It is evident from the PDD that the values are consistent and it is definitely forged and cooked up values to show a non CDM project as a CDM project. What is this? DoE to check the Detailed Project Report and Feasibility Report which is submitted to the other agencies and Banks by Project owner and ensure that the values match with the DPR/FR  submitted to DoE also. After careful study of PDD it is found that DPR/FR is in different versions made and submitted with different purposes to different agencies which is totally unacceptable, illegal and unethical. PP/Consultant may show some undertaking letter from bank manager to DoE stating that both DPR’s are same. These kinds of letters should not be accepted and entertained by DoE. While collecting the DPR/FR from banks and other agencies, all DPR/FR pages should be counter signed by Banks and other agencies so that the real DPR/FR given to other parties by the PP/Consultant is same as the one submitted to DOE. In this particular project there is clear cut evidence that DPR/FR values are changed/ fabricated mischievously and intentionally. This must be probed fully. DOE must take a written undertaking from the PP/Consultant about the list of parties to whom this DPR/FR is submitted and for what purposes. Then DOE should cross check with all the parties and confirm that the same DPR/FR is submitted to all the parties correctly without any changes. DOE must not accept any reports and undertakings from PP/Consultant. DOE must make independent evaluation and use totally different parties without informing the PP or Consultant to cross check the facts. DOE to write to the party who prepared the DPR/FR which is submitted to the banks and other agencies and the same is verified against the one submitted to the DOE by PP/Consultant. This project is a fabricated and fake CDM project and must be rejected by the DOE right away. DOE should not support this kind of projects otherwise CDM EB should suspend this DOE for at least one year. 

Layout of power transmission lines from the generation to the consumer with the metering system is not shown. It should include the distance of transmission lines. DOE has to check the meters are installed to monitor electricity generated, net electricity used in Bhutan, net electricity exported to India. Pls. clarify.

The status of the construction & commission of the project is not stated in the PDD.
What is the basis of calculation for transmission loss, auxiliary consumption and transformer losses? What is the length of transmission line? 

The project is claimed to be run of river hydro project. So the calculation of reservoir is wrong. The criterion 3 is applicable only to pumped storage or accumulation hydro projects. What does reservoir refer to as per PP? 

The justification of opting out alternative 3 and alternative 4 is not justified adequately. It should be based on latest published data and figures. Refer B.4. Pls. clarify.
The bilateral agreements, PPA with India are the documents, DOE to check thoroughly

Date of investment decision should be at the time of DPR preparation. So, the basis of the cost escalation factors at a later date for CDM consideration is not valid. Pls. clarify. Refer B5. Step 3a. (Investment barrier).

How the CDM benefit will alleviate the technical barriers. As per additionality tool, if the barriers are not alleviated by CDM, then the project is not additional. 

Emission factor for state is not calculated.it should be made available to DOE to clearly validate this value.  Emission factor for India is not as per “Tool for emission factor for the system”. 

Electricity generated by the project, auxiliary consumption, transmission losses, transformer losses, net electricity exported to India, net electricity exported to the  grid. These parameters to be monitored continuously and to be cross checked with sale receipts. 

The Meth mentions that if investment analysis option is used, apply the following: 

a.	Apply an investment comparison analysis, as per Step 3 of the .Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality., if more than one alternative is remaining after Step 2 and if the remaining alternatives include scenarios P1 and P3;

b.	Apply a benchmark analysis, as per Step 2b of the .Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality. If more than one alternative is remaining after Step 2 and if the remaining alternatives include scenarios P1 and P2.

But PP failed to apply like this. Pls. clarify.

PLF should be based on EB48 Annex 11guideline which says The plant load factor provided to banks and/or equity financiers while applying the project activity for project financing, or to the government while applying the project activity for implementation approval; (b) The plant load factor determined by a third party contracted by the project participants (e.g. an engineering company); But PDD doesn’t demonstrate how PLF has been arrived at. 

Whether PLF includes machine shutdown, machine availability. Whether grid availability is accounted for in the calculation of gross generation. To my surprise, critical parameter like PLF is missing from the PDD. How DOE has allowed this. 

Common practice analysis should be based on EB 39 Annex 10 (Additionality tool). Each step of common practice analysis should be fulfilled as per tool.

Emission reduction calculation should be based on EB 50 Annex 14 “Tool for emission factor for the electricity system.

Whether only one set of main meter, check meter set is enough for three projects. The monitoring parameters need to be checked by DOE.

The main meter and check meter technical parameters like accuracy level, make, etc. needs to be mentioned in the PDD. 

It looks like from the PDD the start date of the project is tampered for sure. This must be verified and let the truth come out. The culprits of forgery and malpractices must be brought to book. Why DOE has taken up such a bad project? Is there any pressure on DOE or some cake offered to DOE? They DOE must terminate this project immediately. DOE to check the offer letters originals and get the same verified in writing from the OEM’s and submitted parties. Where is the OEM supplier agreement original? DOE to check for the same. Is it prepared later with date and amounts changed to suit the project workings? For sure yes. This is not acceptable. 
DOE to check all purchase orders originals with the receiver of purchase orders i.e. the supplier of equipment. This PO confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. Same analysis and due diligence work to be repeated for “Notice to Proceed” as written in the case of Purchase order as above. DOE to check all “Notice to Proceed” originals with the receiver of “Notice to Proceed” i.e. the supplier of equipment or Engineering Procurement & Construction Contractor. This “Notice to proceed” and EPC contract confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier and EPC contractor to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved.
 DOE to check OEM supplier agreements, EPC contractor agreements, “Notice to proceed” letters, and Invoices raised. I’m sure DOE will catch the malpractices happened in this project. All the parties involved in this matter must be brought to justice. DOE must not support this kind of forgeries and malpractices. DOE cannot afford to close their eyes to this kind of malpractices. 

	DOE to write to the party who prepared the DPR/FR which is submitted to the banks and other agencies and the same is verified against the one submitted to the DOE by PP/Consultant. 

	DOE must not entertain this project any more if found the DPR/FR is tamprered with at any point in time. PP can not give different DPR’s and FR’s. They must submit only the one given to Banks and other agencies while obtaining loans and decision making time. 


	DOE to ensure that the PDD values are consistent and ensure that the CDM project is a genuine project

	DoE to check the Detailed Project Report and Feasibility Report which is submitted to the other agencies and Banks by Project owner and ensure that the values match with the DPR/FR  submitted to DoE also. 


	Careful study must be done so that the DPR/FR is not in different versions made and submitted with different purposes to different agencies, which is totally unacceptable, illegal and unethical. 

	Project owner should show some undertaking letter from bank manager to DoE stating that both DPR’s are same. These kinds of letters should not be accepted and entertained by DoE at face value, but must be checked independently. While collecting the DPR/FR from banks and other agencies, all DPR/FR pages should be counter signed by Banks and other agencies so that the real DPR/FR given to other parties by the PP/Consultant is same as the one submitted to DOE. 


	DPR/FR values must be probed fully. DOE must take a written undertaking from the PP/Consultant about the list of parties to whom this DPR/FR is submitted and for what purposes. Then DOE should cross check with all the parties and confirm that the same DPR/FR is submitted to all the parties correctly without any changes. DOE must not accept any reports and undertakings from PP/Consultant. DOE must make independent evaluation and use totally different parties without informing the PP or Consultant to cross check the facts. 


	Has the PP considered the CDM revenues while envisaging the project? Without CDM the project was not viable, is it right? This project is having a debt component? Then how bankers or lenders gave the loan? Have the bankers or lenders considered the CDM revenues while agreeing to give loan to this projects? If not this project should be rejected right away by DOE by terminating the contract forthwith. If yes, where is the proof? What is the date of the evidence document from bank? Is this document printed now a days or earlier. DOE to independently check the same. If the document is  available from Bank it must be checked from all angles so that it is genuine and not forged and date changed by putting back dated. This is normally done, DOE to be aware of this please. Please check the communication the PP had during that time with banks, emails and postal receipts and the weights and dates mentioned on the receipts. Do not believe in courier bills and receipts since these can be cooked up easily. Insist on government owned postal service receipts only. If the project is fully equity project then on what basis the PP has invested full equity in to the project while considering the CDM revenue? DOE to check the same in detail and bring out the facts. Is there any past record of this PP to invest or not to invest at returns what he is talking about in this project? Proper evidences must be reviewed and digged out by the DOE and take decision on the project based on established facts. Do not ask documents from PP, DOE to collect the same from different sources to do independent evaluation. 

	 How is the base line defined in this project? Is Base line hypothetically defined with no proper evidences and proper justification? In such case, DOE cannot take the base line as suggested by the PDD.  Please check that there are real emission reductions beyond the real and factual base line. It may so happen that this project qualifies for no CER’s. DOE cannot assume values and things as giving by this PP. Whatever values are considered throughout the project in all documents including the real DPR (not the one prepared for CDM, the one given to the banks and others), they must be validated, verified and double checked. Do not ask PP for DPR. Ask the parties who have been given DPR by the PP. Get directly from the bank and others by each page of the DPR and Feasibility report signed. Such document can be considered as a real DPR or FR. UNFCCC CDM process cannot be degraded by fabricating and misinterpreting the project base line and additionality.  



	From DOE side which auditor has done marketing and business development for acquiring this business of validating this project? With whom he or she was co-ordinating at PP or CER buyer? The same person who has done the marketing and business development to acquire the business do validation or participate in any manner what so ever in the validation process? One cannot do like that. It is against the accreditation rules and norms followed since ages. DOE should send auditors from different offices or countries to do this validation audit. DOE must take care of impartiality and accreditation rules. Due to the targets set by the DOE managements auditors are doing marketing and meeting clients and giving promises that the project will be taken care. Is it acceptable and fair? This must be stopped. No auditor should do marketing. Only non-auditing staff should do marketing. DOE to ensure the same please. 


	If applicable only: Is these machines, equipment was a part of any bundle of CDM activity envisaged and developed earlier. DOE to check the same through independent sources also. Once some bundles are non-additional and getting negative validation from a DOE, PP is rolling out the same project as an individual project which is not a CDM project at all. DOE to verify the same from independent sources and also take undertaking in the form of an affidavit from the PP’s that any misrepresentation or false statement with respect this would attract strict legal action from UNFCCC and DOE. Furthermore the registered project must be de-registered in case of any future findings contradicting the submissions made by the project owner.  



	DOE to be more careful so that this is a genuine CDM project. What is the exact project cost? The project cost is covering what? Each value considered must be validated with proof. The machinery is second hand purchased or fresh and new from an OEM? In either case DOE to check all the quotations, proposals, purchase orders, invoices, way bills, transport bills, proof of payments like bank statements. DOE to check with banks by way of written confirmation the amount transacted, to whom the money is paid, when the money is paid, is the party paid is the correct party as shown in the purchase orders. It may so happen that the values, party names, dates are fabricated and misrepresented in this project. DOE should terminate their contract for this project immediately. This is the only way out to protect the value of CDM process. If the PP is purchasing second hand or second quality equipment and inflating the purchase order values and invoices, this must be probed thoroughly and real values to taken for additionality calculation. Then I’m sure the additionality is not there at all in such a situation.

	Is the project equipment purchased second hand equipment or sourced from cheap foreign sources? If yes, the issue must be probed by DOE since invoices will invariably be inflated and forged. Total project costs mentioned by PP will not be the same as originals. Hence no additionality. These facts must be probed in full by DOE by checking all documents and money transactions along with bank statements and certified accounts by a legally acceptable financial analyst. 

The Proposed project activity with a start date before 2 August 2008, for which the start date is prior to the date of publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation, are required to demonstrate that the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to implement the project activity. If your project does not comes under this category please ignore the relevant comments as given below:


1)	It looks like from the PDD the start date of the project is tampered. This must be verified and let the truth come out. The culprits of forgery and malpractices must be brought to book if it happened. If found the dates are tampered, the DOE must terminate this project immediately. DOE to check the offer letters originals and get the same verified in writing from the OEM’s and submitted parties. Where is the OEM supplier agreement original? DOE to check for the same. Is it prepared later with date and amounts changed to suit the project workings? If yes, this is not acceptable. DOE to check all purchase orders originals with the receiver of purchase orders i.e. the supplier of equipment. This PO confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. 
2)	Same analysis and due diligence work to be repeated for “Notice to Proceed” as written in the case of Purchase order as above. DOE to check all “Notice to Proceed” originals with the receiver of “Notice to Proceed” i.e. the supplier of equipment or Engineering Procurement & Construction Contractor. This “Notice to proceed” and EPC contract confirmation to the DOE must be in writing from a board level person of the equipment supplier and EPC contractor to avoid any malpractices and forgery. Then DOE to check for the invoices dates, payment amounts and date of payments made with all original documents and reconfirm with the parties involved and the banks for the accuracy of amounts, dates and parties involved. DOE to check OEM supplier agreements, EPC contractor agreements, “Notice to proceed” letters, and Invoices raised. I’m sure DOE will unearth the real story of what happened in this project. All the parties involved in this matter must be brought to justice if found guilty. DOE cannot afford to simply keep validating these kind of old projects just like that. 
3)	Is PP showing ERPA as a part of real and continuous action? If yes, How come the PP is showing an ERPA and telling that there is real and continuous action? In what way PP can prove that the ERPA what is mentioned is genuine? This ERPA is dated what? Are there any emails exchanged during those ERPA signing days between PP and CER Buyer? Let PP show the real evidence that this particular ERPA was really signed on that date by showing the exchange of emails during those days. Any government owned postal receipt copies to prove the transmission of documents?  Any way EPRA has no meaning even if they prove that ERPA was signed those days. ERPA is not a concluding evidence to show real and continuous action. Why the party has not signed any validation agreement with a DOE? Do they have a signed CDM validation agreement with any DOE? If yes, have they paid money to DOE so that we can conclusively prove that PP has considered CDM and serious real and continuous action was there. If the PP has not paid to the DOE the advance amount towards CDM validation, then we can conclusively say that no real and continuous action in this project at all. In such case, this project does not merit any further validation, DOE must tell the PP to with draw the project from CDM. Alternatively DOE should issue a negative validation report and protect their reputation and future. When did PP apply for host country approval? Why delay? DOE to probe fully. Is it a case where PP has never considered CDM revenue to establish the project? Is it case, where one consultant must have given this fraud idea of applying for CDM revenues when the PP has almost forgot the project activity itself since it is a done project without envisaging any CDM revenues? DOE must be careful in taking up this kind of projects. What due diligence and checks the DOE has done prior to accepting this job?