annex - MyClimate

VALIDATION REPORT 

- VOLUNTARY EMISSION REDUCTION - 

SOUTH POLE CARBON ASSET MANAGEMENT 

“18.86 MW BUNDLED WIND POWER PROJECT, 

INDIA” 

TÜV NORD CERT GmbH 

JI/CDM Certification Program 

Langemarckstrasse 20 

45141 Essen, Germany 

Phone: +49-201-825-3335 

Fax: +49-201-825-3290 

www.tuev-nord.de 

www.global-warming.de 

Report No: 53700307-07/XX 

Date: 2007-May-29

Validation Report: “18.86 MW Bundled Wind Power Project, India” 

TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program 

P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

Date of first issue: Project No.: 

2007-05-29 53700307-07/xx Rev. 0 

Approved by: Organisational unit: 

Mr. Rainer Winter 


Client: Client ref.: 

Mr. Patrick Burgi 

South Pole Carbon Asset Management 

Summary/Opinion: 

Project Title 18.86 MW Bundled Wind Power Project, India 

Name of Project Participant As per section 1.3.2 of this report 

Submitted PDD 

Version 1: 18.86 MW Bundled Wind Power Project, India (February 2007) 

Version 2: 18.86 MW Bundled Wind Power Project, India (April 2007) 

Approved CDM 

ACM0002: “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation 

Methodology 

from renewable sources” (Version 06 date. 19/05/2006) 

used for Validation 

Scope of Validation The scope of this engagement covers the validation of voluntary Greenhouse Gas 

emission reductions generated by the above-mentioned project activity for first renewable 

crediting period. The validation is given as an independent and objective review of the 

project design, the project’s baseline study and monitoring plan (based on Approved 

methodology ACM0002 / Version 06, Sectoral Scope: 1, 19/05/2006, Consolidated 

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

which are included in the PDD /PDD1/ and other relevant supporting documents. 

Validation Opinion TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program has validated the project activity as per the 

relevant requirements of the VCS- version-I and CDM rule frame of UNFCCC applicable 

for VER project activities, as well as criteria for consistent project operations, monitoring 

and reporting. 

The review of the PDD and additional documents related to baseline and monitoring 

methodology; the subsequent background investigation to validate the fulfilment of the 

stated criteria of the VCS- version-I. 

The validation is based on the revised Project Design Document (PDD) (April 2007 

Version-1), the validation report, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet and 

supporting documents made available to the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP by the project 

participant. 

As a result of the validation, the validation team confirms that: 

• All operations of the project are implemented and installed as planned and described 

in the validated project design document. 

• The calculation of the project emission reductions is carried out in a transparent and 

conservative manner, so that the calculated emission reductions can be achieved 

within the 7 years (renewable) crediting period. 

• The monitoring system is in place and functional. The project is ready to generate 

GHG emission reductions. 

• The project additionality is sufficiently justified in the PDD. 

• The monitoring plan is transparent and adequate. 

As the result of the validation, the validator confirms that the project, as it was described in 

the project documentation, is in line with all criteria applicable for the validation. 

Baseline Emissions 137718.3 t CO2eq for first renewable (7 years) crediting period 

Leakage 0 t CO2eq for first renewable (7 years) crediting period 

Project Emissions 0 t CO2eq for first renewable (7 years) crediting period 

Total Emission 137718.3 t CO2eq for first renewable (7 years) crediting period 

Report No.: 

53700307-07/XX 

Work carried out by: 

Subject Group: 

Environment 

Indexing terms 

Asim Kumar Jana, Manojkumar Borekar, 

Hemant Joshi, Swapnil Thanekar 

No distribution without permission from 

the Client or responsible organisational 

unit 

Work verified by: 

Limited distribution 

Mr. Rainer Winter 

Page 2 of 46 

Unrestricted distribution



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

Abbreviations 

BAU Business as usual 

CR Corrective Action / Clarification Action 

CAR Corrective Action Request 

CDM Clean Development Mechanism 

CEA Central Energy Authority 

CO2 Carbon dioxide 

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent 

CP Certification Program 

CR Clarification Request 

DNA Designated National Authority 

EB CDM Executive Board 

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment 

GHG Greenhouse gas (es) 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

kW Kilowatt 

kWh Kilowatt hour 

m meter 

m/s meter/second 

MCSL MITCON Consultancy Services Limited 

MU Million Units (of electricity) 

MW Megawatt 

MWh Megawatt hour 

NATCOM India’s Initial National Communication to the UNFCCC 

ODA Official Development Assistance 

PDD Project Design Document 

QC/QA Quality control/Quality assurance 

SPCAM South Pole Carbon Asset Management 

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 

VCU Voluntary Carbon Unit 

WTG Wind Turbine Generator 

Page 3 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

Table of Contents Page 

1.1 Objective 5 

1.2 Scope 5 

1.3 GHG Project Description 6 

1.3.1 Project Scope 6 

1.3.2 Project Entities 7 

1.3.3 Project Location 8 

1.3.4 Technical Project Description 9 

2.0 Validation Team 9 

3.1 Methodology 11 

3.1.1 Baseline and Monitoring Methodology Check 11 

3.1.2 Pre-Validation Process 11 

3.1.3 Resolution Of CAR and CR 12 

3.1.4 Final Validation Reporting and Validation Opinion and Registration 12 

3.2 Validation Protocol 13 

3.3 Review Of Documents 13 

3.4 Follow-Up Interviews 14 

3.5 Resolution Of Clarification And Corrective Action Requests 15 

3.6 Finalising The Report 15 

4.0 Validation Findings 16 

5.0 Valdation Opinion 17 

6.0 References 18 

Page 4 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

1 INTRODUCTION 

South Pole Carbon Asset Management (SPCAM), facilitated by MITCON 

Consultancy Services Ltd (MCSL), has commissioned the JI/CDM Certification 

Program (CP) of TÜV NORD CERT GmbH to validate the project: 

“18.86 MW Bundled Wind Power Project, India”. 

with regard to the relevant requirements for CDM project activities. 

1.1 Objective 

The purpose of this validation, by independent checking of objective evidence, is as 

follows: 

- To verify that the project is implemented as planned and described in the project 

design document /PDD/ ; 

- To confirm that the monitoring system is implemented and fully functional to 

generate Voluntary Emission Reductions (VERs) without any double counting; 

and 

- To establish that the data reported are accurate, complete, consistent, 

transparent and free of material error or omission by checking the monitoring 

records and the emissions reduction calculations 

are validated in order to confirm that the project design as documented is sound and 

reasonable and meets the stated requirements and identified criteria. Validation is 

seen as necessary to provide assurance to stakeholders on the quality of the project 

and its intended generation of Voluntary Carbon Unit (VCUs). 

1.2 Scope 

The scope for validation will include preparation and submission of the Project 

Design Document (PDD), proof of title for the proposed project, and other proof of 

project implementation by the project owner. The DOE will be involved in an 

independent and objective review of the PDD, in particular, the project’s baseline 

study, additionality justification, monitoring plan and other relevant supporting 

documents against the requirements as given in the Voluntary Carbon Standard 

(VCS) Version 1 - Verification and Certification Protocol using the approved large 

scale methodology ACM0002 of the CDM as per Kyoto Protocol. 

The items to be covered by the DOE in the validation process are described below: 

VER Project Description 

- Project boundaries 

- Project design 

- Predicted project GHG emissions 

Page 5 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

Project Baseline 

- Baseline methodology 

- Baseline GHG emissions 

Monitoring Plan 

- Monitoring Plan methodologies and intervals 

- Indicators/data to be monitored and reported 

- Responsibilities 

- External verification 

Final Validation reporting with opinion of validation 

Registration of the project by TÜV NORD JI / CDM Certification Program (JI/CDM 

CP) of TÜV NORD Cert GmbH 

Issuance of certificate to the Project Participant confirming the standard of TÜV 

NORD JI / CDM CP. 

The information included in the PDD and the supporting documents will be reviewed 

by the DOE against the requirements and criteria mentioned above. 

Currently the project activity is meant to generate Voluntary Carbon Units (VCU). 

Thus the UNFCCC criteria for JI are not fully applied. The following items will not be 

covered in the course of the Validation, Verification and Certification (VVC) process: 

- Global/local stakeholder consultation process 

- Assessment of Participation Requirements 

- Host country requirements/ criteria (e.g. approval procedures) 

- Sustainable development criteria. 

The validation is not meant to provide any consulting to the project participant. 

However, stated requests for clarifications and/or corrective actions may provide 

input for improvement of the project design. 

1.3 GHG Project Description 

1.3.1 Project Scope 

The considered GHG project can be classified as a VER project in the sector given in 

Table 1-1 (according to List of Sectoral Scopes of UNFCCC). 

Table 1-1: Project Scope 

No. Project Scope 

1 Energy Industries (renewable - / non-renewable sources) 

Page 6 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

1.3.2 Project Entities 

The following entities are involved in the developing of the project: 

Project Proponent: M/s Vivek Pharmachem (India) Ltd. 

M/s Gem Crafts Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 

M/s ERCON Composites 

M/s S G Associates 

M/s Sanjay D Ghodawat 

M/s Sanjay D Ghodawat (HUF) 

M/s Star Flexi-Pack Industries 

M/s James Andrew Newton Art Exports Pvt. Ltd. 

M/s Chemical and Mineral Industries Pvt. Ltd. 

M/s Shree Ram Industries 

M/s Shree Ram Gum and Chemicals 

M/s Vanaz Engineers Ltd. 

M/s B.S.C. Textiles 

M/s B.S. Channabasappa & Sons 

M/s Hindustan Distilleries 

M/s S. K. Parik 

M/s Universal Starch Chem Allied Ltd 

M/s Jaychandra Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. 

M/s Unique Sugars Limited 

M/s Shri Charbhuja Sales Corporation 

M/s Vishnu Textiles Corporation 

M/s Vandana Textiles 

M/s Umang Textiles 

M/s Awade Industries Private Limited 

M/s Suttatti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 

M/s Mayura Steel Pvt. Ltd. 

Contact person: Mr Deepak Zade 

Tel: 020-25533309 /25533206 

deepakzade@indiatimes.com 

Project Consultant: MITCON Consultancy Services Ltd 

Kubera Chambers, Shivajinagar, 

Pune 411005 

India 

Contact Person: Mr Deepak Zade 

Tel: 020-25533309 /25533206 

deepakzade@indiatimes.com 

Page 7 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

1.3.3 Project location 

Location Village/ 

Taluka 

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 

Page 8 of 46 

District 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 

Mahakal 

Sangli Maharashtra 

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 

Exports Pvt. Ltd. 

Valliour, Nagarcoil Nagarcoil Tamilnadu 

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. Bramhanwel, Sakri 

Ltd. 

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 Devshi, Patan Satara Maharashtra 

M/s Suttatti Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 

M/s Mayura Steel Pvt. Ltd. 

Kati, Patan Satara Maharashtra 

Kumminaghatta, 

Holallkere 

Chitradurga Karnataka 

Matrewadi Satara Maharashtra 

Madakaripura Chitradurga Karnataka



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

1.3.4 Technical project description 

The proposed CDM project is a bundled CDM project activity, which involves the 

installation of a WTG of gross 18.86 MW, installed capacity. Starting date of the 

project activity is taken as 12/03/2001 as this is the earliest date of start in the bundle 

and based on purchase order placed by M/S S.K.Parikh. All WTG installations are 

currently in operation. The project likely to exports electricity an average of 38.33 

GWh per year when all machines are in operation. 

The electricity generation from renewable sources (wind) is a carbon neutral energy 

input and is intended to reduce CO2 emissions to the extent of equivalent electricity 

replaced by fossil fuels based power plant in western, southern and northern region 

grid of India. The calculation of the emission factor was sound and transparently 

given as separate attachment to PDD. As a result of the check the validation team is 

convinced of the result of the grid emission factor calculation. 

The resultant figure of grid emission factor are as below is deemed to be adequate, 

transparent as well as conservative. 

Simple Operating Margin (tCO2/MWh) (incl. Imports) 

Region 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 

North 0.98 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.98 

West 0.98 1.01 0.98 0.99 1.01 

South 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 

Build Margin (tCO2/MWh) (not adjusted for imports) 

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 

North 0.53 

West 0.78 

South 0.72 

Grid emission factor: 

• Western region grid of India = 952.5 t CO2/GWh 

• Southern region grid of India = 930.0 t CO2/GWh 

• Northern region grid of India = 867.5 t CO2/GWh 

The project activity was expected to deliver 137718.3 tCO2e over the chosen first 7years 

“renewable crediting period” as per draft PDD /PDD2/ . 

The estimated amount of emission reductions over the chosen first 7-years 

“renewable crediting period” is 137718.3 tCO2e for the crediting period 12/07/2001 to 

11/07/2008. 

Page 9 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

2 VALIDATION TEAM 

- The Validation Team was led by Asim Kumar Jana, TUV Nord - Mumbai, India. 

Mr. Jana, M.Tech (Env Engg), Dipl in Industrial Safety, is a TUV-CERT Lead 

auditor for ISO 9001/14001 and OHSAS 18001. He is Head - CDM Certification 

for TÜV Nord India operation and holds energy auditorship from Bureau of Energy 

Efficiency of India. He is an appointed assessor for JI/CDM certification program 

of TÜV Nord. For this validation he was assisted by: 

- Mr. Manojkumar Borekar: The validation was performed by Mr. Borekar from 

TUV NORD-Pune, India as a GHG Auditor. Mr. Borekar is, M.Tech. (Energy 

Management), B.E. (Mechanical Engineering), and certified energy auditor by 

Bureau of Energy Efficiency of India. Currently he is GHG and Energy Auditor - 

CDM Services for TÜV NORD India operation. He is an appointed Assessor for 

JI/CDM certification program of TÜV NORD Systems GmbH and participated 

already several CDM project validation and verification. 

- Mr. Hemant V. Joshi, TÜV Nord-Pune, India. Mr. Joshi, B.E. (Environmental 

Engineering), is a TÜV-CERT Lead auditor for ISO 9001/14001 and OHSAS 

18001. He has received extensive training in the CDM validation and verification 

process. He is an appointed expert for TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program. 

- Mr. Swapnil Thanekar: Mr. Swapnil Thanekar is CDM Analyst of TUV NORD- 

Pune. He is M.Tech. (Heat Power), B.E. (Mechanical Engineering) and engaged 

with TÜV India operation. He has participated in several verification and 

validations. 

The final validation report is verified by: 

- Mr. Rainer Winter. Mr. Winter works at TÜV NORD as ISO 9001/ 14001 Auditor 

and environmental verifier for EMAS. He is also an approved emission verifier 

within the European Emission Trading Scheme. Mr. Winter is an authorized 

JI/CDM assessor and is in charge of the JI/CDM Certification Program of TÜV 

NORD. 

Page 10 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

3 METHODOLOGY 

3.1 Methodology 

The validation and subsequent registration process of the proposed VER project 

activity shall follow the sequence of steps presented below: 

3.1.1 Baseline and Monitoring Methodology Check 

DOE shall determine whether the simplified baseline and/or monitoring methodology 

employed by the project is as per the latest version of the approved simplified 

baseline and monitoring methodologies under Category ACM0002 i.e., “Consolidated 

baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from renewable 

sources”. 

3.1.2 Pre-Validation Process 

It consists of following steps: 

• Assessment using Validation Protocol: For cost-effective and systematic 

validation of the large-scale VER project, one generic protocol will be used as the 

documented backbone of a transparent validation process. The protocol shows, in a 

transparent manner, criteria and requirements, means of verification and the results 

from pre-validating the identified criteria. 

• Review of Documents: The PDD submitted by the Consultant on behalf of the 

Project Owner and supporting background documents related to the project design 

and baseline study as well as monitoring plan will be reviewed by the DOE. 

Furthermore, the validation team may use additional documentation or checklist by 

third parties like host- party legislation, technical reports referring to the project 

design or to the basic conditions and technical data. The document review shall 

establish to what degree the presented documents meet the established validation 

criteria. The findings of initial document review will be presented to the consultant 

and the project owner. 

• Validation interviews: Interviews (by telephone or e-mail or personal visit) with 

project stakeholders may prove useful or even necessary in order to discuss and 

validate issues related to project baseline and additionality and to resolve issues 

identified in the document review. For discussions related to the technical 

implementation or financing of the project, follow-up interviews with the project 

developer may also be required. 

Page 11 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

• Pre-Validation reporting: The pre-validation report will facilitate the joint effort 

between the Project Owner and the DOE to develop and document answer(s) and 

conclusions to requirements, which are considered applicable for large-scale VER 

projects. The independent validation exercise and subsequent discussions given in 

the report shall enable the project proponent to address any concerns the DOE may 

have raised related to the project, and how these may be clarified. 

In order to remedy any mistakes, problems or any other outstanding issues that is 

needed to be clarified for positive conclusion on the project design, Corrective Action 

Requests (CAR) or Clarification Requests (CR) may be raised. All CRs and CARs 

are reported and elaborated in terms of implication of CRs and CARs issued in the 

draft validation report. In the event of issuance of CARs/ CRs, the Project Owner will 

have to close CARs and respond to CRs before the validation could be completed. 

3.1.3 Resolution of CAR and CR 

The CARs and CRs stated in the pre-validation report will have to be resolved by the 

Project Owner, if these are issued. The requests can be resolved or "closed out" by 

the project owner by modifying the project design and by rectifying and updating the 

project design documentation. If this is not done in the final stages of the validation, it 

may cause the project not be recommended for TUV NORD JI/CDM CP registration, 

or cause the expected emission reductions not to be subsequently verified and 

certified. 

3.1.4 Final Validation Reporting and Validation Opinion and Registration 

The final validation report will reflect the results from stakeholder’s comments and 

any adjustments made to the project after the submission of pre-validation report. It 

will in its appearance look much like the pre-validation report, but will now reflect the 

responses to corrective actions and clarification requests, discussions and revisions 

of project documents. Thus, the final validation report should give the final 

conclusions regarding the project’s conformance with the relevant VCS requirements. 

The validation report may raise issues that need to be subsequently addressed 

during project implementation, like the implications of any remaining corrective action 

requests not resolved during the validation. 

The final validation report shall include a validation opinion which either forms the 

basis for TUV NORD JI/CDM CP registration of the project or which explains the 

reason for non-acceptance if the project is judged not to fulfill validation 

requirements. In addition, the opinion will be an important decision factor for the 

project owner whether to proceed or not with the project. 

Page 12 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

3.2 Validation Protocol 

In order to ensure consideration of all relevant assessment criteria, a validation 

protocol was used. The protocol shows, in a transparent manner, criteria and 

requirements, means of verification and the results from pre-validating the identified 

criteria. The validation protocol serves the following purposes: 

- It organises, details and clarifies the requirements that a CDM project is expected 

to meet; 

- It ensures a transparent validation process where the independent entity will 

document how a particular requirement has been validated and the result of the 

determination. 

The validation protocol consists of two tables: Table 1 (Validation/ Verification 

Minimum Criterion Checklist (customized based on VCS version 01 1 and the 

applicable CDM criterion 2 at the time of PDD/MR submission)); and Table 2 

(Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Request). 

The completed (till draft conclusion) validation protocol is enclosed in Annex I to this 

report identifying 3 Corrective Action Requests and 9 Clarification Requests. 

3.3 Review of Documents 

The draft PDD /PDD1/ submitted by the SPCAM in February 2007 and supporting 

background documents related to the project design and baseline were reviewed. 

Furthermore, the validation team used additional documentation by third parties like 

technical reports referring to the project design or to the basic conditions and 

technical data. 

The documents that were considered during the (pre-) validation process are given in 

chapter 6 of this report. They are listed as follows: 

• Documents provided by the project proponent (Table 6-1) 

• Background investigation and assessment documents (Table 6-2) 

• Websites used (Table 6-3) 

• List of interviewed persons (Table 6-4) 

In order to ensure the transparency of the decision making process, the reference 

codes listed in tables 6-1 to 6-4 are used in the validation protocol and – as far 

applicable – in the report itself. 

1 www.ieta.org 

2 http://cdm.unfccc.int 

Page 13 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

3.4 Follow-up Interviews 

From April 2007, the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP performed the validation interviews with 

the project proponent, project developer and plant operating personnel to confirm 

selected information and to resolve issues identified in the document review. 

The key interviewed persons and the main topics of the interviews are summarised in 

Table 3-1. 

Table 3-1 Interviewed persons and interview topics 

Interviewed Persons / Entities Interview topics 

Project proponent representatives 

(Head office and site) 

- Chronological description of the project activity 

- Technical details of the project realisation 

- Management decision on VCU 

- Baseline scenario, operation of project activity, 

technical details of project activity, procedure of 

energy metering. 

- Quality and environmental management system 

- Monitoring and measurement equipment 

- Crediting period and its starting date 

- Project activity starting date 

- Sustainable development issues 

- Analysis of local stakeholder consultation 

- Operational data – technical specification (capacity 

of WTG), operational lifetime, PLF. 

- Training and competency of the staff members 

w.r.t project management, monitoring and reporting 

- Emergency response plan 

- Sources of finance for project activity, barrier of 

project activity, terms and condition with service 

company 

- Basis of costing during the conceptualization stage 

of project activity 

Project Developer - Editorial aspects of PDD 

- Procedural aspects 

- Baseline study and additionality 

- Details of emissions reduction calculation 

- Stakeholder consultation 

- Socio-economic issues / benefits because of 

project 

- Status of implementation of agreements 

- Discussion on operation and maintenance of Wind 

Power Project terms and condition for service, 

supply of guaranteed power to regional grids. 

A detailed list including the functions or designations of the interviewed persons is 

given in chapter 6 (see. Table 6-4). This table also includes reference codes to be 

used in the validation protocol. 

Page 14 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

3.5 Resolution of Clarification and Corrective Action Requests 

In order to remedy any mistakes, problems or any other outstanding issues, which 

needed to be clarified for positive conclusion on the project design, CARs and CRs 

were raised. 

In this validation report 3 CARs and 9 CRs are raised. 

The CARs / CRs are documented in Annex and addressed in section 4. 

3.6 Finalising the report 

The draft validation report containing a set of CARs and CR’s was submitted to the 

project proponent. The project design document was revised addressing the CARs 

and CR’s issued by TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP. After reviewing the revised and 

resubmitted project documentation /PDD2/ ; resolving the CRs and CAR’s were raised 

and outstanding concerns, TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP issues this final validation report 

and opinion. 

Page 15 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

4 VALIDATION FINDINGS 

In the following paragraphs the findings from the desk review of the draft PDD /PDD1/ , 

visits, interviews and supporting documents are summarised. This also includes the 

corresponding corrective action taken by the client and its final assessment. 

The results are shown in table 4-1: 

Table 4-1: Summary of CAR and CR issued 

Validation topic 1) No. of CAR No. of CR 

Criterion 1 - Project Category 0 1 

Criterion 2 - Geographic Location 0 0 

Criterion 3 - Eligible GHGs 

Page 16 of 46 

0 0 

Criterion 4 - Project Start Date 0 1 

Criterion 5 - Emission Reduction Start Date 0 0 

Criterion 6 - Public Funding and grants 0 0 

Criterion 7 - Project Boundary/GHG 

Assessment Boundary 

1 0 

Criterion 8 - Calculation Methodology 0 0 

Criterion 9 – Secondary Effects 0 0 

Criterion 10 - Project Additionality 2 2 

Criterion 11 - Quality of Reductions 0 1 

Criterion 12 - Monitoring Process 0 4 

SUM 3 9 

1) The letters in brackets refer to the validation protocol 

For an in depth evaluation of all validation items it should be referred to the validation 

protocol (Annex). Annex also includes all CARs and CRs (Table 2).



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

5 VALIDATION OPINION 

Project Title 18.86 MW Bundled Wind Power Project, India 

Name of Project Participant As per section 1.3.2 of this report 

Submitted PDD 

Version 1: 18.86 MW Bundled Wind Power Project, India (February 2007) 

Version 2: 18.86 MW Bundled Wind Power Project, India (April 2007) 

Approved CDM 

ACM0002: “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid-connected electricity generation 

Methodology 

from renewable sources” (Version 06 date. 19/05/2006) 

used for Validation 

Scope of Validation The scope of this engagement covers the validation of voluntary Greenhouse Gas 

emission reductions generated by the above-mentioned project activity for first renewable 

crediting period. The validation is given as an independent and objective review of the 

project design, the project’s baseline study and monitoring plan (based on Approved 

methodology ACM 0002 / Version 06, Sectoral Scope: 1, 19/05/2006, Consolidated 

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

which are included in the PDD /PDD1/ and other relevant supporting documents. 

Validation Opinion TÜV NORD JI/CDM Certification Program has validated the project activity as per the 

relevant requirements of the VCS- version-I and CDM rule frame of UNFCCC applicable 

for VER project activities, as well as criteria for consistent project operations, monitoring 

and reporting. 

The review of the PDD and additional documents related to baseline and monitoring 

methodology; the subsequent background investigation to validate the fulfilment of the 

stated criteria of the VCS- version-I. 

The validation is based on the revised Project Design Document (PDD) (April 2007 

Version-1), the validation report, emission reduction calculation spreadsheet and 

supporting documents made available to the TÜV NORD JI/CDM CP by the project 

participant. 

As a result of the validation, the validation team confirms that: 

• All operations of the project are implemented and installed as planned and described 

in the validated project design document. 

• The calculation of the project emission reductions is carried out in a transparent and 

conservative manner, so that the calculated emission reductions can be achieved 

within the 7 years (renewable) crediting period. 

• The monitoring system is in place and functional. The project is ready to generate 

GHG emission reductions. 

• The project additionality is sufficiently justified in the PDD. 

• The monitoring plan is transparent and adequate. 

As the result of the validation, the validator confirms that the project, as it was described in 

the project documentation, is in line with all criteria applicable for the validation. 

Baseline Emissions 137718.3 t CO2eq for first renewable (7 years) crediting 

period 

Mumbai, 2007-05-29 

Asim K. Jana 


Validation Team Leader 

Leakage 0 t CO2eq for first renewable (7 years) crediting period 

Project Emissions 0 t CO2eq for first renewable (7 years) crediting period 

Total Emission Reduction 137718.3 t CO2eq for first renewable (7 years) crediting 

period 

Page 17 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

6 REFERENCES 

Table 6-1: Documents provided by the project proponent 

Reference Document 

/CR/ Commissioning report EEE/TL&SS/DVG/F-/256-65 dated. 01/04/2006 issued 

by KPTCL, Dhavangere for commissioning of 1 x 800 KW Wind Electricity 

Generator of M/s Gems Craft Enterprises Pvt. Ltd-II at R.R.No. ELP-40 at 

village Lakkihalli, District Chitradurga (commissioning date 31/03/2006) 

/PPA/ Wind Energy Purchase Agreement between M/s Gems Craft Enterprises Pvt. 

Ltd and Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd. for 0.8 MW (1 Nos. X 800 

kW) Wind Energy Project at village Kenkere, District Chitradurga, Karnataka 

dated. 21/04/2006 

/LSC/ Proof of local stake holder consultation on dated 10/02/2007 

/MD/ Management decision for VCS consideration for M/s Gems Craft Enterprises 

Pvt. Ltd-II 15/02/2007 

/OMA/ Operation and Management Agreement and Maintenance Agreement for 

WTGs at M/s Gems Craft Enterprises Pvt. Ltd dated 25/6/2005. 

/OPLF/ Letter from manufacturer (Enercon) of WTG stating the operation lifetime of 

the WTG for M/s Gems Craft Enterprises Pvt. Ltd-II. 

/ORC/ Organisation chart for M/s Gems Craft Enterprises Pvt. Ltd-II 

/PDD/ 1. Project Design Document entitled “18.86 MW Bundled Wind Power 

Project, India, version 00, February 2007. 

2. Project Design Document entitled “18.86 MW Bundled Wind Power 

Project, India, version 01dated 10/04/2007 

/PGR/ Monthly Power Generation Reports ( from 27/09/2001 to 31/12/2006 ) 

/PO/ Purchase order from on Enercon India Ltd. dated. 20/06/2005 for 1 Nos. 0.8 

MW WTGs at Chitradurga site along with work order for erection and 

commissioning and order acceptance from M/s Enercon India Ltd. 

/SD/ Proof of starting date of the project activity as per C.1.1. of the PDD: P.O. 

dated 12/03/2001 by M/s S. K. Parikh. 

/TD/ Technical data sheet for WTG by M/s Enercon for E-48 (800 kW). 

Page 18 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 


/XCS/ Baseline and Emission Reduction Calculations (Excel Sheets) 

/CAL/ 

Generating Station panel meter for Gross generation for M/s Gems Craft 

Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, Electrical Services, Davangere Sub-station, Karnataka 

(dated 02/01/2007) 

Table 6-2: Background investigation and assessment documents 


/ACM 0002/ Consolidated methodology for grid-connected electricity generation from 

renewable sources (version 06: 19 May 2006) 

/CBD/ CO2 Baseline Database for Indian Power Sector –User Guide, Ver 1.1 dated 

Dec’06 published by CEA 

/CPM/ TÜV NORD JI / CDM CP Manual (incl. CP procedures and forms) 

/GCP/ UNFCCC: Guidelines for completing CDM-PDD and CDM-NM (Version 06.1) 

/GEF/ Official data sources for Grid Emission Factor (Regional Grid, 04-05) 

/IPCC-GP/ IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National 

Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2006 

/IPPC-RM/ 1. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories: Reference Manual 

2. IPCC Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in 

National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2006 

/KP/ Kyoto Protocol (1997) 

/MA/ Decision 17/CP. 7 (Marrakesh – Accords and Annex to decision 17/CP.7) 

/MNES/ Baseline Guidelines 

/NATCOM/ National Communication to UNFCCC (Chapter 2 on NCV value) 

/TA/ 1. Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality (version 2), 

28 November 2005 

/VVM/ IETA, PCF Validation and Verification Manual (V. 4) 

/VCS/ The voluntary carbon standard, verification protocol and criteria, version 01 

Page 19 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

Table 6-3: Websites used 

Reference Link Organisation 

/cea/ www.cea.nic.in 

Page 20 of 46 

Central Electricity Authority 

/dna-i/ www.envfor.nic.in/cdm The National Clean Development 

Mechanism (CDM) Authority 

/imef/ www.envfor.nic.in Indian Ministry of Environment and Forest 

/imp/ www.powermin.nic.in Indian Ministry of Power 

/ipcc/ www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp IPCC publications 

/UNFCC/ http://cdm.unfccc.int UNFCCC 

/ieta/ http ://www.ieta.org/ 

Website of International Emission trading 

Association (IETA) 

/MoP/ http ://www.powermin.nic.in/ Website of Ministry of Power, Government 

of India 

/cma/ http://www.natcomindia.org/dat 

asources.htm 

/GHG/ http://www.ghgprotocol.org/tem 

plates/GHG5/layout.asp?MenuI 

D=849 

Table 6-4: List of interviewed persons 

Natcom India, Ministry of Environnement 

and Forest, Government of India. 

World Business Council for Sustainable 

Development 

Reference MoI1 Name Organisation / Function 

/IM01/ T Mr. 

Ms 

/IM01/ T Mr. 

Ms 

/IM02/ V Mr. 

Ms. 

Patrick Burgi South Pole Carbon Asset 

Management 

Camerata Thomas South Pole Carbon Asset 

Management 

Deepak Zade Exec. Vice President, M/S 

MITCON Consultancy 

Services Ltd. 

/IM02/ V Dr. Bhushan Pachpande Senior Consultant, M/S



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

Reference MoI1 Name Organisation / Function 

Mr. 

Ms. 

/IM02/ V Mr. 

Ms. 

1) Means of Interview: (Telephone (T), E-Mail (E), Visit (V)) 

Page 21 of 46 

MITCON Consultancy 

Services Ltd. 

Pooja Sinha Consultant, M/S MITCON 

Consultancy Services Ltd.



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

ANNEX 

Validation Protocol 

Page 22 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

Table 1: Validation/ Verification Minimum Criterion Checklist 

(Customized based on VCS version 01 3 and the applicable CDM criterion 4 at the time of PDD/MR submission) 

St 

ep 

# 

1 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 

Project 

Category 

1.1 

3 www.ieta.org 

4 http://cdm.unfccc.int 

Description of Minimum Criterion and 

Actions for DOE 

Criterion: 

Emission reduction project types eligible under the VCU 

Verification Criteria are listed below, divided into 

categories for the benefit of project developers and 

certification entities: 

1. Renewable energy [wind, PV, solar thermal, 

biomass, liquid biofuels, geothermal, run-ofriver 

hydro] 

2. Industrial energy efficiency 

3. End-use energy efficiency 

4. Fuel switch from fossil to fossil or nonagricultural 

waste gas 

5. Waste gas capture and destruction (recovery) 

from non-agricultural industrial processes (N20, 

HFCs, PFCs, SF6) 

6. Waste gas capture from municipal waste and 

municipal wastewater treatment (CH4 andN20) 

7. Fugitive emissions capture/recovery 

8. LULUCF 

DOE’s Action: 

Verification Entity shall verify that the Project directly 

avoids or displaces greenhouse gas emissions from an 

Endorsed Project Category and shall clearly state in the 

Verification Report which project category the 

reduction belongs to. 

Is the eligibility of the project category and 

the discussion and determination of the 

project category transparent? 

Ref. MoV* Comments of DOE 

/PDD/ 

A.2 

Page 23 of 46 

DR The project qualifies the criteria of 

emission reduction project under 

VCU verification criteria. It qualifies 

the first category “Renewable energy 

[wind, PV, solar thermal, biomass, 

liquid bio-fuels, geothermal, run-of 

river hydro]” as per section 3, page 

number 10 of VCS verification 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

OK 

Final 

Concl.



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

2 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 



1.2 Does the project require extensive initial 

training and maintenance efforts in order 

to work as presumed during the project 

period? 

1.3 Does the project consist of several sub 

Project Activities which meet the VCS 

Verification Criteria? 

Geographic 

Location 

Criterion: 

The VCU Verification Criteria recognizes projects from 

any geographic location. 


Verification Entity shall verify, through site visits that 

at the stated geographic location there are working 

physical components, installed facility and emission 

reduction monitoring equipment corresponding to the 

actual Project disclosed in the project documents made 

available to the Verification Entity. 

In the Verification Report, the Verification Entity shall 

include documented evidence of a site visit confirming 

existence of the stated Project at the stated location. 

2.1 Are the project’s system (components 

and facilities used to mitigate GHG’s) 

boundaries clearly defined? 


/PDD/ 

B.7.2 

/PDD/ 

/VCS- 

I/ 

/cea/ 

Page 24 of 46 

criteria. 

DR Though the project proponents have 

signed an “Operation and 

Maintenance” agreement with the 

supplier of the wind turbines for the 

operation of the wind farm, no 

specific information pertaining to the 

training is provided in PDD, thus CR 

1 has been raised in this context. 

DR The project consists of several 

installations (bundled project) which 

are clearly a part of single project. 

The project activities are quantified 

separately with their own separate 

baseline scenarios. There is no 

double counting of emission 

reductions. 

/PDD/ DR Yes, the projects system boundaries 

are explained under section B.3 of 

the PDD. 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

CR 1 

OK 

OK 

Final 

Concl. 

OK



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

3 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 

Eligible 

GHGs 



Criterion: 

The VCU Verification Criteria acknowledges emission 

reduction projects involving any of the six greenhouse 

gases currently included in the Kyoto Protocol. 


Verification Entity shall verify that the Project Activity 

contributes to reductions in the emissions of one or 

more of the following six Kyoto Protocol greenhouse 

gases: 

1. Carbon dioxide (CO2); 

2. Methane (CH4); 

3. Nitrous oxide (N2O); 

4. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); 

5. Perflourcarbons (PFCs); 

6. Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). 


state the volume of emission reductions for each of the 

six greenhouse gases separately. The Verification Entity 

shall further verify and state that the current IPCC 

published GWP factor has been used for non-CO2 gases. 

3.1 Does the PDD provide for the calculation 

of all GHG’s necessary for estimation or 

measuring the greenhouse gas 

emissions within the project boundary 

during the crediting period? 

3.2 

3.3 

Are the GHG indicators for the project 

activity reasonable? 

Will it be possible to estimate / measure 

the specified project GHG indicators? 


/PDD/ 

/ACM0 

002/ 

Page 25 of 46 

DR Yes, PDD provide for the calculation 

of all GHG’s necessary for estimation 

or measuring the greenhouse gas 

emissions within the project boundary 

during the crediting period, since the 

project is wind energy based and 

there will be no project GHG 

emissions. 

/PDD/ DR Yes, the baseline indicators, i.e. CO2 

have been chosen as per ACM0002. 

/PDD/ DR Yes, it is possible with the data being 

monitored. 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

OK 

OK 

OK 

Final 

Concl.



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

4 

5 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 

Project 

Start 

Date 



Criterion: 


reduction projects that have started on or after January 

1st, 2000. 


Verification Entity shall verify, through examination of 

company documents and records that the Start Date of 

the Project which generated the emission reductions 

was on or after January 1st 2000. Verification Entity 

shall also verify that completion of installation works 

does not contradict with the dates of generation of 

emission reductions in the monitoring report. 

4.1 Are the project’s starting date and 

operational lifetime clearly defined and 

reasonable? 

Emission 

Reduction 

Start Date 

Criterion: 


reductions which have been generated after January 1, 

2000. 

The Standard acknowledges only existing emission 

reductions, i.e. reductions that have already happened 


Verification Entity shall verify, through examination of 

company documents, records, and monitoring reports 

that the emission reductions occurred on or after 

January 1, 2000. 


clearly state the volume of emission reductions 

generated in each calendar year separately. 


/PDD/ 

C.1.1 

Page 26 of 46 

DR The project proponent should apply 

dd/mm/yyyy format while defining the 

starting and commissioning date of 

project activity. 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

CR 2 

Final 

Concl. 

OK



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

6 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 



5.1 Are the starting dates of the project 

activity and emission reduction date due 

to installation of project are clearly 

defined? 

Public 

Funding and 

grants 

Criterion: 

The VCU Verification Criteria only accept projects where 

no public funding or official development assistance has 

been employed in the project activity or those elements of 

the project activity that lead to emissions reductions. 

Where public funding has been used in conjunction with 

commercial financing, only emissions reductions 

associated with that portion of the project that has been 

financed on purely commercial terms shall be eligible to 

be certified as VCUs. 


Verification Entity shall verify and state in the Verification 

Report that the Project has not employed any Public 

Funding, grants or Official Development Assistance 

(“ODA”) for construction or running operations in any of 

the geographic locations of the Project Activity. 

Where a combination of public and private funding has 

been employed the Verification Entity shall verify and 

state in the Verification report that VCUs have only been 

generated form that portion of the project that has been 

financed on purely commercial terms. 

Verification should be performed through examination of 

financial records, management interviews, and where 

necessary, interviews with representatives of the relevant 

entities or organizations providing development 

assistance in the respective project locations. 


/PDD/ 

C.2.2. 

2 

Page 27 of 46 

DR According to the PDD, the date of 

commissioning is the starting date of 

emission reduction; however more 

clarity is needed for the date of 

installation of project activity. Please 

refer CR 2. 

The project proponent should apply 

dd/mm/yyyy format while defining the 

starting and commissioning date of 


Draft 

Concl 

. 

CR 2 

Final 

Concl. 

OK



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 



6.1 Does the project any public funding, 

grants or official development assistance 

(“ODA”) for construction or running 

operations in any of the geographic 

locations of the project activity? 


/PDD/ 

Annex 

-2 

Page 28 of 46 

DR No, as per annex-2 of PDD the 

project does not involve any public 

funding, grants or official 

development funds. 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

OK 

Final 

Concl.



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

7 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 

Project 

Boundary/ 

GHG 

Assessment 

Boundary 



Criterion: 

The VCU Verification Criteria require that the project 

boundary shall encompass all anthropogenic emissions 

by sources of greenhouse gases (GHG) under the control 

of the project participants that are significant and 

reasonably attributable to the project activity. 


Verification Entity shall verify and state in the 

Verification Report that the project boundary and GHG 

Assessment Boundary incorporates all primary effects 

and significant Secondary Effects, and that the 

requirements for defining the GHG assessment 

boundary (as defined in the GHG-PP) have been met. 

Verification Entity shall also make sure that the Project 

Boundary does not indirectly overlap with up- or 

downstream facilities. In particular, Verification Entity 

shall disallow any downstream energy efficiency 

projects in jurisdictions which have mandatory GHG 

emission caps on the electricity sector. 

7.1 Are the project’s spatial (geographical) 

boundaries clearly defined? 

7.2 Does the project boundary and GHG 

Assessment Boundary incorporate all 

primary effects and significant secondary 

effects, as per the requirements for 

defining the GHG assessment boundary 

(as defined in the GHG-PP)? 


/PDD/ 

A.4.1. 

4 

Page 29 of 46 

DR Under section A.4.1.4, the list of 

installaments with respective 

locations are defined, however for 

unique identification of project activity 

(latitude and longitude) of each 

location is missing. The name of 

taluka/ village is not specified for 7 

(seven) locations. 

/PDD/ DR Yes, the project boundary and GHG 

Assessment Boundary incorporate all 

primary effects and significant 

secondary effects, as per the 

requirements for defining the GHG 

assessment boundary. 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

CAR 1 

7.3 Is only one project boundary defined for /PDD/ DR The project boundries are not CAR 1 OK 

OK 

Final 

Concl. 

OK



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

8. 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 



all Project Activities in order to avoid 

double counting? (As per GHG 

Assessment Boundary is defined in Sec 

2.5 and Chapter 5 of the GHG-PP, 

available at; 

7.4 

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/plugins/GHGD 

OC/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId= 

MTc0MTg a and ISO14064)? 

Does the PDD include of all GHG’s (direct 

and indirect) necessary for estimation or 

measuring the greenhouse gas emissions 

during the crediting period? 

Calculation 

Methodolog 

y 

Criterion: 

The VCU Verification Criteria requires that: 

A. Where possible, the project proponents shall use 

calculation methodologies that have been approved by 

the CDM Executive Board for determining emission 

reductions for the specific Project type. 

Where an existing approved calculation methodology is 

not applicable in its entirety, project proponents may 

use combinations of approved methodologies. 

B. In situations where an existing CDM Executive Board 

methodology is not available in its entirety or as a 

combination of existing approved methodologies, the 

project proponent shall clearly illustrate how the 

Project baseline was identified and emission reductions 

calculated. The proponent may use a performance 

standard or best practice approaches to determine the 

baseline emissions and calculating the emissions 

reductions, as described in the GHG –PP. 


A. Verification Entity shall verify and state in the 

Verification Report, if applicable, that the project 

proponent has used calculation methodologies that have 

been approved by the CDM Executive Board for 


Page 30 of 46 

completely defined, please refer CAR 

1. 

/PDD/ DR The project activity is a wind power 

project and there are no direct or 

indirect emissions from the project 

activity. Electricity generated by WTG 

is the key monitoring parameters for 

emission reduction calculation. 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

OK 

Final 

Concl.



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 



estimating the volume of emissions reductions 

generated from the Project, 

and that those methodologies have been correctly and 

accurately applied in calculating the total emissions 

reductions generated by the respective Project. This 

includes, but is not limited to, stating in the 

Verification Report the following: 

• Identification of Baseline Candidates; 

• Determination of a Baseline Scenario; 

• Definition and calculation of Baseline Emissions; 

• Definition and calculation of project emissions; and 

• Calculation of project emission reductions. 

In case the project has earlier been verified for delivery 

of VCUs, the Verification Entity shall point out 

differences in the baseline between the current and any 

earlier verifications. The baseline shall not remain 

fixed between two verification periods 

In such cases where the Calculation Methodology 

consists of a combination of approved methodologies, 

the Verification Entity shall clearly verify: 

• which approved methodologies have been used ;and, 

• methodologies have been used accurately and 

transparently in combination. 

B. If a CDM Executive Board approved methodology has 

not been used the Verification Entity shall verify and 

state in the Verification Report that the Project 

Activity has applied a methodology equivalent to the 

approved CDM methodology 

Verification Entity shall then verify and state in the 

Verification Report that the requirements, as defined 

by the GHG PP for the following criteria have been met: 

• It uses the Performance Standard approach to 

calculate the baseline emissions in the absence of the 

project activity; 

• All the appropriate Baseline Candidates have been 

identified and their GHG emissions rates drawn from 

public references; 

• An appropriate Stringency Level has been selected for 

the performance standard; 


Page 31 of 46 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

Final 

Concl.



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 



• All Primary and Significant Secondary Effects have 

been incorporated into the project’s GHG Assessment 

Boundary (see secondary effects criterion below); 

• The calculation of emission reductions is accurate and 

fairly stated. 

8.1 Are the GHG calculations documented in 

a complete and transparent manner? 

Have conservative assumptions been 

8.2 

8.3 

8.4 

8.5 

8.6 

9 Secondary 

used to calculate project GHG emissions? 

Are uncertainties in the GHG emissions 

estimates properly addressed in the 

documentation? 

Are potential secondary effects beyond 

the chosen project boundaries properly 

identified? 

Have these secondary effects been 

properly accounted and in conservative 

manner for in calculations? 

Have the most relevant and likely 

operational characteristics and baseline 

indicators been chosen as reference for 

baseline emissions? 

Are the baseline boundaries clearly 

defined and do they sufficiently cover 

sources and sinks for baseline 

emissions? 

Criterion: 

The VCU Verification Criteria require that secondary 


/PDD/ 

/cea/ 

/PDD/ 

/cea/ 

/PDD/ 

/ACM0 

002/ 

/VCS- 

1/ 

/PDD/ 

/VCS- 

1/ 

Page 32 of 46 

DR Yes, the default values are used from 

the cea data, version 1.1 published 

on 21/12/2006. 

DR There are no uncernities associated 

with the estimation of project GHG 

emissions, as the default values are 

taken from the cea data. 

DR As the project is wind power project, 

there are no secondary effects. 

DR Please refer the comments made 

under 8.1. 

/PDD/ 

(B.6.1) 

DR Under section B.6.1 of PDD gives the 

most relevant and likely operational 

charecteristics, methodological 

choices and equations used for 

calculating baseline. 

/PDD/ DR Yes the baseline boundaries are 

clearly defined as those covering the 

power generating stations connected 

to the respective grids. 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

OK 

Final 

Concl.



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

10 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 

Effects 



effects be incorporated into the calculation 

methodology in accordance with the WBCSD GHG PP. 



Verification Report that the project’s GHG Assessment 

Boundary is in compliance with the ones indicated in 

the project documents. 


Verification Report that the GHG Assessment Boundary 

incorporates all primary effects and significant 

Secondary Effects. 

9.1 Does the monitoring plan provide for the 

collection and archiving of all relevant 

data necessary for determining secondary 

effects? 

9.2 Are the secondary effects covered as 

defined by the WBCSD GHG Project 

Protocol (Sec 2.4) as unintended changes 

caused by the project activity in GHG 

emissions associated with a GHG 

Source? 

9.3 Are GHG Assessment Boundary includes 

all Primary Effects and significant 

Secondary Effects associated with the 

GHG project (GHG PP Sec 25). 

Project 

Additionalit 

y 

Criterion: 

The VCU Verification Criteria requires that the projects 

from which emission reductions are created pass an 

additionality test. Through the Additionality Test the 

project proponent shall show that mitigation measures 

result in a real reduction in greenhouse gases against a 


/PDD/ 

/ACM0 

002/ 

/VCS- 

1/ 

/PDD/ 

/ACM0 

002/ 

/VCS- 

1/ 

/PDD/ 

/ACM0 

002/ 

/VCS- 

1/ 

Page 33 of 46 

DR Please refer to comments made in 

8.1and 8.4 


8.4 


8.6 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

OK 

OK 

OK 

Final 

Concl.



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 



transparent emissions baseline. Project additionality 

shall be determined based on one of the four (AD) 

additionality tests described herein. 


A. Verification Entity shall verify and state in the 

Verification Report that there is clear evidence that 

each of the following three requirements of the 

Additionality Test have been met by the project. 

1. The project is not common practice. 

• Provision of underlying service or product with the 

project technology does not exceed 51% in the defined 

market area. 

• Business-as-usual technology options are clearly 

defined and their position on the market proven by 

official Statistics. 

2. The project is not required by regulation 

• Local or National Legislation does not require the 

production of the underlying service or product with 

the chosen technology. 

• Additionally, the Project should not have been 

undertaken to meet a formal or voluntary target 

imposed by government regulation or under agreement 

with a government agency (e.g. the auto manufacturers 

and the EU, where companies agree to meet reduction 

targets voluntarily through their industry association). 

• Carbon credits should not be the byproduct from the 

creation of an ancillary environmental asset and/or 

financial instrument (e.g. renewable energy credits). 

• The emission reductions from the Project must not 

have been used against any voluntary corporate 

emission reduction targets. 

• Project is not a downstream energy efficiency project 

in a jurisdiction with a mandatory GHG 

emissions cap on upstream electricity generators. 

3. The project is not the least cost option for providing 

the underlying product or service. 

• Companies shall provide calculations that illustrate 

that the project is not the Least Cost 

Option. 

B. Verification Entity shall verify and state in the 

Verification Report that there is clear evidence that: 

• Using the steps in the CDM Additionality tool the 


Page 34 of 46 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

Final 

Concl.



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 



project has been undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions beyond normal business practice. 

C. Verification Entity shall verify and state in the 

Verification Report that there is clear evidence that: 

• In addition to a satisfactory project baseline, the 

project falls within the top quintile (20%) in terms of 

emissions efficiency for producing the underlying 

service or product in the region/country. 

D. Verification Entity shall verify and state in the 

Verification Report that there is clear 

evidence that a project is additional because: 

• the project has selected the appropriate baseline and 

its project emissions are found to be below the selected 

baseline. In order to determine the baseline the project 

will use either of the following three determination 

methods: 

- Determine the baseline based on existing or historical 

emissions 

- Determine the baseline based on its industry 

benchmark under similar social, economic, 

environmental and technological circumstances 

- Determine the baseline by identifying the most likely 

new project activity providing the same level of 

services as the proposed project. 

10.1 Does the selected baseline represent the 

most likely scenario among other possible 

and/or discussed scenarios? 


/PDD/ 

/ACM0 

002/ 

Page 35 of 46 

DR The section B.4 is incomplete, as it 

does not include stepwise approach 

of justifying the selection and 

determination of most plausible 

scenarios for identification of the 

baseline scenario. No standard 

reference or documents are 

mentioned while arriving at baseline 

scenario (Cp Tool for demonstration 

and assessment of additionality) 

The section B.5 of PDD, does not 

demonstrate the various applicable 

steps as per tool for demonstration 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

CAR 2 

CAR 3 

Final 

Concl. 

OK



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

11 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 



10.2 Is it demonstrated/justified that the project 

activity itself is not a likely baseline 

scenario (example. through 

demonstrating investment barriers, 

technology barriers, barriers to prevailing 

practices, and/or other barriers or through 

quantitative evidence that the project 

would otherwise not be implemented)? 

10.3 Have the major risks to the baseline been 

identified? 

Quality of 

Reductions 

11.1 

Criterion: 

The VCU Verification Criteria requires that projects 

proponents demonstrate that project implementation 

has no negative impact on sustainable development in 

the local community. 



Verification Report a project’s design and 

implementation has been carried out in compliance 

with all relevant local and national environmental and 

social legislation in the host country. 

Does the project comply with 

environmental legislation in the host 

country? 

11.2 Has an analysis of the environmental 

impacts of the project activity been 


/PDD/ 

/ACM0 

002/ 

/ADD/ 

/PDD/ 

/ACM0 

002/ 

/PDD/ 

(Secti 

on D) 

Page 36 of 46 

and assessment of additionality (Cp 

Tool for demonstration and 

assessment of additionality) 

DR Please refer CAR 3, CR 3-4 in this 

context, in table no 3 

DR There is no major risk as data 

considered is from official source 

(cea) 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

CAR 

3, CR 

3-4 

OK 

DR Yes OK 

/PDD/ DR No requirement of EIA necessary for 

wind power projects. 

OK 

Final 

Concl. 

OK



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

12 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 

11.3 

11.4 

11.5 

Monitoring 

Process 



sufficiently described? (Secti 

on D) 

Are all the negative impacts highlighted 

with reference to intensity or magnitude of 

the problem sufficiently discussed? 

Have relevant stakeholders been 

consulted? 

Has due account been taken of any 

stakeholder comments received? 

Criterion: 

The VCU Verification Criteria requires that for 

estimating a project’s emission reductions the project 

proponent shall, to the extent possible, use the most 

recent emission reduction monitoring protocol that has 

been approved by the CDM Executive Board or the JI 

Supervisory Committee for that project type. 


For reductions generated between January 1.2000 and 

the date of submission, the project proponent shall 

supply to the Verification Entity a complete Monitoring 

Report. 


/PDD/ 

(Secti 

on D) 

/PDD/ 

(Secti 

on E) 

/PDD/ 

(Secti 

on E) 

Page 37 of 46 

DR As the project is wind power project. 

So there are no negative impacts due 

to the project activity has been 

address in PDD. 

DR The PDD mentions about the stake 

holder consultation, however it does 

not mention the process completely. 

Please refer CR 5. 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

OK 

Final 

Concl. 

The process of local stakeholder 

consultation explained under Section 

E.1 of the PDD does not contain 

information such as which local 

stakeholders were consulted, when 

they were consulted and what was 

the process of invitation used. 

CR 5 OK 

DR Please refer comments under 11.4 CR 5 OK



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 

12.1 

12.2 



Verification Entity shall assess the proposed greenhouse 

gas data management, control and reporting systems, 

e.g. instructions, procedures, record keeping systems, 

assumptions, 

technical equations, models and other means that 

support complete, accurate, and conservative VCU 

estimates. Verification Entity shall verify and state in 

the Verification Report that the project proponent has 

either (1) used the most recent emission reduction 

monitoring protocol approved by the CDM Executive 

Board or JI Supervisory Committee for the project type 

if available; or if not available has (2) employed 

monitoring procedures support complete, accurate, and 

conservative VCU estimates. 

Is the monitoring methodology applicable 

for this project and is it previously 

approved by the CDM/ JI Methodology/ 

VCS Steering committee Panel? 

Has the PDD form been duly filled? 


/PDD/ 

/ACM0 

002/ 

/PDD/ 

Page 38 of 46 

DR Yes, the project applies ACM0002 / 

Revision to the approved 

consolidated baseline methodology 

ACM0002 Version 06: 19/05/2006, 

“Consolidated baseline methodology 

for grid-connected electricity 

generation from renewable sources”. 

Yes, the monitoring methodology is 

applicable to the project however 

proper justification of its applicability 

should be elaborated. 

Section B.2 page number 15 of PDD 

only reproduces the criteria as 

specified in the methodology, 

DR 

however it does not specifically justify 

applicability of the methodology to 

the project activity. 

In this context CAR 1-3 and CR 2, 

CR 7 - 9 have been raised. 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

CR 6 

CAR 

1-3 

CR 2 

Final 

Concl. 

OK 

OK



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 





data necessary for estimation or 

measuring the greenhouse gas emissions 

within the project boundary? 

12.4 

Will it be possible to monitor / measure 

the specified project GHG indicators? 



data necessary for determining baseline 

emissions during the crediting period? 

12.6 Is the choice of baseline indicators, in 

particular for baseline emissions, 


/PDD/ 

/ACM0 

002/ 

/PDD/ 

/ACM0 

002/ 

/PDD/ 

/ACM0 

002/ 

/PDD/ 

/cea/ 

Page 39 of 46 

DR Yes, monitoring plan provide for the 


data necessary for estimation or 

measuring the greenhouse gas 

emissions like the total units of 

electricity produced and data of grid 

emission factor. 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

CR 7- 

9 

Under the section B.7.1 the electricity 

generation by the project activity is 

given as 38336 MWh however the 

time period for the generation of the 

CR 7 

electric energy is not suitably 

mentioned. Moreover, information on 

the measurement method, 

measurement equipment, calibration 

procedures, accuracy of 

measurement, responsibility and 

DR 

measurement frequency needs to be 

clarified. 

Yes OK 

Final 

Concl. 

OK 

DR Please refer comments under 12.2 CR 7 OK 

DR Yes, the choice of baseline emission 

indicator CO2 is reasonable. 

OK



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

St 

ep 

# 

Criterion/ 

checklist 

points 



reasonable? 


Page 40 of 46 

Draft 

Concl 

. 

Final 

Concl.



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

Page 41 of 46



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 

Table 2 Resolution of Corrective Action and Clarification Requests 

Draft report clarification requests and corrective 

action requests by validation team 

Corrective Action Requests (CARs) 

CAR 1 

Under section A.4.1.4, the list of installaments with 

respective locations are defined, however for unique 

identification of project activity (latitude and longitude) 

of each location is missing. The name of taluka/ village 

is not specified for 7 (seven) locations. 

CAR 2 

The section B.4 is incomplete, as it does not include 

stepwise approach of justifying the selection and 

determination of most plausible scenarios for 

identification of the baseline scenario. No standard 

reference or documents are mentioned while arriving at 

baseline scenario (Cp ACM0002) 

CAR 3 

The section B.5 of PDD, does not demonstrate the 

various applicable steps as per tool for demonstration 

and assessment of additionality (Cp Tool for 

demonstration and assessment of additionality). 

Reference 

to 

checklist 

step # 

from table 

no 1 

Page 42 of 46 

Summary of project 

owner response 

7.1, 7.3, 12.2 The missing details now 

addressed in revised 

PDD. 

10.1, 12.2 The section has been 

modified. Baseline 

scenario has been arrived 

at according to the 

relevant methodology. 

Reference has also been 

provided. 

10.1, 10.2, 

12.2 

The “Tool for 

demonstration and 

assessment of 

additionality (Version 2)” 

has been followed. This 

CAR has been rectified in 

PDD. 

Validation team 

conclusion 

Unique identification of 

project activity (latitude and 

longitude) of each location is 

now mentioned under section 

A.4.1.4 of revised PDD. 

Hence CAR 1 has been 

closed 

Stepwise approach of 

justifying the selection and 

determination of most 

plausible scenarios for 

identification of the baseline 

scenario with appropriate 

references are now address 

in revised PDD. 

Hence CAR 2 has been 

closed 

Various applicable steps as 

per tool for demonstration 

and assessment of 

additionality, version 2 are 

now elaborated under 

section B.5 of revised PDD. 

Hence CAR 3 has been



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 



Clarification Requests (CRs) 

CR 1 

The section B.7.2 of PDD does not adequately define 

the extensive initial training and maintenance efforts 

requirement. It also does not give sufficient account of 

the project monitoring activities, responsibilities and 

emergency preparedness. Further, it does not identify 

the roles and responsibilities of the concerned for 

monitoring of data. 

CR 2 

Under section C.2.2.1 the project proponent should 

apply dd/mm/yyyy format while defining the starting and 

commissioning date of project activity. 

CR 3 

The project proponent have justified the additionality 

under the section B.5 with the help of additionality tool; 

primarily by barrier analysis, financial analysis, 

technical barrier, barrier due to prevailing practices and 

barriers like regulatory and other barriers however the 

Reference 

to 

checklist 

step # 

from table 

no 1 

Page 43 of 46 



1.2 The maintenance and 

operation of the wind 

turbines is managed by 

the manufacturers and 

suppliers of the wind 

turbines The roles of 

different people involved 

has been added to the 

PDD. 

4.1, 5.1, 12.2 Corrected. 

10.2 Financial and technical 

barriers are applicable to 

all as they are identical 

for each state. 

Regulatory barriers differ 

from State to State. 

closed 


conclusion 

Under section B.7.2, below 

areas are sufficiently 

described by project 

proponent 

• extensive initial training 

• maintenance efforts 

requirement. 

• roles and responsibilities 

• emergency 

preparedness. 

Thus CR 1 has been closed 

Under section C.2.2.1 the 

project proponent has applied 

dd/mm/yyyy format while 

defining the starting and 

commissioning date of 


So CR 2 deemed OK and 

hence closed. 

Regulatory barriers are now 

distinguished for Karnataka, 

Maharashtra, Rajasthan, 

Tamil Nadu where the 

installation of WTG’s are 

located. Other barriers like



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 



project activity consists of several sub-project activities 

(37 WTG) across 4 (four) different states with different 

capacities and starting dates, it is unclear whether all 

above arguments are applicable to each of them. 

CR 4 

The arguments presented under the technical barrier of 

section B.5 page 16 of PDD, needs to be substantiated. 

More clarity is needed on issues like non-availability of 

commercially viable technology for utilization of wind, 

difficulties in manufacturing and mismatch in local and 

imported parts resulting in reduced reliability. Technical 

barriers should be substantiated with documentary 

evidences. 

CR 5 

The process of local stakeholder consultation explained 

under Section E.1 of the PDD does not contain 

information such as which local stakeholders were 

consulted, when they were consulted and what was the 

process of invitation used. 

Reference 

to 

checklist 

step # 

from table 

no 1 

Page 44 of 46 



Hence regulatory barriers 

for each of the four States 

have been described 

separately in PDD. 

10.2 Required elaboration has 

been mentioned in PDD. 

11.4, 11.5 Corrected. Please refer to 

section E.1 for further 

details. 

CR 6 12.1 The section has been 

modified. 


conclusion 

financial and technical are 

more generic to all sites. 

Hence CR 3 has been 

closed. 

OK 

Thus CR 4 has been closed. 

Below information regarding 

stakeholder consultation are 

now addressed in revised 

PDD 

• List of local 

stakeholders identified 

• Date of consultation 

• Process of invitation 

used 

• Mode of consultation 

Hence 

closed. 

CR 5 has been 

Section B.2 of revised PDD, 

now elobrates the



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 



Section B.2 page number 13 of PDD only reproduces 

the criteria as specified in the methodology, however it 

does not specifically justify applicability of the 

methodology to the project activity. 

CR 7 

Under the section B.7.1 the electricity generation by the 

project activity is given as 38336 MWh however the 

time period for the generation of the electric energy is 

not suitably mentioned. Moreover, information on the 

measurement method, measurement equipments, 

calibration procedures, accuracy of equipment and 

measurement frequency needs to be clarified. 

CR 8 

Under section A.2 of PDD, the units of emission 

reduction have not been mentioned and the project 

proponent needs to substantiate the data of emission 

reduction with proper references. 

CR 9 

As per section B.5 (page 16) of PDD below statement 

need to be substantiated with proper evidances 

Reference 

to 

checklist 

step # 

from table 

no 1 

Page 45 of 46 



12.2, 12.3 The section has been 

modified. Information on 

measurement method, 

measurement equipment, 

measurement equipment 

calibration procedures, 

accuracy of 

measurement, 

responsibility and 

measurement frequency 

has been included. 

12.2 Reference included in the 

PDD. 

12.2 References for both 

clarifications have been 

included in the PDD. 


conclusion 

justification of applicability of 

the methodology to the 


Hence CR 6 considered as 

closed. 

OK 

Hence CR 7 has been 

closed. 

Units of emission reduction 

has now mentioned. Further 

more data of emission 

reduction with appropriate 

references are addressed 

under section A.2 of revised 

PDD. 

Hence 

closed. 

CR 8 has been 

The appropriate reference of 

below are now included in 

revised PDD and also cross



P-Nr.: 53700307 – 07/XX 



• “1 per cent share of wind energy in total power 

available in India” 

• “The wind power plant sector is still 

predominantly debt-based for 60-75 percent of 

the project cost” 

Reference 

to 

checklist 

step # 

from table 

no 1 

- O0O - 

Page 46 of 46 



Please refer to section 

B.5 for further 

clarifications. 


conclusion 

check by validation team 

• “1 per cent share of 

wind energy in total 

power available in 

India” 

• “The wind power plant 

sector is still 

predominantly debtbased 

for 60-75 

percent of the project 

cost” 

Thus CR 9 has been closed.

annex - MyClimate

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?