Professional Documents
Culture Documents
India
Report No. 01 997 9105065200
Version No. 02, 2012-12-25
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
I. Project description:
Project title:
Host Country:
India
Large Scale
Small Scale
Methodology:
Party
India (Host)
Party considered a
project participant
Project Participants
Contract
party
No
India
India
India
India
India
1.2
X
X
Trainee TR
Expert to TR
Technical Reviewer
Trainee Auditor
Technical Expert
Team leader
Local Expert
Role
Appointed for
Sectoral Scopes
(Technical Areas)
Validation Team
Affiliation
TV
Rheinland
Full name
X
X
X
X
X
Released
Rejected
Distribution
Page 2
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Page 3
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
TRC concludes that the CDM Project Activity Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Through Wind Energy
Technology - Reliance Clean Power Pvt. Ltd. in India, as described in the PDD (version-02, date-24/12/2012),
meets all relevant requirements of the UNFCCC for CDM project activities including article 12 of the Kyoto
Protocol, the modalities and procedures for CDM (Marrakesh Accords) and the subsequent decisions by the
COP/MOP and CDM Executive Board.
The selected baseline and monitoring methodology (ACM0002, Version 13.0.0) is applicable to the project and
correctly applied. The TRC therefore requests the registration of the project as a CDM project activity with
UNFCCC.
Mr. Chetan Swaroop Sharma (Team Leader)
Page 4
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Abbreviations
CAR
CDM
CDM EB
CEA
CER
CERC
CL
CO2
CO2e
DNA
DOE
EB
EIA
EPA
EPC
FAR
FY
GHG
IRR
kV
LoA
MEDA
MERC
MoC
MSEDCL
MSETCL
MW
MWh
NEWNE
ODA
OSV
O&M
PDD
PP
PLF
RCCPL
tCO2e
TRC
UNFCCC
VVM
WTG
Page 5
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Introduction
1.1
Objective
1.2
Scope
2
Methodology
2.1
Desk Review of the Project Design Documentation
2.2
Follow-up Interviews with Project Stakeholders
2.3
Resolution of Outstanding Issues
2.4
Internal Quality Control
2.5
Validation Team
3
validation Findings
3.1
Approval and Participation
3.2
Project Design Document
3.3
Project Description
3.4
Baseline and Monitoring Methodology
3.5
Additionality
3.6
Monitoring
3.7
Sustainable Development
3.8
Environmental Impacts
3.9
Local Stakeholder Consultation
3.10 Comments by Parties, Stakeholders and NGOs
7
7
7
8
8
11
12
14
14
14
14
15
15
17
26
35
37
37
37
37
Page 6
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
1. Introduction:
The organization Reliance Clean Power Pvt. Ltd. has commissioned the DOE TV Rheinland (China) Ltd. to
perform a validation of the CDM Project Activity Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Through Wind
Energy Technology - Reliance Clean Power Pvt. Ltd. in India (hereafter called the project). This report
summarises the findings of the validation of the project, performed on the basis of UNFCCC criteria for the
CDM, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting. The term
UNFCCC criteria refers to Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, the CDM modalities and procedures or the
simplified modalities and procedures for small-scale CDM project activities (as applicable) and the subsequent
decisions by the CDM Executive Board.
1.1 Objective:
The purpose of a validation is to have an independent third party assess the project design. In particular, the
project's baseline, monitoring plan, and the projects compliance with relevant UNFCCC and host Party criteria
are validated in order to confirm that the project design, as documented, is sound and reasonable and meets the
identified criteria. Validation is a requirement for all CDM projects and is seen as necessary to provide
assurance to stakeholders of the quality of the project and its intended generation of certified emission
reductions (CERs).
1.2 Scope:
The validation scope is defined as an independent and objective review of the project design document (PDD).
The PDD is reviewed against the relevant criteria (see above) and decisions by the CDM Executive Board,
including the approved baseline and monitoring methodology. The validation team has, based on the
recommendations in the Validation and Verification Manual employed (latest version) a risk-based approach,
focusing on the identification of significant risks for project implementation and the generation of CERs.
The validation is not meant to provide any consulting towards the project participants. However, stated requests
for clarifications and/or corrective actions may have provided input for improvement of the project design.
While carrying out the validation, TRC determines if the project activity complies with the requirements of Para
37 of the CDM M&P and also assess the claims and assumptions made in the PDD without limitation on the
information provided by the project participants.
The scope of the validation is:
To apply TRCs own quality management system integrated with the VVM standard along with the
recent decisions and guidance provided by the UNFCCC board to determine if the project activity meets
all applicable CDM requirements, including those specified in the relevant methodologies, tools and
guidelines;
Asses the accuracy, conservativeness, relevance, completeness, consistency and transparency of the
information provided by the project participants;
Determine whether information provided by the project participants are reliable and credible;
Present information in the form of validation report in a factual, neutral, coherent manner and document
all assumptions, provide references to the background material and identify changes made to the
documentation;
Base the findings and conclusions on objective evidence and conduct all validation in accordance with
CDM rules and procedures;
Apply consistent validation criteria in providing expert judgments to the requirements of applicable
approved methodologies, tools and also cross check the same with projects of similar characteristics,
technology, time period and region; and
Safeguard the confidentiality of all informations obtained or created during validation.
Where sampling is involved, the standard for sampling and surveys are applied.
Page 7
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
2. Methodology:
The validation consists of the following four phases:
I A desk review of the project design documents
Publication of PDD in UNFCCC for global stakeholder consultation;
A review of data and information;
Cross checking between information provided in PDD with all necessary means without limitations to
the information provided by the project proponent;
II On-site visit and follow-up interviews with project stakeholders
Interviews with relevant stakeholders in host country with personnels having knowledge with the
project development via telephone, email or direct on-site visits;
Cross checking between information provided by interviewed personnel with all necessary means
without limitations to the information provided by the project proponent;
III Reference to available informations relating to projects or technologies similar projects under validation
and review based on the approved methodology being applied of the appropriateness of formulae and
accuracy of calculations.
IV The resolution of outstanding issues and the issuance of the final validation report and opinion.
/P03/
/P04/
/P05/
Validation contract in between TUV Rheinland Japan Ltd. and RCPPL for the project
activity.
/P06/
Spread sheets for emission reduction calculations and Grid Emission Factor.
/P07/
1. Spread sheet for investment analysis including sensitivity analysis for the project
capacity of 200 MW as investment decision of 23/04/2011.
2. Spread sheet for investment analysis including sensitivity analysis for the project
capacity of 45 MW as investment decision of 16/02/2012
1. Copy of delegation of Authority for CDM benefit for the Renewable Energy Project
dated 08/03/2011.
2. Investment mandate decision dated 23/04/2011 for the project activity of capacity
200 MW.
3. Investment mandate dated 16/02/2012 for the revised Capacity of 45 MW.
Proof of prior consideration of CDM copies of notifications to DNA of India, dated
26/04/2011 and UNFCCC secretariat, dated 26/04/2011 in conformity to Annex 13 of
EB 62.
Self declaration from PP dated 28/02/2012 for non diversion of ODA fund in the
financing of the project activity.
Copy of proof of start date of the project activity:
/P08/
/P09/
/P10/
/P11/
Page 8
Validation Report
/P12/
Contract for Wind Power Equipment Supply and Erection, Construction and Services
between Reliance Clean Power Pvt. Ltd., Global Wind Power Limited and Global Wind
Infrastructure and Services Private Limited dated 28/06/2011
Documents related to financial additionality:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
/P13/
/P14/
01 997 9105065200
EPC Contract offer for 200 MW Wind power project by Global wind power
limited dated 25/02/2011.
EPC Contract
a. Contract for Wind Power Equipment Supply and Erection,
Construction and Services between Reliance Clean Power Pvt Ltd,
Global Wind Power Limited and Global Wind Infrastructure and
Services Private Limited for 200 MW Wind power project dated
28/06/2011.
b. Revised contract for 45 MW wind power project dated 06/03/2012.
Purchase order issued to EPC contractor for the
Land lease Deed for all the wind turbines of the project activity
Implementation schedule
Technical life time of the project in conformity with Annex 15, EB 50
Term Sheet of Axis Bank
/P15/
/P16/
Page 9
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
/P17/
1. Land lease Deed for all the wind turbines of the project activity.
2. Notarised Project Land Details dated 22/11/2012.
/P18/
Statutory clearances for all the wind turbines of the project activity, in particular:
1) Gram Panchayat clearance
2) Infrastructure clearance by MEDA
3) Grid connectivity permission from MSEDCL
4) Clearance for commissioning by MEDA.
/P19/
/P20/
Single line diagram for electricity generation and export /import to/from the grid.
/P21/
/P22/
/P23/
/B02/
/B03/
/B04/
/B05/
/B06/
/B07/
/B08/
/B09/
1.
2.
Page 10
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
/B11/
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/Validation/DB/UBZFC8UFCON0FIFG9EWX9OUTUY
LZJ2/view.html
Website used for the validation of data sources for common practice analysis:
1.
Baseline
Carbon
Dioxide
Emission
Database
Version
6.0
http://www.cea.nic.in/reports/planning/cdm_co2/Database_publishing_ver6.zip
/B12/
2. Table 5.4, Annual Report of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, 2010-11,
Govt.
of
India.
http://mnre.gov.in/file-manager/annual-report/20102011/EN/Chapter%205/chapter%205.htm
3. Detailed list of private Windfarm owners in India, Directory Indian Wind Power
2010, 10th Edition, published by Consolidated Energy Consultants Ltd.
4. MW Scale Grid Solar Power Plant Commissioned in India (as on 31/07/2011),
http://mnre.gov.in/filemanager/UserFiles/MW_size_Grid_Solar_Power_Plants_in_India.pdf
5. Section 5.16, Annual Report of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, 2010-11,
Govt.
of
India.
http://mnre.gov.in/file-manager/annual-report/20102011/EN/Chapter%205/chapter%205.htm
6. Section 5.19, Annual Report of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, 2010-11,
Govt.
of
India.
http://mnre.gov.in/file-manager/annual-report/20102011/EN/Chapter%205/chapter%205.htm
2.2. Follow-up Interviews with Project Stakeholders:
TV Rheinland validation team carried out an on-site visit dated (27/03/2012) and performed interviews with
the project representatives and stakeholders. The site visit was conducted to validate the accuracy and
completeness of the project description as specified under webhosted PDD.
Prior to the interview salient points to be discussed were planned. Date of interview, interviewee and points
discussed are given in the following table.
Date
Name
Organization
Topic
/i/
27/03/2012
/ii/
27/03/2012
/iii/
27/03/2012
Mr.
Rishi
Raychoudhury
Page 11
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Discussion on the calculation of grid
emission factor.
27/03/2012
/iv/
/v/
27/03/2012
/vi/
27/03/2012
/vii/
27/03/2012
Mr.
Sonmale
Ashish
Mr.Sunil
S.Choudhari
Mr.Anwar Siddiki
/viii/
27/03/2012
Mr Mahadev
SWMPD
SWMPD
SWMPD
ManagerProject(commissioning)
-
Validation Team considered the views obtained in these interviews while arriving at Validation Opinion.
Mistakes have been made with a direct influence the ability of the project activity to achieve on project
results like real, measurable, verifiable and additional emission reductions;
CDM and/or methodology specific requirements have not been met; or
There is a risk that the project would not be accepted as a CDM project or that emission reductions will
not be certified.
A request for clarification (CL) may be used where additional information is needed to fully clarify an issue.
A forward action request (FAR) is raised during validation to highlight issues related to project implementation
that require review during the first verification of the project activity. FARs shall not relate to the CDM
requirements for registration.
Page 12
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Comment
The section is
used to elaborate
and discuss the
checklist question
and/or the
conformance to
the question. It is
further used to
explain the
conclusions
reached.
Validation Protocol Table 2: List of Requests for Corrective Action (CAR) and Clarification (CL)
Draft report
Ref. to checklist
Summary of project
Validation conclusion
clarifications and
question in table 2
owner response
corrective action
requests
If the conclusions from
Reference to the
The responses given by
This section should
the draft Validation are
checklist question
the project participants
summarise the validation
either a CAR or a CL,
number in Table 2
during the
teams responses and final
these should be listed in
where the CAR or CL
communications with
conclusions. The conclusions
this section.
is explained.
the validation team
should also be included in
should be summarised in Table 2, under Final
this section.
Conclusion.
Table 3: List of forward action requests (FARs)
FAR number
Forward action request
(FAR) to be raised during
validation to highlight
issues related
To project
implementation that
requires review during the
first verification of the
project activity. FARs
Shall not relate to the
CDM requirements for
registration.
Reference
Reference to the
checklist question
number in Table 2
where the CAR or CL
is explained.
Summary of project
owner response
The responses given by
the project participants
during the
communications with
the validation team
should be summarised in
this section.
Page 13
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
India
India
India
India
1.2
Reporting Support
India
Technical Reviewer
Type of Involvement
Desk review
Validation Team
Affiliation
Appointed for Sectoral Scopes
TV
(Technical Areas)
Rheinland
Full name
X
X
3. Validation Findings:
The findings of the validation are stated in the following sections. The validation criteria (requirements), the
means of validation and the results from validating the identified criteria are documented in more detail in the
validation protocol in Appendix A.
The final validation findings relate to the project design as documented and described in the revised and
resubmitted project design documentation.
Validation Report
APPROVAL
LoA received
Date of LoA
Reference to document
LoA received from
Validation of authenticity
Validity of LoA
PARTICIPATION
Party is party to Kyoto
Protocol
Voluntary participation
Diversion of official
development aid towards host
country
Project contribution to SD
01 997 9105065200
Yes
18/12/2012
4/6/2012-CCC
PP
It is valid. It is verified with the original LoA issued by the host
country DNA.
Yes
Yes. India ratified the Kyoto protocol in August 2002
Yes in statement 2 of LoA.
No. There is no Annex I country involved.
The validation team confirms that the information related to the letter of approval as mentioned in the
above table is authentic.
The validation of approval and participation has been done on the basis of 44-54 of VVM ver 01.2
and validation team confirms that the proposed project activity by Reliance Clean Power Pvt. Ltd.
meets the requirement of 44 and 51 of VVM Ver 01.2. However CAR-01 was raised and
successfully closed.
Validation of ODA
This project is unilateral and there is no PP from Annex I country involved. The validation team did
not reveal any evidence that this Project activity can be seen as a diversion of ODA. It is also
confirmed by the interview with Mr. Vipin Singh Chauhan /I-01/ during site visit interview. The same
has also been confirmed by the declaration /P10/ provided by PP.
Hence the validation concludes that there is no ODA funding or diversion of ODA is involved in the
project activity.
3.1.2 Modalities of Communications:
The Modalities of Communication (MoC) /P04/, signed on 06/12/2012, was received from the PP
directly. As required in Procedures for Modalities of Communication between Project Participants and
the Executive Board, the Validation Team has verified that the name of Mr. Shrikant Kulkarni as
primary authorised signatory for future communication related to the corresponding scope of authority
with UNFCCC. The alternative signatory from the sole PP is Mr. Pratap Malempati. The MOC has
been checked as per the requirement of EB 45 annex 59 and found correct. The Validation Team
confirms that the signatory and contact details on the MoC /P04/ is authorized and credible.
3.2 Project Design Document:
The Project Design Document is based on the currently valid PDD template and is completed in
accordance with the applicable guidance document /B04/.
3.3 Project Description:
Page 15
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
The project activity is a Grid connected wind power project (=Greenfield project) in the Sangli district,
Maharashtra of India and involves installation and operation of 18 numbers of wind turbines each with
capacity of 2.50 MW aggregating to 45 MW. Currently the WTGs are in different phase of erection,
pre-commissioning & trial run. The purpose of the project activity is to harness the renewable
resources of wind power and thereby displace equivalent electricity from the fossil fuel dominated
NEWNE grid. The PP has contracted Global Wind Power Limited for the EPC of the project. The
exact geographical locations of the WTGs are mentioned in the PDD has been checked during the site
visit. CL-04 was raised in this context and successfully closed.
The Quantity of net electricity generation supplied to be supplied by the project is estimated as 78,883
MWh per year /P02/, /P04/. The PP has carried out the PLF analysis by a third party M/s Fair Aero
Consultant & Technologist, Indore dated 17/10/2011 in line with the requirements of annex 11 of EB
48, which estimated the PLF analysis for the site at 19.06%. As per the CERC (Terms and Conditions
for Tariff determination from Renewable Energy Sources) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2010
(p.39) /B05/ for Wind zone -1 the PLF is 20%. As this was less conservative compared to the estimate
from the technology provider, the PP has used the higher of the two values to determine the expected
generation per annum. This value was hence accepted by the validating team. The generated electricity
will be sold/supplied to the NEWNE grid as per the signed EPA. The project activity will thus reduce
Green house gas (GHG) emissions associated with the NEWNE grid, which is connected with majorly
fossil fuel based power plants. The total emission reduction due to the project activity works out to be
74,828 tCO2e per year.
Reliance Clean Power Pvt. Ltd. is the PP (of host party) for the given project activity and the same is
confirmed by letter of approval /P03/ obtained from the DNA of India. The technology to be used in
the project activity is imported from European majors. The technology to be applied is deemed to be
current good practice and is not expected to be replaced within the crediting period. The project
activity contributes to the sustainable development criteria of the host country in terms of social,
economical, technological and environmental benefits achieved due to the project activity.
The operational lifetime of the project has been determined (by WTG manufacturer) as 20 years which
corresponds to the standard design life time of a wind turbines and has been verified from the technical
specification provided by the WTG supplier /P21/. The operation and maintenance would be done by
the supplier of the WTGs i.e. Global Wind Power Limited and has proper procedures for providing
training to its employees. The project participant has opted for a fixed crediting period of 10 years. The
start date of the crediting period is mentioned as 31/03/2013 or the effective date of registration of the
project with UNFCCC (whichever is later) /P02/. CL-08 has been raised regarding the start date of the
crediting period and successfully closed.
Based on the information furnished by the project participants, no diversion of ODA contributes to the
financing of the project /P10/.
The starting date of project, project duration and crediting period are presented in the table below.
Crediting period
10 years (fixed) covering
31/03/2013 or the effective date
of registration of project activity
under UNFCCC whichever is
later.
Page 16
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Nevertheless, CAR-02, CAR-03, CAR-04, CAR-05, CAR-06, CL-01, CL-02, CL-03, CL-04, CL-05,
CL-06, CL-07 and CL-08 were raised and successfully closed (refer table 2 of the protocol).
Herewith, the Validation Team summarizes major changes between webhosted PDD and final version
of PDD for submission as follows:
Subject
Webhosted PDD
Project title
Greenhouse
Gas
Emission
Reductions Through Wind Energy
Technology - Reliance Clean Power
Pvt. Ltd.
Participants involved Reliance Clean Power Pvt. Ltd.
Project location
The windfarm project is located in
the Sangli District, Maharashtra,
India
Methodologies and ACM0002, version 12.1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
No change
TV Rheinland validation team considers the project description of the project contained in the PDD to be
complete and accurate. The PDD complies with the relevant methodology, tools, forms and guidance at the time
of PDD submission for registration.
Page 17
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Applicability criteria for the baseline methodology /B02/ are assessed by the validation team by means of
document review and interview. It is agreed in the validation teams opinion that the project activity fully met
the criteria as described below:
Applicability criteria of the methodology (ACM Criteria
0002), Version 13.0.0
fulfilled
This methodology is applicable to grid-connected
Yes
renewable power generation project activities
No
that: (a) install a new power plant at a site where
no renewable power plant was operated prior to
the implementation of the project activity
(greenfield plant); (b) involve a capacity
addition; (c) involve a retrofit of (an) existing
plant(s); or (d) involve a replacement of (an)
existing plant(s).
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Page 18
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
The assessment of the projects compliance with the applicability criteria of the methodology ACM 0002
(version 13.0.0) as documented in the PDD section B.2, which are evaluated in detail under the validation
protocol in Appendix A to this report based from the webhosted PDD.
Thus the validation team confirms that the project participant correctly applied the approved methodology /B02/
for the project activity.
Project participants wishing to undertake a hydroelectric project activity that result in a new reservoir or an increase in the
existing reservoir, in particular where reservoirs have no significant vegetative biomass in the catchments area, may
request a revision to the approved consolidated methodology.
Page 19
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Emissions
Baseline emissions
GHGs involved
CO2
Project emissions
N/A
Leakage
N/A
Description
Major emission source, which is emitted from the
electricity generation by fossil fuel-fired power
plants connected to the NEWNE grid.
As per the applied meth /B02/ project emissions is
only applicable for the geothermal power plants
and hydro power plants (reservoir emission).
Project emission is regarded as zero as the project
is a renewable energy (wind power plant) project.
As per applied version of meth (Cp p6 of 20,
ACM0002, version 13.0.0) the use of fossil fuels
for the back up or emergency purposes (e.g. diesel
generators) can be neglected. however based on
the OSV interview with PP, validation team
confirms that there will be no a back up plant in
the project activity.
As per the applied methodology /B02/, no leakage
emissions are considered.
As per the applied meth /B02/ the main emissions
potentially giving rise to leakage in the context of
electric sector projects are emissions arising due to
activities such as power plant construction and
upstream emissions from fossil fuel use (e.g.
extraction, processing, transport). These emissions
sources are neglected.
In summary, the project boundary was correctly identified in accordance with the methodology ACM0002
(version 13.0.0) and also confirms compliance of para 78 of VVM ver 01.2 /B01/. All greenhouse gas emissions
occurring within the proposed project activity boundary as a result of the implementation of the proposed CDM
project activity have been appropriately addressed in the PDD /P02/.
The identified project boundary and selected sources of emissions are justified for the project activity. The
validation of the project activity did not reveal other greenhouse gas emissions occurring within the proposed
CDM project activity boundary as a result of the implementation of the proposed project activity which are
expected to contribute more than 1% of the overall expected average annual emission reduction, with respect to
the methodology applied.
Yes
No
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
calculations)
PDD includes all assumptions and data used by
project participants
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
The approved baseline methodology has been correctly applied to identify a realistic and credible baseline
scenario, and the identified baseline scenario most reasonably represents what would occur in the absence of the
proposed CDM project activity.
All the assumption and data used by the project participants are listed in the PDD and/or supporting documents.
All documentation relevant for establishing the baseline scenario and correctly quoted and interpreted in the
PDD. Assumptions and data used in the identification of the baseline scenario are justified appropriately,
supported by evidence and can be deemed reasonable. Relevant national and/or sectoral policies and
circumstances are considered and listed in the PDD.
BE y EG PJ,y EFgrid,CM, y
(eq. 6 of methodology)
Page 21
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Where:
BEy
EGPJ,y
= Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result
of the implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh/yr)
EFgrid,CM,y
= Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation in year y
calculated using the latest version of the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an
electricity system (tCO2/MWh)
As per the methodology if the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected renewable power
plant/unit (which is the case of subject project) at a site where no renewable power plant was operated prior to
the implementation of the project activity, then:
EG PJ,y EG facility,y
Where:
EGPJ,y
EGfacility,y
(eq. 7 of methodology)
= Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result
of the implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh/yr)
= Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in
year y (MWh/yr)
The above equations as provided by the applied methodology /B02/ has been transparently provided in the PDD
/P02/, checked and confirmed by the validation team.
A combined margin (CM), consisting of the combination of operating margin (OM) and build margin (BM)
according to the procedures prescribed in the Tool to calculate the Emission Factor for an electricity system.
The combined margin emission factor for NEWNE grid of India has been calculated to be 0.9486 tCO2e/MWh.
PP has calculated combined margin (CM) using the data source from the Central Electricity Authority CO2
Baseline Database /B06/. Central electricity Authority (CEA) (under Ministry of Power, Government of India)
have worked out baseline emission factor for various grids in India and made them publicly available. The data
from CO2 Baseline Database for the Indian Power Sector User Guide - Version 6.0 /B06/ is the most recent data
at the time of submission of CDM-PDD for validation (Cp p5 of tool to calculate emission factor of an
electricity system, version 02.2.1 /B03/). Validation team has checked the calculation of the combined margin
grid emission factor and confirmed that the applied value of the emission factor follows the tool /B03/ and the
values of OM and BM incorporated in the PDD /P02/ is taken from publically available database i.e. by CEA
(Govt of India) /B06/.
Following steps (step numbers correspond to tool to calculate emission factor of an electricity system, version
02.2.1) demonstrate the calculation of combine margin emission factor in accordance with tool to calculate
emission factor of an electricity system, version 02.2.1.
Step 1 - In line with the requirements specified in the tool /B03/, the PP has used a regional grid definition as
applicable for large countries like India having layered electricity dispatch systems. As per CEA, the Indian
power system is divided in two grids, the Northern, Eastern, Western and North- Eastern (NEWNE) Grid and
Southern Grid. The project activity is connected to NEWNE Grid and hence for the purpose of estimation of
baseline emission factor the consideration of NEWNE Grid is appropriate and correct.
Page 22
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
CEA in its database for the Indian Power Sector User Guide - Version 6.0 /B06/ has considered only grid power
plants for the analysis. PP has chosen option I.
Step 3 - Simple OM method, out of the four methods provided in the tool /B03/ for calculating the operating
margin (EFgrid,OM,y) is selected. The tool /B03/ specifies that the simple OM method can only be used if the lowcost/must-run resources constitute less than 50% of total grid generation in :1) average of the five most recent
years, or 2) based on long-term averages for hydroelectricity production. The Simple OM method selected is
justified and appropriate as the average proportion of low-cost/must run resources is less than 50%. The ex-ante
option for determining the simple OM is opted by the PP.
Step 4 - The PP has considered the national published data (CEA database, ver 06 /B06/) for simple OM (This
is in conformation with the 2, section B.6.1 of Specific guidelines for completing CDM-PDD, version 7
/B06/). The simple OM emission factor calculated by the CEA is the generation weighted average CO2
emissions per unit net electricity generation (tCO2/MWh) of all generating power plants serving the system, not
including low-cost/must power plants (Cp page 6, User Guide CO2 Baseline Database, ver-06 for the Indian
power sector /B06/).
The simple OM may be calculated by one of the following two options:
Option A: Based on the net electricity generation and a CO2 emission factor of each power unit;
or
Option B: Based on the total net electricity generation of all power plants serving the system and the fuel types
and total fuel consumption of the project electricity system.
Option A has been used for the calculation of the simple OM.
The value of simple operating margin for each year and the data for the calculation of EF grid, simple OM,y is
published by the CEA /B06/ and is publically available. However, validation team has carried checked the
published value of simple OM from the data available in CEA, version 6 /B06/ and found that PP has rightly
calculated the generation weighted average value and this is in line with the tool /B03/ and arrived at the
following summary:
Year
OM emission factor
(tCO2/MWh)
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
1.00
1.01
0.98
Net
Generation
including
imports(MWh)
401,641,586
421,802,633
458,043,085
EFgrid,OM,y
=
(1.00*401,641,586+1.01*421,802,633+0.98*458,043,085)
(401,641,586+421,802,633+458,043,085) = 0.9941 tCO2/MWh
Hence validation team confirms that the PP has rightly followed the CEA database version 06 /B06/ and the
EFgrid,OM,y for the NEWNE grid is based on three year generation weighted average is inconformity with the tool
to calculate emission factor, version 02.2.1 /B03/.
Step 5 - Option 1 has been chosen and PP has fixed the Build Margin emission factor as ex-ante for the first
crediting period.
The set of power capacity additions in the electricity system that comprise 20% of the system generation (in
MWh) and that have been built most recently has been considered by CEA and the same has been selected in
the PDD.
Out of the available options, Option (b) and (c) has been used. Validation team checked independently and
confirm that the selection of the options is correct. This conclusion has been made based on the analyzing the
available options and it was found that the set of power as per option (b) comprises of larger annual generation
Rev No.: 02 (13/09/2012)
Page 23
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
and hence confirm the requirement of the tool /B03/. In validating this step, validation team further confirms
that:
(i) The identified power capacity additions comprise 20% of the system generation for the year under
consideration.
(ii) none of the considered power capacity additions considered under (i) above have been built more than ten
years earlier hence the option (c) has been selected for the selection of the power units.
The PP has considered the national published data (CEA database, ver 06 /B06/) for BM (This is in
conformation with the 2, section B.6.1 of Specific guidelines for completing CDM-PDD, version 6 /B06/).
The CEA database /B6/ provides a BM value for the NEWNE grid as 0.8123. As part of validation of Step 5 of
the tool /B03/, Validation team has checked the BM for the year 2009-10 and found the same correct and in line
with the tool.
Step 6 of the tool /B03/ requires calculation of the combined margin emission factor and provides options for
the calculation:
(a) Weighted average CM; or (b) Simplified CM.
PP has correctly opted option (a) for the calculation of combined margin in line with the tool to calculate
emission factor /B02/.
EFgrid,CM,y = EFgrid,OM,y x wOM + EFgrid,BM,y x wBM
According to the tool /B03/ on selecting alternative weights, the default weights applicable for wind power
projects are wOM = 0.75 and wBM = 0.25 for the first and subsequent crediting period have been applied. The
combined margin emission factor has been calculated as: EFgrid,CM,y = 0.9486
tCO2/MWh (The official
published data for simple OM and BM is considered for calculation of CM). The CM for the fixed crediting
period of 10 years is fixed ex-ante. Hence the validation team confirms that the PP has correctly calculated the
combined margin grid emission factor and is in line with the tool to calculate emission factor, version 02.2.1
/B03/.
Table A-3:
Parameter
Unit
Source of
Information
DOE Conclusion
EPC
Contract
/P12-2/,
Statutory
Clearances /P18/
and signed EPA
/P12-9/
BASELINE EMISSIONS
Rated
Capacity of
the plant
45
MW
Page 24
Validation Report
Generation
(in turns the
Plant Load
Factor)
20
Combined
margin for
the NEWNE
grid
0.9486
01 997 9105065200
%
tCO2/MWh
Third
report
/B05/
The GHG emissions reduction calculations are transparently documented and appropriate assumptions regarding
the expected amount of electricity generated have been used to forecast emission reductions.
While the leakage is not applicable for the project as per the applied meth /B02/ and project emission are zero,
the baseline emissions are equal to the emission reductions due to the project activity.
The emissions reductions due to the project activity were estimated ex-ante to be 78,883 (rounded down
average) tCO2e average annual value in the PDD /P02/ and calculated as follows:
ERy = BEy = EGfacility,y * EFgrid,CM,y = 78,883 MWh * 0.9486 tCO2e/MWh = 74,828 tCO2e (rounded down
value)
In summary, the calculation of emission reductions was correctly demonstrated by the PP according to the
methodology ACM0002 (version 13) and its tool Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system
(Version) version 2.2.1. The summary of GHG emission reduction is as follows:
All assumptions made for estimating GHG
are listed in the PDD
All data used by project participants are
listed in the PDD
Their references and sources are also listed in
the PDD
Formulas, parameters, values are complete,
accurate, transparent and conservative
All the references and documents used are
correctly
quoted
and
conservatively
interpreted in the PDD
Methodology has been applied correctly to
Rev No.: 02 (13/09/2012)
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
As
ACM0002,
Version
13
/B02/
and
Page 25
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
calculate project
emissions,
baseline
emissions, leakage emissions and emission
reductions
All the emissions of baseline emissions can
be replicated using information provided in
the PDD
No
Yes
No
Based on the calculations and results presented in the sections above the implementation of the project activity
will result in an average ex-ante estimation of emission reduction conservatively calculated to be 74,828 tCO2e
per year for the selected crediting period.
All assumptions and data used by the project participants are listed in the PDD and/or supporting documents,
including their references and sources. All documentation used by the project participants as the basis for
assumptions and source of data is correctly quoted and interpreted in the PDD. All values used in the PDD are
considered reasonable and conservative in the context of the proposed CDM project activity. The baseline
methodology has been applied correctly to calculate project emissions, baseline emissions, leakage and emission
reductions and thus confirms compliance of para 89 of VVM ver 01.2 /B01/. All estimates of the baseline,
project and leakage emissions can be replicated using the data and parameter values provided in the PDD.
3.5 Additionality:
The project is large scale project. Therefore, in accordance with ACM0002 /B02/, the additionality of the
project has been demonstrated based on the valid version of the Tool for demonstration and assessment of
additionality (Ver 06.0.0). For the above reasons, this approach has been assessed to be appropriate for the
assessment of additionality for this project activity.
The table below indicates various mile stone/dates pertaining to the project activity, and gives clarity
on the decision making time and further project execution (actual implementation) as verified by the
validation team based on document review:
Sl. No.
Activity
Date
25/02/2011
08/03/2011
Indicative Landing Terms from Axis Bank for Syndication of Loan for
the 200 MW project /P12-7/
21/03/2011
Page 26
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Sl. No.
Activity
Date
25/02/2011
22/04/2011
5
6
7
17/08/2011
15/02/2012
10
16/02/2012
Project developer had stated the start date of the project activity (=200 MW capacity) as 28/06/2011 /P11/ and
has submitted a copy of "Supply and Erection, Construction and Services Contract for WTG Equipments /P11/
between Reliance Clean Power Pvt. Ltd. and Global Wind Power Limited (=technology supplier) and Global
Wind Infrastructure and Services Private limited (=technology supplier) as evidence. The project developer has
not undertaken any construction or any real action on the implementation of the project activity prior to this
date. Since the real action of the activity had begun on 28/06/2011, as per Glossary of CDM terms (Version 07)
/B04/ and 67 of EB 41, this date has been treated as the start date of the project activity.
Since the start date of the project activity is after 02 August 2008, the project activity falls under the category of
new project activity as per paragraph 100 of VVM (01.2) /B01/.
The PDD /P01/ was web-hosted for public comments on 17/08/2011, i.e., after the start date of the project
activity. Since the start date of the project activity was after 02/08/2008 and the PDD /P01/ was web-hosted
after the start date, as per paragraph 2 of Annex 13, EB 62 /B04/ [paragraph 101 of VVM (01.2 /B01/], project
participant is required to inform the Host Party DNA and the UNFCCC secretariat in writing of the
commencement of the project activity and of their intention to seek CDM status and such notification must be
made within six months of the project activity start date. Project developer had informed both UNFCCC and
DNA /P09/ on 26/04/2011 about their intention to seek CDM status. Copies of correspondence /P09/ with
UNFCCC and DNA have been submitted to validation team. Besides, validation team also checked the
UNFCCC website2 and satisfied itself that the project developer had informed UNFCCC on the said date.
Furthermore, even though the intimation was for 200 MW, validation team confirms that this intimation is valid
for the project activity i.e. 45 MW project, which was a part of 200 MW project at the time of intimation to
UNFCCC and DNA.
The project fulfils the condition stipulated vide paragraphs (2) of Annex 13 of EB 62 /B04/, [and paragraph 100
and 101 of VVM (01.2) /B01/]. Validation Team concludes that there was a prior consideration of CDM and
CDM was seriously considered in the decision to implement the project activity.
It is TV Rheinland validation team opinion that the proposed CDM project activity complies with the
requirements of the latest version of the guidance on prior consideration of CDM.
http://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/PriorCDM/notifications/index_html
Page 27
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
3.5.2 Alternatives:
This is a wind power project and is based on the Methodology ACM0002 Ver. 13 /B02/. The methodology
states,
If the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected renewable power plant/unit, the baseline
scenario is the following:
Electricity delivered to the grid by the project activity would have otherwise been generated by the operation of
grid-connected power plants and by the addition of new generation sources, as reflected in the combined
margin (CM) calculations described in the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system.
Paragraph 105 of VVM /B01/ states that PDD is required to identify credible alternatives to the project activity
in order to determine the most realistic baseline scenario, unless the approved methodology that is selected by
the proposed CDM project activity prescribes the baseline scenario and no further analysis is required. Since the
approved methodology ACM0002 /B02/ used by the project activity prescribes the baseline scenario, no further
analysis of alternatives is required for the project activity.
Validation Team, therefore, concludes that the PDD and the validation report conforms to the guidance given
by EB vide paragraph 105 of VVM (Ver.01.2).
TV Rheinland validation team considers the selected baseline is credible and complete.
Page 28
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
communication intimated their inability to install the contracted capacity (200 MW) due to bottlenecks in land
acquisition. In the light of this unforeseen problem, the capacity of the project activity had to be revised to 45
MW comprising of 18 WTGs. With the revision in the capacity, investment in the present project activity i.e. 45
MW was duly approved by Investment Advisory Cell vide an Investment Mandate dated 16/02/2012 /P08-3/.
Hence, the PP was requested to prove the additionality in both the scenarios and the calculations were checked.
It was found that in both the scenarios, the project was additional.
Benchmark selection:
According to the guidelines, where a benchmark approach is used the applied benchmark shall be appropriate to
the type of IRR calculated. The project IRR has been evaluated against Commercial Lending Rate which is
appropriate and is in accordance with para 12 of the Guidelines (Annex 5 EB-62).. Axis Bank, which is one of
the largest lending banks in India has issued a term sheet /P12-7(b)/ on 22/04/2011 indicating, inter alia, the
lending rate will be 13.25%. This rate has been considered as the benchmark. In the year 2011, Mumbai-based
Axis Bank, has emerged the most consistent performer over a three-year period in the BT-KPMG Best Banks
study. Key changes in top leadership, a strong brand, durable relationships and a well diversified revenue
portfolio have been its growth drivers since 2008. The bank offers services to corporate clients, SMEs and retail
customers, comprising, respectively, 53 per cent, 27 per cent and 20 per cent of its business. The same approach
has been adopted for the registered project (7103) by the same PP.
Validation team checked the term sheet which was available with PP before investment decision and found the
rate to be correct. Hence the benchmark 13.25% was the commercial Lending Rate at the time of investment
decision. Validation team independently checked the prevailing lending rate of State Bank of India3 at time of
decision making and found the lending rate i.e. 13.25%.
Hence the benchmark of 13.25 % thus chosen is in accordance with the guidance to investment analysis and
conforms to paragraph 112 (a) and (c) of VVM (01.2) is therefore accepted by the validation team.
Internal Rate of Return
TUV Rheinland validated the timings of investment decision taken by the PP (refer the section "Prior
consideration of the Clean Development Mechanism") and the consistency and appropriateness of the input
values with the timing of investment decision. It was found that this was consistent with the para 19 of the
"Guidelines on the Assessment of Investment Analysis" (version 05, EB62 Annex 5), hereinafter referred to in
this section as 'Guidelines' that states, Input values used in all investment analysis should be valid and
applicable at the time of the investment decision taken by the project participant. The DOE is therefore
expected to validate the timing of the investment decision and the consistency and appropriateness of the input
values with this timing. The DOE should also validate that the listed input values have been consistently applied
in all calculations.
The CL 14-x was raised regarding the Accelerated Depreciation, as per the Indian Income Tax 1961, the wind
mills having the accelerated depreciation @ 80%, which was not considered the PP at the time of the web hosted
PDD. The validation team re-assessed the revised IRR sheets and found that the error has been corrected and the
resultant the IRR also increased. Hence it is accepted by the validation team and subsequently CL 14-x has been
closed.
The debt equity ratio for the project has been adopted at 70:30 from the CERC (Terms and Conditions for Tariff
determination from Renewable Energy Sources) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2010 (p.39). This was also
cross checked from the loan syndication letters from the Axis Bank Limited Mumbai, India /P12/ and was found
to be consistent. Besides, the validation team confirmed that 70:30 funding between debt and equity components
is commonly used for project activities in this sector and hence the debt equity ratio adopted to calculate the
IRR is accepted.
Input parameters:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/07/07/india-plr-idINL3E7I71K520110707
Page 29
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
The source for various input parameters used in the financial analysis were found to be in conformity with
110(a),(b) and (c) of VVM version 01.2. The validation team also concluded that they conform to guidance 6 of
Annex 05, EB 62. Validation team based on its specific local and sectoral expertise confirms that the input
values are valid and applicable at the time of decision making.
The profitability estimates of the project, which forms the basis for IRR calculation is based on installed
capacity, PLF, power tariff, O&M cost, depreciation and taxation.
The assumptions used in the investment comparison analysis are deemed appropriate and the justification is
shown in the following table.
Inputs
Installed capacity
Assumption
45 MW
Project Cost
INR 3081.79 Mn
Justification
The original capacity of the project was 200 MW and
subsequently this was downsized to 45 MW. This capacity (45
MW) is supported by the Investment Mandate dated
16/02/2012 /P08-3/, the capacity is also supported by the
Amended EPC contract /P12-2(b)/ signed on 06/03/2012.
Hence, the value is correct and appropriate for the project.
The project cost has been estimated based upon the EPC offer
dated 25/02/2011 /P12-1/ by the Global Wind Power Limited,
Mumbai as added by the cost of financial charges, interest
during the construction period and the margin for initial
working capital. As per the accepted accounting principles,
these elements are part of the cost of project and hence, this
has been accepted by the validating team. The cost so arrived
was INR 3081.79 million for the total capacity envisaged i.e.,
45 MW. This cost has been cross verified with the EPC
contract dated 06/03/2012 /P12-2(b)/. The variations in the
cost have been suitably dealt with in the sensitivity analysis.
This is adopted from the CERC (Central Electricity Regulatory
commission). Tariff is determined on the basis of the date of
commissioning and the tariff of the wind projects (located in
wind zone 01) for the financial years, as per Section 9.01 of
Energy Purchase Agreement (EPA) /P12-9/ are as follows:
Commissioning Year
FY 2011
FY 2012
FY 2013
Tariff Applicable
(INR/kWh)
5.07
5.37
MERCs order
approved4
MERC (Terms and Conditions for Tariff determination from Renewable Energy Tariff) , dated 30/03/2012 (p.40)
Page 30
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
continues to remain additional. Consideration of higher tariff is
conservative approach and therefore considered as appropriate.
The validating team confirmed that the tariff has been taken
from the Energy purchase agreement.
Project Life time 20 years
The PP has been assumed the technical life time of the WTG is
20 years based on the WTG manufactures specifications /P21/.
As per the guidance EB 62 annex 5 para 3, if a shorter period
is chosen for the additionality, the PP included fair value of the
project activity assets as cash inflow for calculation of the IRR
at the end of the assessment period and hence this has been
accepted.
Plant Load Factor 20%
The PP has presented the analysis carried out by a third party
M/s Fair Aero Consultant & Technologist, Indore dated Oct
2011 /P12-8/ in line with the requirements of 3(b) of
annex 11 of EB 48, which estimated the PLF analysis for the
site at 19.06%. The analysis by M/s Fair Aero Consultant &
Technologist, Indore was based on analysis of wind mast data
collected by C-WET for the period November 2003 to August
2006 which was available at the decision making
(16/02/2012) for 45 MW Project. As per the CERC (Terms
and Conditions for Tariff determination from Renewable
Energy Sources) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2010 (p.39)
for Wind zone -1 /B05/ the PLF is 20%. As this (20%) was
less conservative compared to the estimate from the third
party, the PP has used the higher of the two values to
determine the expected generation per annum for the
investment analysis. This value was hence accepted by the
validating team.
O&M cost and O & M costs : INR CERC (Terms and Conditions for Tariff determination from
escalation
of 0.73 Mn / MW
Renewable Energy Sources) (First Amendment) Regulations,
O&M cost
Yearly Increase on 2010 (p.39) /B05/. A value of 7.26 lakhs per MW has been
O & M Cost applied which is conservative and correct based on CERC order
5.72%
available at the time of investment decision.
In the above background, validation team considers the O&M
cost and escalation in O&M cost are correct and appropriate.
Interest
on 13.25%
The lending rate of 13.25% for working capital has been
Working capital
sourced from the information from M/s Axis bank Limited,
Mumbai loan from their syndication offer letter dated
22/04/2011 /P12-7(b)/. This rate has been applied for the
working capital and also for the term loan. The document has
been checked and the value is found to be correct.
Administrative
Rs. 0.10 Mn / MW The PP has referred annual office & administration cost of
Cost
INR 0.10 Million with 5.72% escalation from the financials
analysis considered during the investment decision. The
administrative cost includes expenses related to the
remuneration and travelling expenses of the dedicated
personnel appointed by the bundler to coordinate the activities
related to the operation of WTGs. The O&A cost were crosschecked from the following documents:
1. Investment Mandate of the PP to appoint staff for the
activities related to the project
2. Verification of appointment letters to the staff concerned
3. Interviews with the personnel identified at onsite to
coordinate the activities related to the operation of the project
Page 31
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
The validation team has also assessed the relevancy of the
assumption by making a comparison with publically available
data, i.e., registered wind projects in which O & A expenses
were considered.
UNFCC ref No.
4761
4343
2540
4489
3977
5061
Project Title
Cost in INR
million / MW
2.5 MW Wind 0.32
Power Project by
M/s
Marudhar
Fashions, India
4.75
MW
Bundled
Wind
Power Project by
0.21
Associated Stone
Industries (Kotah)
Ltd
10 MW Wind
Power Project in
Maharashtra by
Deepak Fertilizers
0.060
and
Petrochemicals
Corporation
Limited
Wind
Energy
Project
in
Maharashtra by
M/s
Shah 0.083
Promoters
&
Developers -7.2
MW
1.2 MW Wind
Power Project in 0.41
Maharashtra
Grid Connected
Wind
Power
Project by M/s.
0.22
Venkatrama
Poultries Limited3.6 MW
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
found to be correct.
Depreciation
rates:
Book
Depreciation
@ 5.28%
IT depreciation
@ 80%
Tax Rate
Salvage value
TUV Rheinland was able to confirm the investment analysis and the IRR determined there-in through
the detailed spread sheet calculations forwarded by the project proponent.
The analysis presented also considers all the applicable benefits for the project activity.
Project Cost
PLF
Tariff
O&M Cost
Guidance 21 of Annex 5 of EB 62 states that as a general point of departure, variations in the sensitivity
analysis should at least cover a range of +10% and 10%, unless this is not deemed appropriate in the context of
Rev No.: 02 (13/09/2012)
Page 33
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
the specific project circumstances. Accordingly the parameters were subject to the variation of +/-10 %. The
highest project IRR i.e. 13.17% for Reliance Clean Power Pvt. Ltd was evaluated for sensitivity analysis. It is
observed that the resultant IRR after applying the sensitivity analysis i.e., 13.17 % is also well below the
calculated benchmark of 13.25%.
Parameter
Project Cost
Plant Load Factor
Base Tariff
O&M Cost / MW
-10%
13.11%
9.50%
9.50%
11.63%
0%
11.42%
10%
9.93%
13.17%
13.17%
11.20%
Cross
over
point
-10.80%
10.60%
10.60%
-90%
Validation Team carried out its own independent assessment, which reveals that the project would become non
additional if
Plant Load Factor up by 10.60 %
Project cost goes down by 10.80 %
O&M cost goes down by 90 %
Base Tariff goes up by 10.6%
Plant Load Factor: Based on above results, it can be concluded that the project IRR of the project activity is
not crossing the benchmark even with 10% increase in the electricity generation i.e., PLF. PLF considered by
the project participant is appropriate and conservative as already discussed above. Project IRR is crossing the
benchmark if PLF is increased by 10.60% and it is very unlikely.
Project cost & O&M Cost: Also even with decrease in the project cost by 10% or O&M cost by 10% of the
project activity is not crossing the benchmark for the project activity. Actual project cost is validated from EPC
contract /P12-2(b)/ raised for the project activity and it is found that actual project cost is reduced by 4.206%
than the project cost as per offer letter /P12-1/. However, PP carried out sensitivity on project cost for +/-10%
conservatively. Hence any reduction in the cost is hypothetical
Moreover O&M cost is based on CERC (Terms and Conditions for Tariff determination from Renewable Energy
Sources) (First Amendment) Regulations, 2010 (p.39) /B05/. With the country experiencing inflation at the rate
of ~5% p.a. any reduction in O&M cost is ruled out.
Tariff: The tariff is governed by signed EPA /P12-09/. The considered Tariff is already conservative and
therefore any increase in tariff is unrealistic.
This is found in line with paragraph 21 Annex 05 of EB 62. Hence, due to the foregoing, it is concluded that the
project activity is additional and it is found to be financially not viable.
Page 34
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
references /P02/, /B12/. Furthermore validation team confirms that there are 4 wind projects engaged in
power generation using wind power technology (ranging from 22.5 MW to 67.5 MW). Therefore, number
of plants that applies technology different from the technology proposed for the project activity (N diff) is
concluded as 693 (i.e., 697-4). Therefore F = 1- (693/697) = 0.006. Since F is 0.006 (less than 0.2),
validation team confirms that the project activity is not a common practice in the country. The details of the
projects, the source of data and the calculations are given in the PDD /P02/ and validation team based on
review of PDD /P02/ and used data source /B12/ confirms that demonstration of common practice analysis
in the PDD is appropriate and correct.
3.6 Monitoring
The monitoring plan is included in Section B.7 of the PDD /P02/ based on the approved monitoring
methodology ACM0002/Version 13 /B02/ titled Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected
electricity generation from renewable sources and is correctly applied to the CDM project activity. This
methodology /B02/ stipulates that monitoring shall consist of monitoring of Quantity of net electricity
generation supplied by the project plant to the grid in year y. This confirms the requirement of 122 of VVM
ver 01.2 /B01/.
The project monitoring plan is in compliance with the monitoring methodology ACM 0002 (version 13.0.0).
It is DOEs opinion, that the project participant is able to implement the monitoring plan.
Page 35
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Monitoring plan related to electricity metering consists of two parameters monitoring representing metering of
export and import electricity at the 32 kV side of the sub-station by one main and check meters dedicated to
project activity.
Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year y will be calculated as
difference of exported and imported electricity which are directly metered in an export-import meter (bidirectional meter). The export and import will be measured continuously and recorded monthly. PDD /P02/
explicitly mentions that measurement results can be cross checked with records for sold electricity, which is in
line with the requirement of applied meth /B02/ and hence acceptable to the validation team.
According to the approved methodology ACM0002 version 13, following parameter will be monitored:
Sl. No.
Parameters
EGfacility,y
Description
In summary, the validation team is convinced of compliance of the monitoring plan with the requirements of the
monitoring methodology of ACM0002 (version 13). During the on-site assessment, the validation team
interviewed the PP that the monitoring arrangements described in the monitoring plan are feasible within the
project design. The emission reductions resulting from the proposed CDM project activity can be reported ex
post and verified.
Page 36
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
According to document review in the PDD /P02/ and on-site interviews with the representatives of the PP,
detailed monitoring procedures, monitoring structure, management team, monitoring items and functions are
clearly demonstrated in the PDD which will enable subsequent verification of the projects emission reductions
in line with the applied methodology. The validation team confirms that as per 24 of EB 23, the specific
uncertainty levels, methods and associated accuracy level of measurement instruments and calibration
procedures used for various parameters and variables are identified in the PDD /P02/, along with quality
assurance and quality control procedures. The accuracy class and the method and frequency of calibration of the
electricity meters have been provided in the PDD /P02/. All the monitored data will be archived until 2 years
after the crediting period to facilitate cross-checking during the crediting period.
Hence the validation team considers that the PP is capable to implement the monitoring plan and hence confirms
compliance of 123(b) of VVM ver 01.2 /B01/.
Page 37
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
and confirms that the LSC meeting meets to the requirement of 127 of VVM, ver 01.2 /B01/. The validation
team confirms that the process for conducting the local stakeholders meeting is adequate and credible.
During the on site visit, representatives from the local community were interviewed. In general, the interviewees
showed adequate understanding of the nature of the project and felt that there would be no adverse impacts on
the environment arising from the project activity. The interviewees also considered that the local economy
would be benefitted from the project activity.
From the section E.2, E.3 and from document review /P12/ of the PDD, it seems that the all the comments
raised by the stakeholders were addressed by the PP.
TUV Rheinland considers the local stakeholder consultation carried out adequately.
on
from
Public comments have been received during that period as provided in the table below.
Party
Comment
1)
DOE to ensure that the PDD values are
consistent and ensure that the CDM project is a
genuine project.
2)
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.
Stakeholder
Consideration
DOE has ensured that the PDD values are
consistent and the CDM project is a genuine
project.
As per usual practices, wind turbine projects are
being appraised on the basis of site parameters
provided by the turbine technology supplier, wind
turbine estimation report by third party as well as
past performance data of nearby operational wind
farms. Hence no need to prepare DPR/FR specific
to banks.
Page 38
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Page 39
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Page 40
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Page 42
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Appendix A
CDM Validation Protocol
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Through Wind Energy Technology
- Reliance Clean Power Pvt. Ltd.
in
India
Report No. 01 997 9105065200
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Page 43
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Table 1:
Validation requirements
(based on 37 of the CDM Modalities and Procedures and on CDM Validation and Verification Manual version 1.2)
Findings, comments,
Checklist question
Ref.
MoV5
references, data sources
1.
Approval(VVM V E.1)
Draft
conclusion
Final
conclusion
/P01/
DR
CAR-01
OK
1.2 Are all Parties, who issued the LoA, Parties to the
Kyoto Protocol and are this, stated in the LoA?
/P01/
DR
CAR-01
OK
/P01/
DR
CAR-01
OK
/P01/
DR
CAR-01
OK
/P01/
DR
CAR-01
OK
/P01/
DR
CAR-01
OK
/P01/
DR
CAR-01
OK
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Page 44
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
/P01/
DR
OK
/P04/
DR
/P04/
DR
/P04/
DR
/P01/
DR
CAR-01
OK
/P01/
DR
CAR-01
OK
/P01/
DR
CAR-01
OK
2.
OK
OK
OK
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Page 45
Validation Report
3.
01 997 9105065200
/P01/
DR
CAR-01
The project is a unilateral project and no
annex 1 party is involved. Subject to closure
of CAR-01
/P01/
/B04/
DR
OK
/P01/
/B04/
DR
CAR 02,
CAR 03,
CAR 04
4.
OK
OK
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Page 46
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
/P01/
DR
OK
/P01/
DR
I
OK
/P01/
DR
OK
/P01/
DR, I
Subject to closure of CAR-05, CAR-06, CL01, CL-02, CL-05, CL-06 and CL-07
OK
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
CAR-05,
CAR-06,
CL-01, CL-02,
CL-05, CL-06,
CL-07
Page 47
Validation Report
5.
5.1
01 997 9105065200
PDD
PDD
DR
DR
OSV
OK
OK
PDD
DR
--
PDD
DR
--
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Page 48
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
/P01/
/B02/
UNFCCC
Website
DR
CL-09
DR
The proposed project activity is not a small -scale project activity; hence this check list
question is not applicable.
DR
The proposed project activity is not a small -scale project activity; hence this check list
question is not applicable.
Subject to closure of CAR-07 and CL-09
CAR-07,
CL-09
OK
DR
DR
DR
DR
CAR-07,
CL-09
CAR-07,
CL-09
OK
OK
OK
OK
Page 49
Validation Report
5.3
01 997 9105065200
Project boundary
PDD
PDD
5.4
DR
DR
OK
OK
PDD
DR
CL-10
OK
PDD
DR
DR
Baseline identification
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
PDD
PDD
DR
DR
PDD
DR
PDD
PDD
DR
CL-11
OK
OK
OK
CL-09
OK
CL-09
OK
Page 50
Validation Report
5.5
01 997 9105065200
DR
DR
PDD
PDD
DR
PDD
DR
PDD
DR
PDD
OK
OK
OK
OK
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
DR
PDD
OK
Page 51
Validation Report
5.6
01 997 9105065200
DR
PDD
DR
DR
PDD
PDD
DR
PDD
OK
OK
DR
There is no project emission in the project
-activity as per the applied methodology.
PDD
PDD
DR
DR
OK
DR
Same as above.
OK
Leakage
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
PDD
PDD
Page 52
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
PDD
DR
Same as above.
6.
Methodology-related issues for afforestation or reforestation CDM project activities
Add specific A/R requirements if applicable!
Not applicable for this CDM project
activity
7.
Additionality (VVM V E.6)
7 a) What approach/tool does the project use to assess PDD
additionality? Is this in line with the
methodology? In case of small-scale CDM project
activities, is Attachment A to Appendix B of the
simplified modalities and procedures for smallscale CDM project activities applied considering
also the Non-binding best practice examples to
demonstrate additionality for SSC project
activities.
7 b) Have the regulatory requirements correctly been PDD
taken into account to evaluate the project activity
and the alternatives? Is sufficient evidence
provided to support the relevance of the arguments
made?
PDD
O.K.
DR
DR
DR
7.1
OK
O.K.
OK
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
/P01/,
CDM
Glossary
of terms.
DR
CL-12
OK
Page 53
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
/P01/,
Glossary
of terms.
DR
OK
/P01/
DR
OK
/P01/,
/P09/
DR
OK
/P01/,
/P09/
DR
OK
/P01/,
/P09/
DR
OK
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Page 54
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
/P01/,
/P09/
DR
OK
/P01/,
/P09/
DR
OK
/P01/,
/P09/
DR
OK
7.2
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
/P01/,
/B02/,
/P01/,
/B02/,
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
DR
DR
Page 55
Validation Report
7.3
01 997 9105065200
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/P07/
DR
Subjected to closure of CL-13, CL-14, CL15, CL-16, CL-17, CL-18, CL-19, CL-20, CL
-21, CL-22, CL-23, CL-24, CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28, CL-29, CL-30, CAR-09,
CAR-10 and CAR-11.
DR
Subjected to closure of CL-13, CL-14, CL15, CL-16, CL-17, CL-18, CL-19, CL-20, CL
-21, CL-22, CL-23, CL-24, CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28, CL-29, CL-30, CAR-09,
CAR-10 and CAR-11.
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
CL-13, CL-14,
CL-15, CL-16,
CL-17, CL-18,
CL-19, CL-20,
CL -21, CL-22,
CL-23, CL-24,
OK
CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28,
CL-29, CL-30,
CAR-09, CAR10 and CAR11.
CL-13, CL-14,
CL-15, CL-16,
CL-17, CL-18,
CL-19, CL-20,
CL -21, CL-22,
CL-23, CL-24,
OK
CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28,
CL-29, CL-30,
CAR-09, CAR10 and CAR11.
Page 56
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
/P01/,
/P07/
DR
DR
Subjected to closure of CL-13, CL-14, CL15, CL-16, CL-17, CL-18, CL-19, CL-20, CL
-21, CL-22, CL-23, CL-24, CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28, CL-29, CL-30, CAR-09,
CAR-10 and CAR-11.
CL-13, CL-14,
CL-15, CL-16,
CL-17, CL-18,
CL-19, CL-20,
CL -21, CL-22,
CL-23, CL-24,
OK
CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28,
CL-29, CL-30,
CAR-09, CAR10 and CAR11.
Subjected to closure of CL-13, CL-14, CL15, CL-16, CL-17, CL-18, CL-19, CL-20, CL
-21, CL-22, CL-23, CL-24, CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28, CL-29, CL-30, CAR-09,
CAR-10 and CAR-11.
CL-13, CL-14,
CL-15, CL-16,
CL-17, CL-18,
CL-19, CL-20,
CL -21, CL-22,
CL-23, CL-24,
OK
CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28,
CL-29, CL-30,
CAR-09, CAR10 and CAR11.
Page 57
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
DR
Subjected to closure of CL-13, CL-14, CL15, CL-16, CL-17, CL-18, CL-19, CL-20, CL
-21, CL-22, CL-23, CL-24, CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28, CL-29, CL-30, CAR-09,
CAR-10 and CAR-11.
DR
Subjected to closure of CL-13, CL-14, CL15, CL-16, CL-17, CL-18, CL-19, CL-20, CL
-21, CL-22, CL-23, CL-24, CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28, CL-29, CL-30, CAR-09,
CAR-10 and CAR-11.
DR
Subjected to closure of CL-13, CL-14, CL15, CL-16, CL-17, CL-18, CL-19, CL-20, CL
-21, CL-22, CL-23, CL-24, CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28, CL-29, CL-30, CAR-09,
CAR-10 and CAR-11.
/P01/,
/P07/
/P01/,
/P07/
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
CL-13, CL-14,
CL-15, CL-16,
CL-17, CL-18,
CL-19, CL-20,
CL -21, CL-22,
CL-23, CL-24,
OK
CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28,
CL-29, CL-30,
CAR-09, CAR10 and CAR11.
CL-13, CL-14,
CL-15, CL-16,
CL-17, CL-18,
CL-19, CL-20,
CL -21, CL-22,
CL-23, CL-24,
OK
CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28,
CL-29, CL-30,
CAR-09, CAR10 and CAR11.
CL-13, CL-14,
CL-15, CL-16,
CL-17, CL-18,
CL-19, CL-20,
CL -21, CL-22,
CL-23, CL-24,
OK
CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28,
CL-29, CL-30,
CAR-09, CAR10 and CAR11.
Page 58
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
/P01/,
/P07/
DR
Subjected to closure of CL-13, CL-14, CL15, CL-16, CL-17, CL-18, CL-19, CL-20, CL
-21, CL-22, CL-23, CL-24, CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28, CL-29, CL-30, CAR-09,
CAR-10 and CAR-11.
DR
Subjected to closure of CL-13, CL-14, CL15, CL-16, CL-17, CL-18, CL-19, CL-20, CL
-21, CL-22, CL-23, CL-24, CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28, CL-29, CL-30, CAR-09,
CAR-10 and CAR-11.
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
CL-13, CL-14,
CL-15, CL-16,
CL-17, CL-18,
CL-19, CL-20,
CL -21, CL-22,
CL-23, CL-24,
OK
CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28,
CL-29, CL-30,
CAR-09, CAR10 and CAR11.
CL-13, CL-14,
CL-15, CL-16,
CL-17, CL-18,
CL-19, CL-20,
CL -21, CL-22,
CL-23, CL-24,
OK
CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28,
CL-29, CL-30,
CAR-09, CAR10 and CAR11.
Page 59
Validation Report
7.4
01 997 9105065200
/P01/,
/P07/
/P01/,
/P07/
Subjected to closure of CL-13, CL-14, CL15, CL-16, CL-17, CL-18, CL-19, CL-20, CL
-21, CL-22, CL-23, CL-24, CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28, CL-29, CL-30, CAR-09,
CAR-10 and CAR-11.
CL-13, CL-14,
CL-15, CL-16,
CL-17, CL-18,
CL-19, CL-20,
CL -21, CL-22,
CL-23, CL-24,
OK
CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28,
CL-29, CL-30,
CAR-09, CAR10 and CAR11.
DR
Subjected to closure of CL-13, CL-14, CL15, CL-16, CL-17, CL-18, CL-19, CL-20, CL
-21, CL-22, CL-23, CL-24, CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28, CL-29, CL-30, CAR-09,
CAR-10 and CAR-11.
CL-13, CL-14,
CL-15, CL-16,
CL-17, CL-18,
CL-19, CL-20,
CL -21, CL-22,
CL-23, CL-24,
OK
CL -25, CL-26,
CL-27, CL-28,
CL-29, CL-30,
CAR-09, CAR10 and CAR11.
DR
Not Applicable
DR
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
/P01/
Page 60
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
7.5
/P01/
DR
Not Applicable
/P01/
DR
Not Applicable
/P01/
DR
CAR-12
OK
/P01/
DR
CAR-12
OK
/P01/
DR
CAR-12
OK
/P01/
DR
CAR-12
OK
/P01/
DR
CAR-12
OK
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Page 61
Validation Report
8.
8.1
8.2
01 997 9105065200
/P01/,
/B02
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
CAR-13
OK
Page 62
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
8.3
/P01/,
/B02/
DR
8.4
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
CAR-13
OK
CAR-13
OK
CAR-13
OK
CAR-13
OK
CAR-13
OK
CAR-13
OK
Page 63
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
UNFCCC
Website
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
OK
OK
CAR-13
OK
CAR-13
OK
CAR-13
OK
Yes
OK
Yes
OK
Yes
OK
Page 64
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
8.2
Yes
OK
Yes
OK
Yes
OK
Yes
OK
Yes
OK
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Not applicable for this project activity (Cp p11 of 19 of the applied Methodology).
--
Not applicable for this project activity (Cp p11 of 19 of the applied Methodology).
--
Page 65
Validation Report
9.
9.1
9.2
10.
01 997 9105065200
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
/P01/,
/B02/,
DR
Not applicable for this project activity (Cp p11 of 19 of the applied Methodology).
--
CAR-01
OK
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
/P01/,
/P13/
DR
/P01/,
/P13/
DR
/P01/,
/P13/
DR
/P01/,
/P13/
DR
/P01/,
/P13/
DR
/P01/,
/P13/
DR
OK
OK
Page 66
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
DR
/P01/,
/P13/
DR
11.
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
/P01/
DR
/P01/
DR
OK
/P01/
DR
Not applicable
OK
/P01/
DR
/P01/
DR
Page 67
Validation Report
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
01 997 9105065200
/P01/
DR
Page 68
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Table 2:
List of Requests for Corrective Action (CAR) and Clarification (CL)
Validation / Verification Manual
(35) The DOE shall raise a corrective action request (CAR) if one of the following occurs:
(a) The project participants have made mistakes that will influence the ability of the project activity to achieve real, measurable additional emission
reductions;
(b) The CDM requirements have not been met;
(c) There is a risk that emission reductions cannot be monitored or calculated.
(36) The DOE shall raise a clarification request (CL) if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether the applicable CDM
requirements have been met.
The wording of CAR/CL shall clearly address nonconformity or seek clarification, and avoid instructive / consultative language in order to prevent
actual or perceived consultancy.
No.
CAR/CL Observation (CAR/CL)
Reference Summary of project owner Revised
Validation team conclusion
response
section(s)/Annexe(s)
of the PDD
1.
CAR-01 LoAs from the parties involved 1.1, 1.2,
in the project activity is a pre 1.3, 1.4,
The LoA is received from PP
requisite for the project to be 1.5, 1.6,
Copy of LoA is now
and found OK.
registered as a CDM project 1.7, 2.1,
submitted.
activity. PP is requested to 2.2, 2.3,
Hence CAR is closed.
provide copy of the same to the 2.4, 9.1
validation team.
2.
CAR-02 As per CDM PDD completing 3.2
PDD
has
been
section A.2
Validation team has checked
guidelines, section A.2 of the
appropriately revised.
the corrections done in the
PDD should include purpose of
PDD and found OK.
the project activity with a
concise description of the three
Hence CAR is closed.
scenarios. The same is not clear
enough in the PDD. The
numbering of the scenarios need
to be corrected. Also PP needs to
clearly mention in the PDD, how
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Page 69
Validation Report
3.
4.
CAR-03
CAR-04
01 997 9105065200
Section B.6.1
Page 70
Validation Report
5.
CAR-05
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
01 997 9105065200
Page 71
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
bottlenecks
in
land
acquisition.
PP
has
executed all the relevant
contracts (EPC contract,
EPA) with respect to
revised capacity. PP has
submitted the all the
documents
executed
pertaining
to
initially
considered capacity of 200
MW as well as the revised
capacity of 45 MW to DoE
for validation.
Page 72
Validation Report
6.
7.
8.
CAR-06
CAR-07
CAR-08
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
01 997 9105065200
4.1, 4.2,
4.3, 4.4
5.2.2,
5.2.3,
5.2.4
5.5.1,
5.5.2,
5.5.4
Section A.4.4
Annex
3
Section B.6.2
and
Page 73
Validation Report
9.
10.
CAR-09
CAR-10
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
01 997 9105065200
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
appropriately mentioned in
these sections.
As been rightly pointed out by the DoE, as there is no
capital
been
blocked,
receivables have been
made nil in the revised
financial computations.
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
11.
CAR-11
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
analysis
Page 75
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
12.
CAR-12
13.
CAR-13
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Page 76
Validation Report
14.
15.
16.
17.
CL-01
CL-02
CL-03
CL-04
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
01 997 9105065200
the PDD).
The statement in section A.2 of 4.1, 4.2,
the PDD Under the Power 4.3, 4.4
Purchase Agreement .......would
annually displace .... electricity
in the western suburbs of
Mumbai and NEWNE regional
grid thereby, is not clear
enough in the context that the
project activity will displace the
equivalent electricity in the
NEWNE grid.
The
project
activity
is 4.1, 4.2,
installation of wind power 4.3, 4.4
project. But in various sections
of the PDD (like A.2. A.4.3 and
B.6.1) solar photovoltaic power
plant has been referred. PP
needs to clarify the same.
In section A.3 of the PDD, PP 4.1
needs to clarify the name of the
PP (i.e. with *).
section A.2
PDD
section A.3
section A.4.1.4
Page 77
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
18.
19.
20.
CL-05
CL-06
CL-07
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Section A.4.3
Section A.4.3
Section A.4.3
Page 78
Validation Report
21.
22.
23.
CL-08
CL-09
CL-10
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
01 997 9105065200
4.3, 4.4
4.1
PDD
5.1.1,
5.2.2,
5.2.3,
5.2.4,
5.4.2
5.4.2.1
Section B.1
5.3.1,
5.3.2,
5.3.3
Section B.3
Page 79
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
24.
25.
CL-11
CL-12
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
PDD
has
been
appropriately revised as per
the emission sources table
described
in
the
methodology.
Present project activity
delivers
electricity
to
NEWNE grid in the host
country.
Therefore,
NEWNE
has
been
identified as the baseline
scenario.
Section B.4 of the PDD has
been revised as per the
baseline
scenario
identification description
given in the applicable
methodology
ACM0002
and removing non-relevant
details.
Certified copy of extracts
of minutes of meeting of
Board of Directors of
Reliance Clean Power Pvt
Ltd has been included as a
part
of
validation
documentation.
Section B.4
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Moreover
the
project
capacity was downsized
from 200 MW to 45 MW
as supported by the
investment mandate dated
16/02/2012.
A
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
copy
of
Investment
Page 81
Validation Report
26.
CL - 13
01 997 9105065200
Mandate
has
been
submitted to DoE in
revised documentation.
Project cost in the IRR
sheet is comprised of EPC
costs, Land costs and other
financing costs for the
project. EPC cost of the
project (INR 66.92 Mn per
MW) has been maintained
as per the offer letter
received from the EPC
contractor.
27.
CL - 14
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Revised
Financial
calculation sheet has been
included in the validation
documentation.
Following documents have been included in the
validation documentation:
i. Administrative Expenses:
Investment in the present
project
activity
was
approved by Investment
Advisory Committee on
23/04/2011. This same date
has been considered as date
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
of investment making.
Consideration
of
administration cost has
been done in accordance
with
the
Investment
Mandate.
The administrative
cost
includes expenses related
to the remuneration and
travelling expenses of the
dedicated personnel
ii.
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
activity
remains
to
additional at this higher
tariff. This approach is
appropriate.
iii.
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Page 84
Validation Report
iv.
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
v.
vi.
01 997 9105065200
iv.
Consideration
of
working capital has been
done through as per debt
Syndication offer received
from a leading lender dated
21/03/2011 & 22/04/2011.
As stated earlier, decision
to invest in the present
project activity was made
through an Investment
mandate,
which
was
approved on 23/04/2011.
Therefore, these documents
were available at the time
of decision making.
Validation Report
x.
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Discount rate
01 997 9105065200
considered an upfront
equity of 20% from
Information Memorandum
(PIM) of a group company
dated 11/07/2008, the
document was available at
the time decision. Such an
upfront
equity
is
a
requirement of the lenders,
commonly observed, in
India
Page 86
Validation Report
xi.
28.
29.
CL -15
CL-16
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
01 997 9105065200
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
closed.
xi. The revised financials
submitted by the PP after
correction has been checked and
found to be correct. Hence this
point is closed.
Hence CL is closed.
In the revised financials this
has been taken from the CERC
(Terms and Conditions for
Tariff determination from
Renewable Energy Sources)
(First
Amendment)
Regulations, 2010 (p.32) and
hence this has been verified
from the guideline this is found
to be correct.
Hence this CL is closed.
Page 87
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
30.
CL-17
31.
CL-18
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
documents
have
been
included in the validation
documentation.
Validation Report
Annex 5 of EB 62.
32.
CL-19
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
01 997 9105065200
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
Renewable
Energy
Sources)
(First
Amendment) Regulations,
2010
recommends
to
consider debtequity ratio
of 70:30 for determination
of generic tariff. The
document is from the
authentic
government
publication (order dated
26/04/2010). Additionally,
the debt syndication offer
(dated
21/03/2011
&
22/04/2011) also indicates
debt:equity ratio of 70:30.
Both these documents were
available at the time of
decision
making.
Therefore, it complies with
the investment guidance
issued vide Annex 5 of EB
62.
Only objective of the
Project Participant is to
generate electricity from
renewable energy sources
and supply the same to
utilities. This can be
vouched by the resolution
passed by Hon. Board of
directors of the company
on 08/03/2011. Further, PP
wishes to clarify that the
Page 89
Validation Report
33.
CL-20
01 997 9105065200
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
Page 90
Validation Report
34.
35.
36.
CL-21
CL-22
CL-23
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
01 997 9105065200
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
Page 91
Validation Report
37.
CL-24
38.
CL-25
39.
CL-26
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
01 997 9105065200
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
It is observed that Land cost and 7.3.1,
Page 92
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
40.
CL-27
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
41.
CL-28
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
PDD
Page 93
Validation Report
42.
CL-29
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
01 997 9105065200
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
Hence CL is closed.
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
is acceptable
Hence CL is closed.
43.
CL-30
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
7.3.1,
7.3.2,
7.3.3,
7.3.4,
7.3.5,
7.3.6,
7.3.7,
7.3.8,
7.3.9,
7.3.10,
7.3.11
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
company; an Investment
Advisory Committee (IAC)
comprising of 3 members is
executed. Mandate for a
particular investment is
accorded
by
this
committee.
Investment
Mandate
has
been
approved for investing in
the current project activity
with
consideration
of
availing possible option of
carbon
financing.
Investment mandate was
approved on 23/04/2011.
Therefore, the same date
when has been considered
as the Date of Decision
making for the present
project activity.
44.
CL-31
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Page 96
Validation Report
needs
to
inconsistency.
45.
CL-32
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
01 997 9105065200
clarify
this
Section D.1
Page 97
Validation Report
01 997 9105065200
Table 3:
List of forward action requests (FARs)
Validation / Verification Manual
(37) The DOE shall raise a forward action request (FAR) during validation to highlight issues related to project implementation that require review
during the first verification of the project activity. FARs shall not relate to the CDM requirements for registration.
FAR number
Reference
Summary of project owner response
Validation team conclusion
No FAR Raised
Rev 02 (13/09/2012) ,
Page 98
Appendix B
Certificates of Competence
Page 99
Page
100
Page
101
Page
102
Page
103
Page
104
Page
105
Page
106
Page
107
Page
108
Page
109