CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECT ... - MyClimate

CDM – Executive Board 

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03.1. 

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM 

PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM-PDD) 

Version 03 - in effect as of: 28 July 2006 

CONTENTS 

A. General description of project activity 

B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology 

C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period 

D. Environmental impacts 

E. Stakeholders’ comments 

Annexes 

Annex 1: Contact information on participants in the project activity 

Annex 2: Information regarding public funding 

Annex 3: Baseline information 

Annex 4: Monitoring plan 

page 1



SECTION A. General description of project activity 

A.1 Title of the project activity: 

Title: 18.86 MW Bundled Wind Power Project, India 

Version: 01 

Date: 10/04/2007 

A.2 Description of the project activity: 

page 2 

With oil and gas prices soaring amid deepening instability in the Middle East, renewable energy 

particularly wind energy is emerging as a bright spot in the global energy economy and is poised for 

worldwide take off. Over last one decade, wind energy generation has increased five times which is a 

very remarkable development. 

Green energy sources such as geothermal, wind, small-scale hydropower, solar, biomass, tidal and wave 

power offer an attractive option for India, which imports 70 percent of its crude oil needs at a cost of 

more than $40 billion a year. Wind energy is rapidly developing as an environmentally sound and costeffective 

option for power generation. The prime movers of expansion are increasing environmental 

awareness and political commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions made under the Kyoto Protocol 

of 1997. Wind is free and supplies of it are inexhaustible, and when it produces energy it doesn’t release 

heat or greenhouse gases. The Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources 1 , Govt. of India estimates 

that a 200-kilowatt wind turbine replacing a thermal power plant would save 120 to 200 tons of coal. 

Burning this amount of coal would add 2 to 3 tons of sulphur dioxide, 1.2 to 2.4 tons of nitrogen oxide 

and 300-500 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. India has a potential capacity of over 45,195 MW 

that can be extracted from the free and eco friendly energy source of wind but so far only 3595 MW has 

been tapped which is just about 8 percent of the current identified potential. 

The bundled project activity deals with generation of electricity using wind energy. The capacity of the 

project and other details has been furnished in the table below. This is a bundled project activity bringing 

together various small-scale CDM projects to form a single project where the distinctive characteristics of 

each project activity have been retained. The bundle consists of the following sub-bundles: 

Ref. No. Name of the 

Sponsor 

Mit/bp/01 M/s Vivek 

Pharmachem 

(India) Ltd, 

Jaipur 

No. of 

WTGs 

Capacity 

perWTG 

(KW) 

Installed 

Capacity 

(MW) 

Technology 

Used 

1 800 0.80 ENERCON, 

E-48 

Wind Turbine 

Location 

Chitradurga, 

Karnataka 

Ref. No. Name of the No. of Capacity Installed Technology Wind Turbine 

1 file://localhost/F:/wind/INTERVIEW%20- 

%20India%20hopes%20to%20double%20wind%20power%20generation%20by%202007 Reuters_com.htm



Sponsor WTGs per 

WTG 

Mit/bp/02 M/s Gem Crafts 

Enterprises Pvt. 

Ltd., Jaipur 

Mit/bp/03 M/s ERCON 

Composites, 

Jodhpur 

Mit/bp/04 M/s S G 

Associates, 

Pune. 

Mit/bp/05 Sanjay D 

Ghodawat, 

Ichalkaranji 

Mit/bp/06 Sanjay D 

Ghodawat 

(HUF), 

Ichalkaranji 

Mit/bp/07 M/s Star Flexi- 

Pack Industries, 

Ichalkaranji 

Mit/bp/08 M/s James 

Andrew Newton 

Art Exports Pvt. 

Ltd., Jodhpur 

Mit/bp/09 M/s Chemical 

and Mineral 

Industries Pvt. 

Ltd., Jodhpur 

Mit/bp/10 M/s Shree Ram 

Industries, 

Jodhpur 

Mit/bp/11 M/s Shree Ram 

Gum and 

Chemicals, 

Jodhpur 

Mit/bp/12 M/s Vanaz 

Engineers Ltd., 

Pune 

Mit/bp/13 M/s B.S.C. 

Textiles, 

Davangere 

(kW) 

Capacity 

(MW) 

2 800 1.60 ENERCON, 

E-48 

Used Location 

1 500 0.50 VESTAS, V- 

39 

1 600 0.60 SUZLON, S- 

52 

1 600 0.60 ENERCON, 

E-40 

1 600 0.60 ENERCON, 

E-40 

1 600 0.60 ENERCON, 

E-40 

1 500 0.50 VESTAS, V- 

39 

1 800 0.80 ENERCON, 

E-48 

1 800 0.80 ENERCON, 

E-48 

1 800 0.80 ENERCON, 

E-48 

1 1250 1.25 SUZLON, S- 

66 

1 350 0.35 SUZLON, S 

- 004 

2 350 

0.70 

SUZLON N 

3335 

page 3 

Chitradurga, 

Karnataka 

Valliour, Nagarcoil, 

Tamilnadu 

Sangli, Maharashtra 

Vani Vilas Sagar, 

Chitradurga, 

Karnataka 

Vanivilas Sagar, 

Chitradurga, 

Karnataka 

Vanivilas Sagar, 

Chitradurga, 

Karnataka 

Valliour, Nagarcoil, 

Tamilnadu 

Jaisalmer, Rajasthan 



Dhulia, Maharashtra 

Satara, Maharashtra 

Satara, Maharashtra



Sponsor 

Mit/bp/14 M/s B.S. 

Channabasappa 

& Sons, 


Davangere 

Mit/bp/15 M/s Hindustan 

Distilleries, 

Ahmednagar 

Mit/bp/16 M/s S. K. 

Parik, 

Ichalkaranji 

Mit/bp/17 M/s Universal 

Starch Chem 

Allied Ltd., 

Dondaicha 

Mit/bp/18 M/s Jaychandra 

Agro Industries 

Pvt. Ltd., 

Dondaicha 

Mit/bp/19 M/s Unique 

Sugars 

Limited, 

Dondaicha 

Mit/bp/20 M/s Shri 

Charbhuja 

Sales 

Corporation, 

Ichalkaranji 

Mit/bp/21 M/s Vishnu 

Textiles 

Corporation, 

Ichalkaranji 

Mit/bp/22 M/s Vandana 

Textiles, 

Ichalkaranji 

Mit/bp/23 M/s Umang 

Textiles, 

Ichalkaranji 

Mit/bp/24 M/s Awade 

Industries 

Private 

Limited, 

Ichalkaranji 

No. of 

WTGs 

2 

Capacity 

per WTG 

(kW) 

Installed 

Capacity 

(MW) 

Technology 

Used 

350 0.70 SUZLON N 

3335 

3 350 1.05 SUZLON N 

3335 

1 350 0.35 SUZLON N 

3335 

1 600 0.60 ENERCON 

TACHE 

1 600 0.60 ENERCON 

TACHE 

1 600 0.60 ENERCON 

TACHE 

1 350 0.35 SUZLON N 

3335 

1 350 0.35 SUZLON 

N3335 

1 350 0.35 SUZLON 

N3335 

1 350 0.35 SUZLON 

N3335 

2 350 0.70 SUZLON 

N3335 

page 4 

Wind Turbine 

Location 

Satara, 

Maharashtra 

Satara, 

Maharashtra 

Satara, 

Maharashtra 

Dhule, 

Maharashtra 

Dhule, 

Maharashtra 

Dhule, 

Maharashtra 

Satara, 

Maharashtra 

Satara, 

Maharashtra 

Satara, 

Maharashtra 

Satara, 

Maharashtra 

Satara, 

Maharashtra



Sponsor 


No. of 

WTG 

Capacity 

per 

WTG 

(kW) 

Installed 

Capacity 

(MW) 

Technology 

Used 

page 5 

Wind Turbine 

Location 

Mit/bp/25 M/s Suttatti 2 350 0.70 SUZLON Satara, Maharashtra 

Enterprises Pvt. 

N3335 

Ltd., Pune 2 600 1.20 ENERCON Chitradurga, 

E-40 Karnataka 

Mit/bp/26 M/s Mayura 

Steel Pvt. Ltd., 

1 230 0.23 ENERCON Satara, Maharashtra 

Kolhapur 

1 230 0.23 ENERCON Chitradurga, 

Karnataka 

Total 37 18.86 

Purpose of the project activity 

The main purpose of the project activity is to generate electrical energy through sustainable means using 

wind power resources, to utilize the generated output for selling it to the state electricity utility as well as 

for captive consumption and to contribute to climate change mitigation efforts. Apart from generation of 

renewable electricity, the project has also been conceived for the following: 

• To enhance the propagation of commercialisation of wind turbines in the region 

• To contribute to the sustainable development of the region, socially, environmentally and 

economically 

• To reduce the prevalent regulatory risks for this project through revenues from emission trade. 

Contribution of project activity to sustainable development 

Government of India has stipulated following indicators for sustainable development in the interim 

approval guidelines 2 for CDM projects. 

1. Social well being: 

� The project has resulted in the development of the region. 

� During civil works, a lot of construction work took place, which generated employment for local 

people around the plant site. 

� Other than these, there are various kinds of mechanical work, which has generated and will continue 

to generate employment opportunities on regular and permanent basis. 

2 Ministry of Environment and Forest web site: http://envfor.nic.in:80/divisions/ccd/cdm_iac.html


2. Economic well being: 


page 6 

� The project activity has generated employment in the local area. 

� The project activity has lead to good investment in a developing region which otherwise would not 

have happened in the absence of project activity. 

� The generated electricity is fed into the regional grid through local grid, thereby improving the grid 

frequency and availability of electricity to the local consumers (villagers & sub-urban habitants) 

which will provide new opportunities for industries and economic activities to be setup in the area 

thereby resulting in greater local employment, ultimately leading to overall development. 

� The project activity has also led to diversification of the national energy supply, which is dominated 

by conventional fuel based generating units. 

� Use of renewable energy source (wind energy) also helps in conservation of natural resources (like 

coal) in the country. 

3. Environmental well being: 

� The project utilizes wind energy for generating electricity which otherwise would have been 

generated through alternate fuels (fossil fuel) based power plants, contributing to reduction in specific 

emissions (emissions of pollutant/unit of energy generated) including GHG emissions. 

� As wind power project produce no end products in the form of solid waste (ash etc.). They address 

the problem of solid waste disposal encountered by most other sources of power. 

� Being a renewable resource, using wind energy to generate electricity contributes to resource 

conservation. 

� The project contributes to the economic sustainability around the plant site, which is promotion of 

decentralization of economic power. 

� Thus the project causes no negative impact on the surrounding environment contributing to 

environmental well being. 

4. Technological well being: 

� The project activity leads to the promotion of variety of technologies of Wind Turbine Generators 

(WTGs) in the subcontinent, demonstrating the success of various types of wind turbines, which feed 

the generated power into the nearest sub-station. Thus increasing energy availability and improving 

quality of power under the service area of the substation. 

In view of the above, the project participants consider that the project activity profoundly contributes to 

the sustainable development.


A.3 Project participants: 


Name of the party 

involved 

((host) indicates a 

host party) 

� India, Ministry of 

Environment & 

Forest (MoEF) 

Private and/or public entity (ies) 

project participants 

(as applicable) 

M/s Vivek Pharmachem (India) Ltd. 

(VPIL) 

M/s Gem Crafts Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 

(GCEPL) 

M/s ERCON Composites (EC) 

M/s S G Associates (SGA) 

Sanjay D Ghodawat (SDG) 

Sanjay D Ghodawat (HUF) (SDG – 

HUF) 

M/s Star Flexi-Pack Industries (SFPI) 

M/s James Andrew Newton Art Exports 

Pvt. Ltd. (JANAEPL) 

M/s Chemical and Mineral Industries 

Pvt. Ltd. (CMIPL) 

M/s Shree Ram Industries (SRI) 

M/s Shree Ram Gum and Chemicals 

(SRGC) 

M/s Vanaz Engineers Ltd. (VEL) 

M/s B.S.C. Textiles (BSCT) 

M/s B.S. Channabasappa & Sons 

(BSCS) 

M/s Hindustan Distilleries (HD) 

S. K. Parik (SKP) 

M/s Universal Starch Chem Allied Ltd. 

(USCAL) 

M/s Jaychandra Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. 

(JAIPL) 

M/s Unique Sugars Limited (USL) 

M/s Shri Charbhuja Sales Corporation 

(SCSC) 

M/s Vishnu Textiles Corporation (VTC) 

M/s Vandana Textiles (VT) 

M/s Umang Textiles (UT) 

M/s Awade Industries Private Limited 

(AIPL) 

M/s Suttatti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (SEPL) 

M/s Mayura Steel Pvt. Ltd. (MSPL) 

page 7 

Kindly indicate if the 

party involved wishes to 

be considered as project 

participant (Yes/No) 

No.



A.4 Technical description of the project activity: 

A.4.1 Location of the project activity: 

A.4.1.1 Host Party(ies): 

India 

A.4.1.2 Region/State/Province etc.: 

Details provided in the table in section A.4.1.4 

A.4.1.3 City/Town/Community etc: 

Details provided in the table in section A.4.1.4 

page 8 

A.4.1.4 Detail of physical location, including information allowing the 

unique identification of this project activity (maximum one page): 

Table No. 1: Geographical Location of Each District Where WTGs are Installed 

District Latitude Longitude 

Chitradurga (Karnataka) 14º 14´ N 76º 24´ E 

Nagarcoil (Tamil Nadu) 08º 10´ N 77º 26´ E 

Sangli (Maharashtra) 16º 52´ N 74º 34´ E 

Satara (Maharashtra) 16º 59´ N 74º 08´ E 

Dhulia (Maharashtra) 20º 54´ N 74º 47´ E 

Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) 26º 55´ N 70º 54´ E 

Table No. 2: Location of Each Project



Location Village/ 

Taluka 

District Color 

Code 

* 

page 9 

State 

M/s Vivek Pharmachem (India) Ltd. Elladakere Chitradurga Karnataka 

M/s Gem Crafts Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Elladakere Chitradurga Karnataka 

M/s ERCON Composites Valliour, Nagarcoil Nagarcoil Tamilnadu 

M/s S G Associates Kundlapur, Kavthe Sangli Maharashtra 

Mahakal 

Sanjay D Ghodawat Van Vilas Sagar Chitradurga Karnataka 

Sanjay D Ghodawat (HUF) Van Vilas Sagar Chitradurga Karnataka 

M/s Star Flexi-Pack Industries Van Vilas Sagar Chitradurga Karnataka 

M/s James Andrew Newton Art Valliour, Nagarcoil Nagarcoil Tamilnadu 

Exports Pvt. Ltd. 

M/s Chemical and Mineral Industries 

Pvt. Ltd. 

Village Bhu, Kita, 

Pithado ki Dhani, 

Jaisalmer Rajasthan 

M/s Shree Ram Industries Village Bhu, Kita Jaisalmer Rajasthan 

M/s Shree Ram Gum and Chemicals Village Bhu, Kita Jaisalmer Rajasthan 

M/s Vanaz Engineers Ltd. 

Khori, Sakri Dhulia Maharashtra 

Vankusavade, Patan Satara Maharashtra 

M/s B.S.C. Textiles 

Gawadewadi, Patan 

Vankusavde, Patan 

Satara Maharashtra 

M/s B.S. Channabasappa & Sons Gawadewadi, Patan 

Vankusavde, Patan 

Satara Maharashtra 

M/s Hindustan Distilleries Vankusavde, Patan Satara Maharashtra 

S. K. Parik Aral, Patan Satara Maharashtra 

M/s Universal Starch Chem Allied 

Ltd 

Bramhanwel, Sakri Dhule Maharashtra 

M/s Jaychandra Agro Industries Pvt. 

Ltd. 

Bramhanwel, Sakri Dhule Maharashtra 

M/s Unique Sugars Limited Bramhanwel, Sakri Dhule Maharashtra 

M/s Shri Charbhuja Sales 

Corporation 

Gojegaon, Patan Satara Maharashtra 

M/s Vishnu Textiles Corporation Devshi, Patan Satara Maharashtra 

M/s Vandana Textiles Devshi, Patan Satara Maharashtra 

M/s Umang Textiles Devshi, Patan Satara Maharashtra 

M/s Awade Industries Private 

Limited 

M/s Suttatti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 

M/s Mayura Steel Pvt. Ltd. 

Devshi, Patan Satara Maharashtra 

Kati, Patan Satara Maharashtra 

Kumminaghatta, 

Holallkere 

Chitradurga Karnataka 

Matrewadi Satara Maharashtra 

Madakaripura Chitradurga Karnataka



Figure 1, Location of Wind Turbines 

* Refer color codes in above table 2 & map for identification of each project location. 

A.4.2 Category(ies) of project activity: 

page 10 

The project activity falls under Sectoral Scope 1: Energy industries (renewable - / non-renewable sources) 

Technology: 

A.4.3 Technology to be employed by the project activity: 

The basic machinery that converts wind power to electricity is called a wind turbine, although it has many 

more parts than other kinds of turbines. The wind spins blades that are attached to a hub that turns as the 

blades turn. Together, the blades and hub are called the rotor. The turning rotor spins a generator, 

producing electricity. There is also a controller that starts and stops the turbine blades. The generator,



page 11 

controller, and other equipment are found inside a covered housing (nacelle) directly behind the turbine 

blades. Outside, an anemometer measures wind speed and feeds this information to the controller. 

Figure 2, Simplified Diagram of Wind Turbine System 

(Source: Real-Time Wind Turbine Emulator Suitable for Power Quality and Dynamic Control Studies; Dale S. L. Dolan, P. W. 

Lehn ) 

The proposed project activity consists of 37 WTGs spread across various locations in Karnataka, 

Tamilnadu, Maharashtra and.Rajasthan.



page 12 

A.4.4 Estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen crediting period: 

Year 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

VPIL GCEPL ERCON SGA SDG SDG(HUF) SFPI JANAEPL CMIPL 

2005 974.36 782.83 

2006 1674.00 2827.20 1325.25 1415.97 1382.52 1382.52 1382.52 1158.88 1160.65 

2007 1674.00 2827.20 1325.25 1619.25 1581.00 1581.00 1581.00 1325.25 1327.28 

Total Estimated Reduction 4322.36 6437.23 2650.50 3035.22 2963.52 2963.52 2963.52 2484.13 2487.93 

Crediting Period 7 Years 

Annual average over the crediting 

period of estimated red. ( t CO2 eqv) 

617.480 919.604 378.643 433.603 423.361 423.361 423.361 354.876 355.418 

2008 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2009 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2010 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2011 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2012 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2013 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2014 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

Total Estimated Reduction 11718 19790.4 9276.75 11334.75 11067 11067 11067 9290.925 9290.925 




1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2015 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2016 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2017 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2018 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2019 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2020 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2021 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 





1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275



page 13 

Year SRI SRGC VEL BSCT BSCS HD SKP USCAL JAIPL 

2001 244.77 244.77 239.88 

2002 539.94 1143 1143 1619.83 560.07 999.51 999.51 

2003 571.5 1143 1143 1714.5 560.07 1143 1143 

2004 1749.1 571.5 1143 1143 1714.5 560.07 1143 1143 

2005 2000.25 571.5 1143 1143 1714.5 560.07 1143 1143 

2006 1160.65 1160.65 2000.25 571.5 1143 1143 1714.5 560.07 1143 1143 

2007 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.5 1143 1143 1714.5 560.07 1143 1143 

Total Estimated Reduction 2487.93 2487.93 7749.89 3397.44 7102.77 7102.77 10192.33 3600.30 6714.51 6714.51 


Annual average over the crediting period 

of estimated red. ( t CO2 eqv) 

355.42 355.42 1107.13 485.35 1014.68 1014.68 1456.05 514.33 959.22 959.22 

2008 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2009 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2010 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2011 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2012 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2013 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2014 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 





1327.28 1327.275 2000.25 571.5 1143 1143 1714.5 560.07 1143 1143 

2015 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2016 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2017 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2018 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2019 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2020 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2021 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 





1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00



page 14 

Year USL SCSC VTC VT UT AIPL SEPL SEPL MSPL MSPL Total (All 26 

Projects) 

2001 88.381 88.381 88.381 88.381 180.369 67.64 1330.948 

2002 999.51 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 428.63 12450.64 

2003 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2439.75 428.63 406.62 15853.71 

2004 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 18011.48 

2005 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 20019.78 

2006 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 34293.42 

2007 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35758.37 

Total Estimated Reduction 6714.51 3448.80 3448.80 3448.80 3448.80 7038.37 3806.19 13599.75 2639.39 2266.62 137718.3 


Annual average over the crediting period 959.22 492.69 492.69 492.69 492.69 1005.48 543.74 1942.82 377.06 323.80 19674.05 


2008 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2009 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2010 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2011 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2012 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2013 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2014 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

Total Estimated Reduction 8001 3920.49 3920.49 3920.49 3920.49 8001 4440.56 19530 3000.38 3255 250322.7 


Annual average over the crediting period 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.6 465 35760.39 


2015 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2016 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2017 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2018 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2019 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2020 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2021 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 





1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39



A.4.5. Public funding of the project activity: 

The project has not received any public funding and Official Development Assistance (ODA). 

SECTION B. Application of a baseline and monitoring methodology 

page 15 

B.1 Title and reference of the approved baseline and monitoring methodology applied to the 

project activity: 

Title: “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable 

sources” 

Reference: Revision to the approved consolidated baseline methodology ACM0002 

(Version 06: 19 May 2006) 

This baseline methodology is used in conjunction with the approved monitoring methodology ACM0002 

("Consolidated monitoring methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable 

sources"). 

The methodology also refers to the “Tool for demonstration and assessment of additionality” (Version 02, 

28 th November 2005) 

B.2 Justification of the choice of the methodology and why it is applicable to the project 

activity: 

The project activity is a bundled wind power project of total installed capacity of 18.86 MW hence 

“Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources” 

ACM0002 is applicable for this project. This methodology includes electricity capacity additions from 

renewable sources such as: 

• Run-of-river hydro power plants; hydro power projects with existing reservoirs where the volume of 

the reservoir is not increased. 

• New hydro electric power projects with reservoirs having power densities (installed power generation 

capacity divided by the surface area at full reservoir level) greater than 4 W/m2. 

• Wind sources; (present project falls under this category) 

• Geothermal sources; 

• Solar sources; 

• Wave and tidal sources. 

� Geographic and system boundaries for the relevant electricity grid can be clearly identified and 

information on the characteristics of the grid is available.



B.3 Description of the sources and gases included in the project boundary 

Legend: 

Sources of Gases 

Baseline 

Sub Station 

End User 

Regional Grid 

Figure 3, Project Boundary 

Source Gas Status Justification/Explanation 

Grid electricity 

generation 

Emission from grid 

CO2 Included Main Emission Source 

CH4 Excluded Excluded for simplification. This is 

conservative. 

N2O Excluded Excluded for simplification. This is 

conservative. 

page 16


Ba 

seli 

ne 

Project 

Activity 


Source Gas Status Justification/Explanation 

On site fuel CO2 Excluded Not required for the project. 

combustion due to 

implementation of CH4 Excluded Not required for the project. 

project activity N2O Excluded Not required for the project. 

page 17 

B.4 Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified 

baseline scenario: 

Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources 

(Version 06) classifies project activities under two heads 

� Project activities that do not modify or retrofit an existing electricity generation facility 

And 

� Project activities that modify or retrofit an existing electricity generation facility 

The present project activity falls under the former class since all the WTGs included in this project have 

been commissioned as new 3 units and no modification or retrofitting of existing WTGs is involved. 

Hence the baseline scenario in this case is identified as: 

“Electricity delivered to the grid by the project 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)” 

The baseline emission factor (EFy) is calculated as a combined margin (CM), consisting of the combination of 

operating margin (OM) and build margin (BM) factors. 

B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below 

those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment 

and demonstration of additionality): 

Justification for additionality of the project 

Although subsidies and financial incentives were given liberally to wind energy, this technology 

remained marginalized in the overall energy scenario. Wind energy contributes about 1% of the total 

power available in India 4 . While working out cost-benefit analysis and calculating internal rate of return 

for any power project, hidden or indirect subsidies on pricing a resource and infrastructure were never 

taken into account in conventional energy sources. On the other hand, economic analysis of wind energy 

projects rarely supported their economic justification. Most projects were supported for their renewable 

nature, social and environmental benefits. 

3 Power Purchase Agreements & Commissioning Certificates are available as documentary proof. 

4 CEA general review 2006 (table no. 3.2)



Figure 4, All India Gross Electricity Generation (Utilities) During 2004-05 (GWh) 

Diese 

0% 

Ga 

10% 

Nuclear 

3% 

Steam 

72% 

page 18 

Source: CEA General Review 2006 (Table No 3.2) 

Step 0. Preliminary screening based on the starting date of the project activity 

Not applicable as this is a Verified Emission Reduction Project. 

Step 1. Identification of alternatives to the project activity consistent with current laws and 

regulations 

Sub-step 1a. Define alternatives to the project activity: 

� The proposed project activity not undertaken as CDM project 

The project faces barriers as discussed below hence this option is not available with the project promoters. 

� All other plausible and credible alternatives to the project activity that deliver outputs and on services 

(e.g. electricity, heat or cement) with comparable quality, properties and application areas 

Since most of the individual projects under this bundle supply electricity to the grid, other alternatives 

like setting up of fossil fuel power plants could be possible. Projects (Mit/bp/09-M/s Chemical and 

Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd; Mit/bp/10- M/s Shree Ram Industries; Mit/bp/11- M/s Shree Ram Gum and 

Chemicals) that use part of the electricity generated for captive consumption, alternatives may include 

use of fossil fuels for electricity generation without supply to grid. Possible fuel based electricity 

generation would cause more GHG emissions. 

� Continuation of the current situation (no project activity or other alternatives undertaken). 

Wind 

1% 

BP 

0% 

Hydr 

14%



page 19 

This is the most plausible baseline scenario as in the absence of the project activity - the respective state 

grids would continue to be supplied by conventional power plants. Even for Mit/bp/09, Mit/bp/10, 

Mit/bp/11 projects where the electricity produced is used partly for captive use, this would be the apt 

baseline as all other scenarios would cause more GHG emissions as compared to this option. 

Table No. 3 - Gross Electrical Energy Generation from Steam and Wind Resources 5 

State Energy generated from Steam (%) Energy generated from Wind (%) 

Rajasthan 84 1.6 

Maharashtra 83 0.007 

Karnataka 54 2.08 

Tamil Nadu 66 7.5 

The table above depicts all India electricity generation statistics. As can be clearly seen from the table, 

maximum percentage of electricity is generated by thermal power plants and marginal portion comes 

from wind energy. Thus clearly thermal power plants would have supplied electricity to the grid in the 

absence of the project activity. 

Sub-step 1b. Enforcement of applicable laws and regulations: 

The alternative is in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements. 

Step 2. Investment analysis 

This step has not been carried out for this project. 

Step 3. Barrier analysis 

Sub-step 3a. Identify barriers that would prevent the implementation of type of the proposed project 

activity: 

Financial Barriers: 

The main problem area which is hindering the development of wind power in India is the dire lack of 

financing institutions to back the huge capital cost investment required by wind farms. The wind power 

plant sector is still predominantly debt-based for 60-70 6 percent of the project cost. IREDA and a handful 

of other banks are not enough to meet the installation needs, due to which wind energy hasn’t even taken 

off in many states. 

Regulatory Barriers; 

5 Table No. 3.4 All India Electricity Statistics General Review 2006 

6 Page No. 19 TERI Report :Wind Energy Information 2005/2006 

ENVIS Centre on Renewable Energy and Environment



page 20 

As the projects in this bundle are spread across four different states, the regulatory barriers have been 

identified for each of these states. 

Karnataka ( 9 WTGs) 

Ref. No. Promoter Name No. of WTGs Capacity 

Mit/bp/01 M/s Vivek Pharmachem (India) Ltd. 1 0.80 MW 

Mit/bp/02 M/s Gem Crafts Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 2 1.60 MW 

Mit/bp/05 Sanjay D Ghodawat 1 0.60 MW 

Mit/bp/06 Sanjay D Ghodawat (HUF) 1 0.60 MW 

Mit/bp/07 M/s Star Flexi-Pack Industries 1 0.60 MW 

Mit/bp/25 M/s Suttatti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 2 1.20 MW 

Mit/bp/26 M/s Mayura Steel Pvt. Ltd. 1 0.23 MW 

KERC came out with a policy consultation paper in December 2002 where, inter alia, it calculated the 

cost of generation from wind power projects. On a full cost of generation basis, it estimated that the first 

year tariff would be in the range of Rs. 4.44 per kWh to Rs. 6.55 per kWh. It also estimated that based on 

the MNES tariff, the wind projects would earn a return on equity ranging from -5% to 10% in the first 

year, which would increase to 12% to 29% by the 10th year. 

The projects that were implemented later had lower tariffs for first 10 years (Rs. 3.25 per kWh for 

projects already commissioned and to be commissioned on or before 31st August 2003 and Rs. 3.10 per 

kWh for projects to be commissioned after 31st August 2003 with annual escalation of 2% without 

compounding on the base tariff). (Source: KERC Order Case No.S/08/2003 (Batch-B) dated 17 

September 2003). For PPAs filed on or after 10 June 2004 (Source: KERC Order dated 18 January 2005), 

the tariff for wind energy projects is set at Rs. 3.40 per kWh without any escalation for the 10-year period 

from the date of commercial operation of the plant. While determining this tariff, KERC estimated that 

the first year cost of generation from a wind power project in Karnataka is Rs. 3.95 per kWh, which drops 

to Rs. 2.80 per kWh in the 10th year. First five year cost of generation is above Rs. 3.40 per kWh. Thus, 

the projects will earn less than their cost of generation for the first five years of generation, which with 

the exception of mini-hydel tariffs set by KERC, is not the case for any other non-conventional energy 

sources. 

The economics of wind power project, as they are based on single part tariff structure without any 

deemed generation benefits, depend on their ability to be able to generate at estimated levels without 

being backed down. This is unlike other utility scale fossil fired or hydro power projects where two part 

tariff structure is available which mitigates the investment risks from dispatch (actual generation). 

During the monsoon period when the water level (and therefore hydro generation) in the state is 

comfortable, KPTCL has backed down the wind power projects resulting in a significant loss to project 

companies. This issue is compounded by the fact that during the monsoon season, the wind speed is very 

high and backing down of wind turbines during this period has a major impact on the revenue of the wind 

farm. 

Maharashtra (23 WTGs):



page 21 


Mit/bp/04 M/s S G Associates 1 0.6 MW 

Mit/bp/12 M/s Vanaz Engineers Ltd. 

1 1.25 MW 

1 0.35 MW 

Mit/bp/13 M/s B.S.C. Textiles 2 0.70 MW 

Mit/bp/14 M/s B.S. Channabasappa & Sons 2 0.70 MW 

Mit/bp/15 M/s Hindustan Distilleries 3 1.05 MW 

Mit/bp/16 S. K. Parik 1 0.35 MW 

Mit/bp/17 M/s Universal Starch Chem Allied Ltd. 1 0.60 MW 

Mit/bp/18 M/s Jaychandra Agro Industries Pvt.Ltd. 1 0.60 MW 

Mit/bp/19 M/s Unique Sugars Limited 1 0.60 MW 

Mit/bp/20 M/s Shri Charbhuja Sales Corporation 1 0.35 MW 

Mit/bp/21 M/s Vishnu textiles Corporation 1 0.35 MW 

Mit/bp/22 M/s Vandana Textiles 1 0.35 MW 

Mit/bp/23 M/s Umang Textiles 1 0.35 MW 

Mit/bp/24 M/s Awade Industries Private Limited 2 0.70 MW 

Mit/bp/25 M/s Suttatti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 2 0.70 MW 

Mit/bp/26 M/s Mayura Steel Pvt. Ltd. 1 0.23 MW 

One of the bigger risks investors face are those due to policy changes that take place in the wake of a 

change in political party post-elections. Recent history has shown that a change of Government means a 

clean slate in regard to certain socially sensitive issues such as power distribution and tariffs. Even if, the 

investors themselves are not the target of policy changes, the indirect impact wrought by potentially 

negative effects on utility’s and State Government’s fiscal well being are very real. Renewable energy 

projects are highly dependent on a Stable policy environment in order to protect and sustain the tariff 

structures, subsidies and/or incentive programmes that make such projects financially viable. Given that 

such programmes represent added cost to Government budgets, negative fiscal development can put 

pressure on the Government to alter or curtail these policies. 

While the Regulatory Commissions are in the process of evolution, one may encounter conflicting 

situations and undue interferences from the political class. Regulatory functions are expected to be fair 

and unbiased to all stakeholders. The box 7 below presents an interesting case. 

Conflict of interests - Power utilities and prospective wind power producers 

Subsidies, in the form of huge tax concessions and preferential tariff given to wind 

power projects in Maharashtra have been a highly controversial issue. A capacity 

addition of about 750 MW of wind power in Maharashtra was envisaged in the 10 

7 

Policy Paper on Collaboration between European and Indian Wind Energy Sector & Opportunities and Threats for 

Wind Energy in a Privatised Sector in India (http://www.euindiawind.net/pdf/eiwen_documents.pdf 

th 

Plan by MERC through its order dated November 24, 2003. For projects 

commissioned after April 1, 2003, MERC had fixed a tariff Rs. 3.5 / unit with an 

annual escalation of 15 paise for the next 13 years. Once this period of 13 years was 

over, the firms were free to sell power directly to a consumer of their choice with 

MSEB having no right. This participation was on first come- first-served basis and 

MSEB would have to enter into EPAs with all the private wind power projects, which 

wish to do so. In light of the high tariff being given to private wind developers, 

MSEB found it cost-effective to undertake development of wind projects on its own. 

To this effect, MSEB came up with a plan of erecting wind power projects of 600 

MW through a competitive bidding route. MSEB claimed that it would be possible to 

buy power through such competitive bidding route at a rate much less than MERC 

determined rate.



page 22 

The rate at which power is bought from wind power projects by the state utility is fixed by Maharashtra 

Electricity Regulatory Commission under Section 22(i) c and 29 of the erstwhile ERC Act 1998, and also 

under Section 62 and 86 (i) e of the EA 2003. This tariff rate is binding on the promoter who has no say 

in the matter. 

The setting up of the grid to evacuate the electricity generated and maintenance is the sole responsibility 

of Maharashtra State and the project promoter has no control over this activity. Hence, any delay or



page 23 

failure in setting up the grid by the State utility forms a major risk to the project promoter as, though the 

turbines may have been commissioned and are in a position to generate electricity, they cannot do so as 

the grid is not in place. 

Rajasthan: (3 WTGs) 


Mit/bp/09 M/s Chemical and Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. 1 0.80 MW 

Mit/bp/10 M/s Shree Ram Industries 1 0.80 MW 

Mit/bp/11 M/s Shree Ram Gum and Chemicals 1 0.80 MW 

The policy of the state of Rajasthan has not been investment friendly (inconsistent) for sale of power from 

wind installations, leading to additional risks for the investors. The policy status in Rajasthan is briefly 

indicated below: 

� March 1999 – February 2000: 

Purchase of electricity at Rs 2.75 (US$ 0.061/kWh) with just 2% wheeling charges along with sales tax 

incentives. The developer was allowed to bank electricity for one year. 

� February 2000 – April 2003: 

Purchase of electricity at Rs 3.03 (US$ 0.067/kWh) while the wheeling charges were kept same at 2%. 

The provision for banking for 12 months has been limited to end of financial year only (March 31). If the 

banking period is exhausted and the electricity was not sold out by then, the state power utility will buy 

balance amount of electricity at 60% of the agreed purchase price. 

� April 2003 – October 2004: 

Purchase of electricity at Rs 3.32 (US$ 0.073 /kWh). The wheeling charges have been drastically 

increased from 2% to 10% for the volume of electricity supplied to the grid. The banking period has been 

reduced from 12 months to the end of calendar year (December 31). 

� October 2004 – Onwards: 

The present policy regime is not conducive for business investment in WEG as the purchase price has 

been reduced from Rs 3.32 / kWh (US$ 0.073 /kWh) to Rs 2.91 / kWh (US$ 0.064 / kWh) which is 13% 

lower then the previous power policy. 

Indian electricity sector is gearing up for the Availability Based Tariff (ABT) in which the generators 

with firm delivery of power against commitment will start getting more price for the generated power, 

whereas investor in WEG will have to bear this setback as the generator cannot play in the market for 

committed supply of electricity and will be left out for lower rates. 

Tamil Nadu (2 WTGs) 


Mit/bp/03 M/s ERCON Composites 1 0.5 MW 

Mit/bp/08 M/s James Andrew Newton Art Exports Pvt. Ltd. 1 0.5 MW



page 24 

Ministry of Non-conventional Energy Sources, Government of India had issued guidelines for power 

purchase tariff to be Rs.2.25 per kWh with 5 % escalation every year for all renewable energy to promote 

generation of renewable clean energy. TNEB was following the same. In 2001, TNEB changed its policy 

and frozen the power purchase tariff for wind energy at Rs. 2.70 per kWh with no escalation till 2006 and 

had informed that this power purchase tariff will be reviewed at 2006 and a new tariff will be fixed then. 

This had been a major barrier for establishing new wind farms as other renewable energy plants continued 

to get a higher tariff. For instance, the power purchase tariff for electricity from an industrial waste / 

municipal waste based generation is Rs. 3.49 for the year 2005 as against Rs. 2.70 for wind energy. This 

policy encourages investors to invest in other renewable energy plants. Reduction in power purchase 

tariff was a major investment barrier. 

Connection to the grid is a base requirement for wind projects, but often can be one of the most 

contentious. As an example of how important grid issues are, for two years running so far, the Tamil 

Nadu Electricity Board 8 has asked wind generators to shut down in the midst of peak wind season due to 

high system frequency stemming from an inability to transmit the power. This stems directly from 

inadequacies in grid infrastructure. In substantial parts of India – often in the places best suited for wind, 

the same portions of the grid where wind projects are being developed are also some of the most 

neglected. Investment in grid strengthening has been put off for many years in many rural areas and grid 

stability in these areas is often poor. 

While to date there have been no outright defaults on payments to wind generators, there have been 

delays in payment. If a utility has demonstrated chronic late payments, no matter how consistently they 

have paid eventually, this will be viewed as a significant credit risk by lenders, potentially one that is 

insurmountable short of extraordinary credit support measures. One can fathom the seriousness of this 

problem from the fact that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) 9 owes wind power producers in the 

State over Rs 108 crore for the power they have supplied to the State grid since April 2006. 

Technical Barriers: 

In the conventional power sector, fossil fuel resources are limited, but the technology to harness them is 

well established. By contrast, wind energy resources are unlimited, but the technology to harness it is still 

in the development stage. Thus, non-availability of cost-effective, commercially viable technology for 

utilization of wind energy constitutes one of the barriers. Lack of standardization 10 in system components 

leads to wide ranges in design features and technical standards. Absence of long-term policy instruments 

has resulted in difficulties in manufacturing, service and maintenance of wind turbines. The mismatch 

between locally manufactured components and imported parts has resulted in weakening the reliability of 

the overall system in some cases. The absence of effective service and maintenance networks, combined 

with inadequate user training, leads to a loss of confidence among entrepreneurs and customers. Another 

barrier is lack of co-ordination among research groups, academic institutions, and the private wind 

industry. 

8 http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2006/05/31/stories/2006053103621900.htm 

9 http://www.blonnet.com/2006/10/11/stories/2006101100921900.htm 

10 CICERO Working Paper 1999:4; Institutional dynamics and barriers in wind energy development (A case study 

of Tamil Nadu & Andhra Pradesh, India; (page no 18)



page 25 

Table No. 4: List of Other More Commercially Viable Technologies With Cost of Generation 11 

Other Barriers: 

Options Cost (US cents/KWh) 

Coal Thermal 6.433 

Gas Combined Cycle 6.475 

Gas Open Cycle 11.815 

Hydel 9.334 

Fuel Oil 8.823 

Biogas Diesel 9.268 

Wind 14.013 

A good barometer for just how risky wind is viewed is the insurance industry. Wind, in comparison to 

other renewable technologies, has probably made the greatest advances in risk perception in the insurance 

arena such that a wide variety of ‘common’ insurance products are now available similar to what can be 

found in the conventional energy sector. The one major cover that is not available for wind is mechanical 

breakdown due to parts failure. Insurers are not willing to cover the materials science part of the neither 

wind turbine nor critical components such as gears and yaw control. They believe these components to be 

proprietary to specific manufacturers and subject to unpredictable stresses/cycling to cover at this point. 

Given the rapid pace of wind turbine design, components have not logged sufficient hours to build a 

meaningful actuarial database. Thus this is a major category of risk that must be absorbed by the project 

owner, as lenders will seek guarantees on replacement of such critical parts if not insured. It should be 

noted that this is an industry-wide phenomenon and not limited to India. However, Indian turbine 

manufacturers must work extra hard to build up its installed fleets and log field operation time to 

overcome risk perceptions. 

Sub-step 3 b. Show that the identified barriers would not prevent the implementation of at least one of 

the alternatives (except the proposed project activity): 

All these barriers relate to venturing into a relatively new technology of electricity generation by WTGS 

and do not apply to other alternatives such as continuation of supply of electricity from conventional 

fossil fuel plants in the absence of project activity. 

Step 4. Common practice analysis 

In the Indian Power Sector, common practice involves investing mostly in medium or large-scale fossil 

fuel fired power projects. This is mainly due to the assured return on investment, economies of scale and 

easy availability of finances. 

11 http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/default/tech_papers/17th_congress/1_1_27.asp#Heading16



1% 

All India Installed Capacity (MW) 

10% 

55% 

1% 

0% 

3% 1% 3% 

0% 

26% 

page 26 

Hydro coal diesel gas nuclear SHP wind BG BP U&I 

Source: Ministry of Power, India (2005) 

Figure 5, Installed Capacity of Power Utilities in India 

Wind farms are located only in following 8 states of India out of 29 states and 6 union territories: 

Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and West Bengal, last 

two states being latest entries. The total installed capacity of wind energy 1870 MW 12 out of total installed 

capacity of 123,014.81MW 13 in India. The share of installed capacity of wind is just 1.5%. The total 

generation all over India from wind sources for the year 2004-2005 was 4295.22 GWh 14 out of total 

generation of 594456.20 GWh for the year 2003-2004. The contribution from wind energy for total 

generation was just 0.7 %. From the above, it is evident that wind energy is not a prevailing practice in 

India. 

Step 5. Impact of CDM registration 

The attendant benefits and incentives derived from the project activity will help alleviate these barriers 

and thus enable the project to be successful. The financial benefit from the revenue obtained by selling 

the CO2 emissions reductions is one of the key issues that has encouraged the developers to invest in the 

proposed project activity. 

The above tests and analysis suggests that the project activity is additional and the anthropogenic 

emissions of GHG by sources will be reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the 

CDM project activity. It can therefore be clearly demonstrated that the proposed CDM project activity is 

not the baseline scenario. 

B.6 Emission reductions: 

12 Source : www.mnes.nic.in 

13 Source : Ministry of Power, Government of India www.powermin.nic.in/generation/generation_state_wise.htm 

14 Table 3.2: All India Electricity Statistics General Review 2006



B.6.1 Explanation of methodological choices: 

page 27 

The baseline emission (BEy in tCO2) is the product of the baseline emission factor (EFy in tCO2/MWh) 

times the electricity supplied by the project activity to the grid (EGy in MWh) minus the baseline 

electricity supplied to the grid in the case of modified or retrofit facilities (EG baseline in MWh), as 

follows: 

BEy = (EGy – EGbaseline ) x EFgrid,y 

Since the following project does not involve any modification or retrofit of the existing generation facility 

hence EGbaseline = 0 

EFgrid,y is determined as follows: 

The weighted average of the Operating Margin emission factor (EFOM,y) and the Build Margin emission factor 

(EFBM,y): 

EFgrid,y = w OM * EF OM,y + w BM *EFBM, y 

where the weights wOM and wBM, by default, are 50% (i.e., wOM = wBM = 0.5), and EFOM,y and EFBM,y are 

calculated as described in Steps 1 and 2 below and are expressed in tCO2/MWh. 

For wind and solar projects, the default weights are as follows: wOM = 0.75 and wBM = 0.25 (owing to their 

intermittent and non-dispatchable nature). 

Where 

EF OM,y = Operating Margin Emission Factor 

EFBM, y = Build Margin Emission Factor 

EF GRID,Y = 0.75 x EF OM,y + 0.25 x EFBM, y 

1. Calculation of operating margin emission factor for the region based on simple OM 

For calculation of operating margin four options are available: 

(a) Simple operating margin; 

(b) Simple adjusted operating margin; 

(c) Dispatch data analysis operating margin; 

(d) Average operating margin. 

According to ACM0002 / version 06 dispatch data analysis should be the first choice but for the current 

project, dispatch data analysis cannot be used because of unavailability of data. 

The simple OM method was used as the low-cost/must run resources constitute less than 50% of the total 

grid generation of Western, Northern and Southern Grid in average of the five most recent years. 

The simple OM emission factor (EFOM, simple, y) is calculated as the generation-weighted average 

emissions per electricity unit (tCO2/MWh or MU) of all generating sources serving the system, not 

including low-operating cost and must-run power plants.


Where: 

Fi, j, y 

EF OM, y = 


∑ F i, j , y * COEF i,j y 

∑ GENj, y 

page 28 

is the amount of fuel i (in a mass or volume unit) consumed by relevant power sources j in 

year(s) y, j refers to the power sources delivering electricity to the grid, not including lowoperating 

cost and must run power plants, and including imports to the grid, 

COEFi,j y is the CO2 emission coefficient of fuel i (tCO2 / mass or volume unit of the fuel), taking 

into account the carbon content of the fuels used by relevant power sources j and the 

percent oxidation of the fuel in year(s) y, and 

GENj,y is the electricity (MWh or MU) delivered to the grid by source j. 

The CO2 emission coefficient COEFi is obtained as 

Where: 

COEFi = NCVi * EFCO2,i * OXIDi 

NCVi - is the net calorific value (energy content) per mass or volume unit of a fuel i, 

OXIDi - is the oxidation factor of the fuel. 

EFCO2 , I - is the CO2 emission factor per unit of energy of the fuel i. 

2. Calculation of build margin factor for the region (ex ante): 

Build margin can be calculated as the generation weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh or 

MU) of a sample of power plant m, as follows: 

Where, 

EF BM, y = Σ Fi,m, y * COEFi, m 

∑ GENm, y 

Fi,m,,y, COEFi,m are analogous to the variables described for the simple OM method for plants m. 

3. Baseline emission factor (EF y)



page 29 

The baseline emission factor EFy is calculated as the weighted average of the operating margin emission 

factor (EFOM, simple, y) and the build margin emission factor (EFBM, y), where the weights wOM and wBM, by 

default, are 75% wOM & 25% wBM, and EFOM,y and EFBM,y are calculated as described in Steps 1 and 2 

above and are expressed in tCO2/MWh or MU. 

Data used for arriving at the EF GRID,Y 


Values for all regional grids for FY 2000-2001 until FY 2004-2005, including inter-regional and cross-border 

electricity transfers. (CEA, User Guide: Version 1.1) 

B.6.2 Data and parameters that are available at validation: 

(Copy this table for each data and parameter)



page 30 

Data / Parameter: EFy 

Data unit: t CO2/MWh 

Description: Grid emission factor of the Northern, Western and Southern Grid 

Source of data used: calculated 

Value applied: 0.8675, 0.9525, 0.93 

Justification of the choice of 

data or description of 

measurement methods and 

procedures actually applied : 

The values for OM and BM have been calculated by Ministry of Power, 

Central Electricity Authority hence are authentic and reliable. The EF 

calculation is based on the guidelines in ACM0002 (Version 06) 

Any comment: The values are for the year 2004-05 

Data / Parameter: EFOM y 


Description: CO2 operating margin emission factor of the Northern, Western and 

Southern Grid 

Source of data used: CO2 Baseline Database for the Indian Power Sector, User Guide, Version 

1.1. CEA 

Value applied: 0.98, 1.01, 1.00 





The values have been calculated by Ministry of Power, Central Electricity 

Authority hence are authentic and reliable. 


Data / Parameter: EFBM y 


Description: CO2 build margin emission factor of the Northern, Western and Southern 

Grid 

Source of data used: CO2 Baseline Database for the Indian Power Sector, User Guide, Version 

1.1. CEA 

Value applied: 0.53, 0.78, 0.72 





The values have been calculated by Ministry of Power, Central Electricity 

Authority hence are authentic and reliable. 


B.6.3 Ex-ante calculation of emission reductions: 

Grid Emission Factor 

Western Regional Grid- 952.5 T CO2/GWh 

Southern Regional Grid- 930 T CO2/GWh 

Northern Regional Grid- 867.5 T CO2/GWh



Baseline emissions or CERs generated by the project are estimated to be: 

page 31 

Baseline Emissions (project) = Grid Emission Factor * Power Generated from the Project 

(tons of CO2) (tons of CO2/GWh) (GWh/year) 

Reference No. Applicable 

Regional 

Grid 

Grid 

Emission 

Factor 

(tCO2e/ 

GWh) (EF) 

Installed 

Capacity 

(MW) 

Guaranteed 

Annual 

Generation 15 

(GWh) (EG) 

Mit/bp/01 Southern 930 0.80 1.8 1674 

Mit/bp/02 Southern 930 1.60 3.04 2827.2 


Mit/bp/04 Western 952.5 0.60 1.7 1619.25 





Mit/bp/09 Northern 867.5 0.80 1.53 1327.275 



Mit/bp/12 Western 952.5 1.25 2.1 2000.25 

0.35 0.6 571.5 

Mit/bp/13 Western 952.5 0.70 1.2 1143 

Mit/bp/14 Western 952.5 0.70 1.2 1143 

Mit/bp/15 Western 952.5 1.05 1.8 1714.5 

Mit/bp/16 Western 952.5 0.35 0.588 560.07 

Mit/bp/17 Western 952.5 0.60 1.2 1143 

Mit/bp/18 Western 952.5 0.60 1.2 1143 

Mit/bp/19 Western 952.5 0.60 1.2 1143 

15 Values provided by Suppliers of WTGs 

Emission 

Reductions (tCO2e 

/ year) (ER= EW x 

EF)



Reference No. Applicable 

Regional Grid 

Grid 

Emission 

Factor 

(tCO2e/ 

GWh) (EF) 

Installed 

Capacity 

(MW) 

Guaranteed Annual 

Generation16 

(GWh) (EG) 

Mit/bp/20 Western 952.5 0.35 0.588 560.07 

Mit/bp/21 Western 952.5 0.35 0.588 560.07 

Mit/bp/22 Western 952.5 0.35 0.588 560.07 

Mit/bp/23 Western 952.5 0.35 0.588 560.07 

Mit/bp/24 Western 952.5 0.70 1.2 1143 

Mit/bp/25 

Mit/bp/26 

Western 952.5 0.70 0.666 634.365 

Southern 930 1.20 3.00 2790 

Western 952.5 0.23 0.45 428.625 

Southern 930 0.23 0.50 465 

B.6.4 Summary of the ex-ante estimation of emission reductions: 

Year Project 

Emission 

(tons CO2e /yr.) 

Baseline Emissions 

(tons CO2e /yr.) 

Leakage 

(tons CO2e / 

2001 0 1330.948 0 1330.948 

2002 0 12450.64 0 12450.64 

2003 0 15853.71 0 15853.71 

2004 0 18011.48 0 18011.48 

2005 0 20019.78 0 20019.78 

2006 0 34293.42 0 34293.42 

2007 0 35758.37 0 35758.37 

Sub Total 0 137718.3 0 137718.3 

(tons CO2e ) 

2008 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

2009 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

2010 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

2011 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

2012 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

2013 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

2014 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

Sub Total 

(tons CO2e ) 

0 250322.7 0 250322.7 

16 Values provided by Suppliers of WTGs 

yr.) 

page 32 

Emission Reductions 

(tCO2e / year) (ER= 

EW x EF) 

Emission Reductions 

(tons CO2e /yr.)



page 33 

Year Project Emission Baseline Emissions Leakage Emission Reductions 

(tons CO2e /yr.) (tons CO2e /yr.) (tons CO2e / yr.) (tons CO2e /yr.) 

2015 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

2016 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

2017 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

2018 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

2019 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

2020 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

2021 0 35760.39 0 35760.39 

Sub Total 0 250322.7 0 250322.7 

(tons CO2e ) 

Grand Total 

(tons CO2e ) 

- 638363.81 

- 638363.81 

B.7 Application of the monitoring methodology and description of the monitoring plan: 

B.7.1 Data and parameters monitored: 

(Copy this table for each data and parameter) 

Data / Parameter: EGy 

Data unit: MWh 

Description: Electricity supplied by the project activity annually 

Source of data to be Individual regional grid bills and company records 

used: 

Value of data applied 

for the purpose of 

calculating expected 

emission reductions in 

section B.5 

Description of 

measurement methods 

and procedures to be 

applied: 

QA/QC procedures to 

be applied: 

38336 (from the year when all the machines are commissioned) 

Instrument used is Trivector Energy Meter. Joint meter reading by Regional 

electricity board and project promoter. 

Sales record of the grid and other records will be used to ensure consistency. 

Invoices raised by individual companies to SEBs will be reviewed. Frequency 

of monitoring will be monthly. The instruments will be calibrated on every 

year. 

Any comment: Data will be archived for the entire crediting period plus two years. 

B.7.2 Description of the monitoring plan: 

“Consolidated monitoring methodology for zero-emissions grid-connected electricity generation 

from renewable sources” (Version 6) is applicable for the following project activity. The methodology 

requires monitoring of the following:



• Electricity generation from the proposed project activity; 

Applicable for the project. 

page 34 

• Data needed to recalculate the operating margin emission factor, if needed, based on the choice of the 

method to determine the operating margin (OM), consistent with “Consolidated baseline 

methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources” (ACM0002); 

Not applicable as the values of Operating Margin and Build Margin Emission Factors have been 

calculated by the Central Electricity Authority. 

• Data needed to recalculate the build margin emission factor, if needed, consistent with “Consolidated 

baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources” 

(ACM0002); 

Not applicable as the values of Operating Margin and Build Margin Emission Factors have been 

calculated by the Central Electricity Authority. 

• For geothermal power projects, data needed to calculate fugitive carbon dioxide and methane 

emissions and carbon dioxide emissions from combustion of fossil fuels required to operate the 

geothermal power plant. 

Not applicable for the project. 

• For new hydro electric power projects, the surface area of reservoir at the full reservoir level. 

Not applicable for the project. 

The project activity essentially involves generation of electricity from wind, the employed WEG can only 

convert wind energy into electrical energy and cannot use any other input fuel for electricity generation. 

Thus no special ways and means are required to monitor leakage from the project activity. 

The proposed project activity requires evacuation facilities for sale to grid and the evacuation facility is 

essentially maintained by the state power utility. 

The electricity generation measurements are required by the utility and the investors to assess electricity 

sales revenue and / or wheeling charges. The project activity has therefore envisaged two independent 

measurements of generated electricity from the wind turbines. 

• The primary recording of the electricity fed to the state utility grid will be carried out jointly at the 

incoming feeder of the state power utility. Machines for sale to utility will be connected to the feeder. 

• The joint measurement will be carried out once in a month in presence of both parties (the developer’s 

representative and officials of the state power utility). Both parties will sign the recorded reading. 

• The secondary monitoring, which will provide a backup (fail-safe measure) in case the primary 

monitoring is not carried out, would be done at the individual WEGs. Each WEG is equipped with an 

integrated electronic meter. These meters are connected to the Central Monitoring Station (CMS) of 

the entire wind farm through a wireless Radio Frequency (RF) network (SCADA). The generation data 

of individual machine can be monitored as a real-time entity at CMS. The snapshot of generation on 

the last day of every calendar month will be kept as a record both in electronic as well as printed 

(paper) form. 

The project proponents have signed an “Operation and Maintenance” agreement with the supplier of the 

wind turbines for the operation of the wind farm. The O& M management structure is as follows:


Routine Maintenance Services: 


page 35 

Routine Maintenance Labour Work involves making available suitable manpower for operation and 

maintenance of the equipment and covers periodic preventive maintenance, cleaning and upkeep of the 

equipment including – 

a) Tower Torquing 

b) Blade Cleaning 

c) Nacelle Torquing and Cleaning 

d) Transformer Oil Filtration 

e) Control Panel & LT Panel Maintenance 

f) Site and Transformer Yard Maintenance 

Security Services: This service includes watch & ward and security of the wind farm and the equipment. 

Management Services: 

a) Data logging in for power generation, grid availability, machine availability. 

b) Preparation and submission of monthly performance report in agreed format. 

c) Taking monthly meter reading jointly with utility, of power generated at wind farm and supplied to 

grid from the meter/s maintained by utility for the purpose and co-ordinate to obtain necessary power 

credit report/ certificate. 

Technical Services: 

a) Visual inspection of the WTG and all parts thereof. 

b) Technical assistance including checking of various technical, safety and operational parameters of the 

equipment, trouble shooting and relevant technical services. 

c) Annual and monthly training schedules are organized by the manufacturers and suppliers of the wind 

turbines.



The responsibilities of CDM project team is presented below- 

page 36 

Designation Responsibilities 

Project Head � Overall performance monitoring 

� Project Execution 

Project Executer and Controller � Operation 

� Verification of data 

� Site visit to check authenticity of data and take 

corrective action wherever necessary 

� Storage of Data 

Site Main Controller � Operation, Monitoring and Verification of data 

� Data recording 

� Storage of data 

Operation and Maintenance Contractor � Operation and Maintenance 

� Data recording 

� Storage of Data 

B.8 Date of completion of the application of the baseline study and monitoring methodology and 

the name of the responsible person(s)/entity(ies) 

Baseline Completion Date: 7/02/2007 

Name of person/entity determining the baseline: Project sponsors & their consultant, MITCON 

Consultancy Services Ltd. 

SECTION C. Duration of the project activity / crediting period 

C.1 Duration of the project activity: 

C.1.1 Starting date of the project activity: 

Starting date of the project activity is taken as 12/03/2001 as this is the first Purchase Order date 

in the bundle by M/s S. K. Parikh 

C.1.2 Expected operational lifetime of the project activity: 

20 years 0 months 

C.2 Choice of the crediting period and related information: 

C.2.1. Renewable crediting period 

Opted 

C.2.1.1. Starting date of the first crediting period: 

Starting date of the crediting period is 12/07/2001



C.2.1.2. Length of the first crediting period: 

7 years Renewable (First crediting period – 12/07/2001 to 11/07/2008) 

C.2.2. Fixed crediting period: 

Not opted 

C.2.2.1. Starting date: 

Not applicable 

C.2.2.2. Length: 

Not applicable 

SECTION D. Environmental impacts 

page 37 

D.1 Documentation on the analysis of the environmental impacts, including transboundary 

impacts: 

Government of India in its notification 17 dated 14th September, 2006, has directed that “construction of 

new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the 

Schedule to the above mentioned notification entailing capacity addition with change in process and or 

technology shall be undertaken in any part of India only after the prior environmental clearance from the 

Central Government or as the case may be, by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment 

Authority, duly constituted by the Central Government”. 

Hence all new projects or expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in category 

A and B of the Schedule to the notification have to obtain prior EIA clearance. Wind power projects have 

not been included in either of the categories thus these projects do not require to undertake environmental 

clearance prior to their installation. 

D.2 If environmental impacts are considered significant by the project participants or the host 

Party, please provide conclusions and all references to support documentation of an environmental 

impact assessment undertaken in accordance with the procedures as required by the host Party: 

Brief review of the environmental impacts project activity is discussed below - 

During construction phase 

17 http://envfor.nic.in/legis/eia/so1533.pdf



page 38 

The construction phase involved erection of WEG in particular location. Although movement of materials 

for erection produced some dust pollution, the impacts were negligible and do not have any significant 

impact on the environment. 

During operation phase 

Impact on air 

There are absolutely no negative impacts on air due to the project activity. 

Impact on water 

No water is consumed for the project activity and no effluent is discharged from the project activity and 

hence, there is no impact on water due to the project activity. 

Impact on biodiversity 

The installation of a wind farm does not cause negative impact on ecology. It does not affect flora and 

fauna in any way. 

SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments 

E.1 Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: 

The promoters organized formal & informal stakeholder consultation with the objective to inform the 

interested stakeholders on the environmental and social impacts of the project activity and discuss their 

concerns related to the development and operation of the activity. Details are - 

Ref. No. Name of the Sponsor Mode of Stakeholders 

Meeting 

Date 

Mit/bp/12 M/s Vanaz Engineers Ltd. 1.25MW Formal 25/07/2006 

0.35MW Formal 27/07/2006 

Mit/bp/15 M/s Hindustan Distilleries Formal 17/01/2006 

Mit/bp/17 M/s Universal Starch Chem Allied Ltd Formal 27/01/2007 

Mit/bp/18 M/s Jaychandra Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Formal 27/01/2007 

Mit/bp/19 M/s Unique Sugars Limited Formal 27/01/2007 

Mit/bp/20 M/s Shri Charbhuja Sales Corporation Formal 18/07/2006 

Mit/bp/21 M/s Vishnu Textile Corporation Formal 12/02/2007 

Mit/bp/22 M/s Vandana Textiles Formal 12/02/2007 

Mit/bp/23 M/s Umang Textiles Formal 12/02/2007 

Rest Rest of the sponsors Informal - 

E.2 Summary of the comments received: 

Once the project and process was informed, including the local job creation and benefits, the local 

stakeholders had no objections or negative comments relating to the project



E.3 Report on how due account was taken of any comments received: 

page 39 

There were no negative comments received therefore it was not necessary to incorporate the comments 

into the project design or alter the project in any way.



Annex 1 

page 40 

CONTACT INFORMATION ON PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROJECT ACTIVITY 

There are 26 individual project participants. Information regarding each participant can be sourced from 

MITCON, at following centralized contact. MITCON is the consultant to the project. 

Organization: M/s MITCON Consultancy Services Ltd. 

Street/P.O.Box: Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road 

Building: Kubera Chambers 

City: Shivajinagar, Pune 

State/Region: Maharashtra 

Postfix/ZIP: 411 005 

Country: India 

Telephone: 020 – 2553 3309, 2553 4322 

FAX: 020 – 2553 3206 

E-Mail: deepakzade2003@yahoo.com 

URL: www.mitconindia.com 

Represented by: 

Title: Exec. Vice President 

Salutation: Mr. 

Last Name: Zade 

Middle Name: Madhukar 

First Name: Deepak 

Department: Green Power Division 

Mobile: 09822684106 

Direct FAX: Not Available 

Direct tel: Not Available 

Personal E-Mail: deepakzade@indiatimes.com



Annex 2 

INFORMATION REGARDING PUBLIC FUNDING 

page 41 

� The project has not received any public funding and Official Development Assistance (ODA). 

� The project is a unilateral project.



Annex 3 

BASELINE INFORMATION 

page 42 

Baseline emissions are calculated as the kWh produced by the renewable generating unit multiplied by an 

emission co-efficient for the Western, Northern & Southern Region Grid, calculated in a transparent and 

conservative manner. ACM0002 provides two options for calculation of grid emission co-efficient for 

such project activities: 

The baseline emission (BEy in tCO2) is the product of the baseline emission factor (EFy in tCO2/MWh) 

times the electricity supplied by the project activity to the grid (EGy in MWh) minus the baseline 

electricity supplied to the grid in the case of modified or retrofit facilities (EG baseline in MWh), as 

follows: 

BEy = (EGy – EGbaseline ) x EFgrid,y 

Since the following project does not involve any modification or retrofit of the existing generation facility 

hence EGbaseline = 0 

EFgrid,y is determined as follows: 


Where 

EF OM,y = Operating Margin Emission Factor 

EFBM, y = Build Margin Emission Factor 

1. Calculation of operating margin emission factor for the region based on simple OM 

For calculation of operating margin four options are available: 

(a) Simple operating margin; 

(b) Simple adjusted operating margin; 

(c) Dispatch data analysis operating margin; 

(d) Average operating margin. 

According to ACM0002 / version 06 dispatch data analysis should be the first choice but for the current 

project, dispatch data analysis cannot be used because of unavailability of data. 

The simple OM method was used as the low-cost/must run resources constitute less than 50% of the total 

grid generation of Western, Northern and Southern Grid in average of the five most recent years. 

The simple OM emission factor (EFOM, simple, y) is calculated as the generation-weighted average 

emissions per electricity unit (tCO2/MWh or MU) of all generating sources serving the system, not 

including low-operating cost and must-run power plants.


EF OM, y = 


∑ F i, j , y * COEF i,j y 

∑ GENj, y 

page 43 

Where: 

Fi, j, y -is the amount of fuel i (in a mass or volume unit) consumed by relevant power sources j in 

year(s) y, j refers to the power sources delivering electricity to the grid, not including lowoperating 

cost and must run power plants, and including imports to the grid, 

COEFi,j y -is the CO2 emission coefficient of fuel i (tCO2 / mass or volume unit of the fuel), taking into 

account the carbon content of the fuels used by relevant power sources j and the percent 

oxidation of the fuel in year(s) y, and 

GENj,y -is the electricity (MWh or MU) delivered to the grid by source j. 

The CO2 emission coefficient COEFi is obtained as 

Where: 

COEFi = NCVi * EFCO2,i * OXIDi 

NCVi - is the net calorific value (energy content) per mass or volume unit of a fuel i, 

OXIDi - is the oxidation factor of the fuel. 

EFCO2 , I - is the CO2 emission factor per unit of energy of the fuel i. 

2.Calculation of build margin Factor for the region (ex ante): 

Build margin can be calculated as the generation weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh or 

MU) of a sample of power plant m, as follows: 

EF BM, y = Σ Fi,m, y * COEFi, m 

Where, 

∑ GENm, y 

Fi,m,,y, COEFi,m are analogous to the variables described for the simple OM method for plants m. 

Baseline emission factor (EF y)



page 44 

The baseline emission factor EFy is calculated as the weighted average of the operating margin emission 

factor (EFOM, simple, y) and the build margin emission factor (EFBM, y), where the weights wOM and wBM, by 

default, are 75% wOM and 25% wBM and EFOM,y and EFBM,y are calculated as described in Steps 1 and 2 of 

consolidated methodology ACM0002 and are expressed in tCO2/MWh or MU. 


Values for all regional grids for FY 2000-2001 until FY 2004-2005, including inter-regional and cross-border 

electricity transfers. (CEA, User Guide: Version 1.1)


Where: 


BE = EGy * EFgrid 

Egy - is the net quantity of electricity generated by the project in year y, and 

EFgrid – is the carbon emission factor of the Grid 

Emission Estimation: 

page 45 

Emission factor = Net Generation * CEF for fuel * Net Heat Rate * Conversion Factor 

(tonnes of CO2) (GWh) (tonnes CO2/TJ) (TJ/GWh) (44/12) 

Baseline Emission Co-efficient calculation: 

Baseline Emission Co-efficient = Total Baseline Emissions / Total Net Generation 

(tonnes of CO2/GWh) (tonnes of CO2) (GWh) 

The grid emission factor for Indian power sector for the year 2006 has been calculated by CEA. 

Emission reduction due to project activity 

Emission Reduction = Baseline Emission – Project Emission – Leakage 

As wind power projects fall under clean energy sources for electricity generation, the emission from the 

project is taken as zero. 

Leakage estimation is also not required. 

Therefore: 

Grid Emission Factor 

Western Regional Grid – 952.5 T CO2/GWh 

Southern Regional Grid- 930 T CO2/GWh 

Northen Regional Grid – 867.5 T CO2/GWh 

Baseline emissions or CERs generated by the project are estimated to be: 

Baseline Emissions (project) = Grid Emission Factor * Power Generated from the Project 

(tons of CO2) (tons of CO2/GWh) (GWh/year)


CDM – Executive Board page 46 

Year VPIL GCEPL ERCON SGA SDG SDG(HUF) SFPI JANAEPL CMIPL 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 974.36 782.83 

2006 1674.00 2827.20 1325.25 1415.97 1382.52 1382.52 1382.52 1158.88 1160.65 

2007 1674.00 2827.20 1325.25 1619.25 1581.00 1581.00 1581.00 1325.25 1327.28 

Total Estimated Reduction 4322.36 6437.23 2650.50 3035.22 2963.52 2963.52 2963.52 2484.13 2487.93 


Annual average over the crediting 617.480 919.604 378.643 433.603 423.361 423.361 423.361 354.876 355.418 


2008 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2009 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2010 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2011 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2012 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2013 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2014 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 



Annual average over the crediting 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 


2015 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2016 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2017 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2018 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2019 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2020 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 

2021 1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275 





1674 2827.2 1325.25 1619.25 1581 1581 1581 1327.275 1327.275



Year SRI SRGC VEL BSCT BSCS HD SKP USCAL JAIPL 

2001 244.77 244.77 239.88 

2002 539.94 1143 1143 1619.83 560.07 999.51 999.51 

2003 571.5 1143 1143 1714.5 560.07 1143 1143 

2004 1749.1 571.5 1143 1143 1714.5 560.07 1143 1143 

2005 2000.25 571.5 1143 1143 1714.5 560.07 1143 1143 

2006 1160.65 1160.65 2000.25 571.5 1143 1143 1714.5 560.07 1143 1143 

2007 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.5 1143 1143 1714.5 560.07 1143 1143 



Annual average over the crediting period 355.42 355.42 1107.13 485.35 1014.68 1014.68 1456.05 514.33 959.22 959.22 


2008 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2009 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2010 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2011 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2012 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2013 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2014 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 



Annual average over the crediting period 1327.28 1327.275 2000.25 571.5 1143 1143 1714.5 560.07 1143 1143 


2015 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2016 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2017 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2018 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2019 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2020 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 

2021 1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00 





1327.28 1327.28 2000.25 571.50 1143.00 1143.00 1714.50 560.07 1143.00 1143.00



Year USL SCSC VTC VT UT AIPL SEPL SEPL MSPL MSPL Total (All 26 

Projects) 

2001 88.381 88.381 88.381 88.381 180.369 67.64 1330.948 

2002 999.51 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 428.63 12450.64 

2003 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2439.75 428.63 406.62 15853.71 

2004 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 18011.48 

2005 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 20019.78 

2006 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 34293.42 

2007 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35758.37 

Total Estimated Reduction 6714.51 3448.80 3448.80 3448.80 3448.80 7038.37 3806.19 13599.75 2639.39 2266.62 137718.3 


Annual average over the crediting period 959.22 492.69 492.69 492.69 492.69 1005.48 543.74 1942.82 377.06 323.80 19674.05 


2008 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2009 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2010 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2011 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2012 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2013 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2014 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 



Annual average over the crediting period 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.6 465 35760.39 


2015 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2016 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2017 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2018 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2019 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2020 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 

2021 1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39 





1143 560.07 560.07 560.07 560.07 1143 634.37 2790 428.63 465 35760.39



Annex 4 

MONITORING INFORMATION 

Data / Parameter: EGy 

Data unit: MWh 

Description: Electricity generation by the project annually 

Source of data to be 

used: 

Measured 

Value of data 38336 (from the year when all machines are commissioned) 

Description of 

measurement methods 

and procedures to be 

applied: 

QA/QC procedures to 

be applied: 

page 49 

Instrument used is Trivector Energy Meter. Joint meter reading by Regional 

electricity board and project promoter. 

The project revenue is based on the net units displaced as measured by Main 

metering system installed at the interconnection point. Other than main meter 

the project proponent has check meter so that the accuracy of main meter can 

be verified. The calibration of the meters will be done annually by state 

electricity utility. Other than periodic calibration of the meters the reading of 

both meters will be matched every month to check for any inconsistency. 

Any comment: Data will be archived during the whole crediting period + 2 years 

- - - - -

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISM PROJECT ... - MyClimate

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?