-March 2009. The evidence may be checked. Also, how come such a short duration of 3 months is considered to be appropriate for setting up the price for RLNG which would be used for a life of the project activity.
DOE may also check the actual price as agreed in the gas agreement, which might be lower than the assumed price of INR 16.85/scm

3.	Why are the maximum demand charges considered for the financial calculations? As they would anyway apply in the baseline case as well. DOE must be aware of this fact. By this way, the PP intends to show a cost outflow in the financials to make it less attractive.

4.	The GTG consumables and spares tend to be a higher estimate. Critical examination of the same is requested from the DOE

5.	As the baseline for the electricity is grid, a IRR calculation is more appropriate than a levelised cost analysis. Please refer the investment guidance.

DOE is requested to provide a copy of the responses to my above queries on my email: clean.development.mechanism.india@gmail.com

The author does not wish to identify himself and wishes to remain anonymous.

However, if you have any queries with respect to my above comments, please feel free to contact me on my email address.

THANK YOU
Submitted by: CDM INDIA 
Dear DOE,

I request you to consider the below points during validation:

1.	The start date is mentioned to be 08/04/2009 as the 'date of signing the gas agreement' however; the weblink http://www.iocl.com/AboutUs/AnnualReports/DirectorReview%28PBD%29.pdf indicates that Indian Oil has supplied LNG to HR Johnson Pen during the year 2008-09.
	Also see http://www.petronetlng.com/Corporate_Presentation_-_25August_2008.pdf 

2.	The price of the RLNG is assumed to be INR 16.85/scm based on the average prices for Jan-March 2009. The evidence may be checked. Also, how come such a short duration of 3 months is considered to be appropriate for setting up the price for RLNG which would be used for a life of the project activity.
DOE may also check the actual price as agreed in the gas agreement, which might be lower than the assumed price of INR 16.85/scm

3.	Why are the maximum demand charges considered for the financial calculations? As they would anyway apply in the baseline case as well. DOE must be aware of this fact. By this way, the PP intends to show a cost outflow in the financials to make it less attractive.

4.	The GTG consumables and spares tend to be a higher estimate. Critical examination of the same is requested from the DOE

5.	As the baseline for the electricity is grid, a IRR calculation is more appropriate than a levelised cost analysis. Please refer the investment guidance.

DOE is requested to provide a copy of the responses to my above queries on my email: clean.development.mechanism.india@gmail.com

The author does not wish to identify himself and wishes to remain anonymous.

However, if you have any queries with respect to my above comments, please feel free to contact me on my email address.

THANK YOU
Submitted by: CDM INDIA

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