34 MW Wind Power Project

Template (CDM-D-32) Version 6.
0
Effective 24/02/2015
Validation Report (GS v2.2) GS.16.VAL.002
VALIDATION REPORT
For the GS-VER Project Activity
34 MW Wind Power Project at

Khanapur, Sangli, Maharashtra, India
In
India
(GS REF. NO. GS4707)
REPORT NO.
GS.16.VAL.002
KBS Certification Services Pvt. Ltd.

Registered Office: 414-424, Om Shubham Tower, Neelam-Bata Road, N.I.T., Faridabad-121001, Haryana India.
Contact us at: Tel.: +91-129-4034513, 4054513, 403513, Fax: +91-129-4035139. Webpage: www.kbsindia.in.
Template (CDM-D-32) Version 6.0
01/11/2017 KBS Ref. No.:GS.16.VAL.002

Organisational Unit: Client:
Climate Change Division, KBS Orange Maha Wind Energy Private Limited
GS Passport
Project Title 34 MW Wind Power Project at Khanapur, Sangli, Maharashtra, India
GS Version 2.2
Methodology ACM0002 “Grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources”
(Version 17.0)
Summary of validation:
„Orange Maha Wind Energy Private Limited‟ has commissioned KBS to perform the validation of the
proposed GS project activity “34 MW Wind Power Project at Khanapur, Sangli, Maharashtra, India ". The
project involves installation of 34 MW Wind Turbine Generator in Maharashtra, India which avoids grid
electricity which is predominantly produced from fossil fuel based power plants.
The scope of the validation is defined as an independent and objective review of the project design
document, GS Passport, the project‟s baseline study and monitoring plan and other relevant documents.
The information in these documents is reviewed against the latest version Gold Standard Toolkit v2.2.
The report is based on the assessment of the GS passport undertaken through stakeholder consultations,
application of standard auditing techniques including but not limited to desk review, follow up actions (e.g.,
on site visit, electronic (telephone or e-mail) interviews) and also the review of the applicable GS
requirements.
The review of the project design documentation and the subsequent follow-up interviews have provided KBS
with sufficient evidence to determine the project‟s fulfillment of all the stated criteria. In our opinion, the
project meets all applicable requirements of Gold Standard.
 Will be recommended to the Gold Standard with a request for registration

 Is not recommended for registration
Validation Status: Findings not closed
Project type: Large Scale Draft validation report
Subject: Gold Standard Validation Final validation report
Validation Team: Document Distribution
Team Leader: Narendra Kumar
Local Expert: Narendra Kumar No Distribution without
Technical Expert (TA 1.2): Narendra Kumar permission from the Client
Technical Review Team: Manager T&C
Technical Reviewer: M.P. Kanal Chetan Sharma
TR Expert (TA 1.2): M.P. Kanal Limited Distribution
Authorized by:
Name: Kaushal Goyal, Managing Director
Unrestricted Distribution
Rev Number: Date:
0 08/08/2017
1 01/11/2017
2 17/11/2017
Page 2 of 55
Abbreviations
ACM Approved Consolidated Methodology
AM Approved Methodology
AMS Approved Methodology for Small-scale
ASB Approved Standardized Baseline
BE Baseline Emissions
BM Build Margin
CAR Corrective Action Request
CDM Clean Development Mechanism
CM Combined Margin
CER Certified Emission Reduction
CL Clarification request
COP Conference of Parties
DOE Designated Operational Entity
DNA Designated National Authority
DPR Detailed Project Report
DR Document Review
EB Executive Board
EF Emission Factor
ERs Emission Reductions
FAR Forward Action Request
FSR Feasibility Study Report
GHG Greenhouse gas(es)
GS Gold Standard
GSC Global Stakeholder Consultation
HCA Host Country Approval
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
KP Kyoto Protocol
LSC Local Stakeholder Consultation
LE Leakage Emissions
LoA Letter of Approval/Authorization
ISO International Organization for Standardization
MOP Meeting of Parties
MoC Modalities of Communication
MoV Means of Verification
MP Monitoring Plan
OM Operating Margin
PA Project Activity
PDD Project Design Document
PE Project Emissions
PLF Plant Load Factor
PP Project Participant
PPA Power Purchase Agreement
PS Project Standard
PO Purchase Order
PCP Project Cycle Procedure
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
RfR Request for Registration
SD Sustainable Development
T&C Technical & Certification
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
VVS Validation & Verification Standard
Page 3 of 55
Table of Content
1. Validation Opinion ...................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Objective ............................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Scope .................................................................................................................................................... 6
3. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Review of CDM-PDD and Additional Documentation ........................................................................... 7
3.2 Site Visit ................................................................................................................................................ 7
3.3 Major Milestones in validation .............................................................................................................. 9
3.4 Use of the Validation Protocol .............................................................................................................. 9
3.5 Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 9
3.6 Internal Quality Control ....................................................................................................................... 10
4. Validation Findings ................................................................................................................................... 11
4.1 Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 11
4.2 Baseline and monitoring methodology and Standardized baseline ................................................... 13
4.3 Application of Monitoring Methodology, Approved standardized Baseline and Monitoring Plan ....... 33
4.4 Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 35
4.5 Local Stakeholder consultation & Local Feedback Round ................................................................. 35
5. Grievance Mechanism .............................................................................................................................. 36
6. Sustainability Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 37
6.1 Do no harm assessment ............................................................................................................................ 37
7.2 Monitoring of do no harm assessment ...................................................................................................... 42
7. Sustainability Development Matrix ........................................................................................................... 42
7.3 Pre-feasibility Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 46
8. References ............................................................................................................................................... 47
Page 4 of 55
1. Validation Opinion
KBS Certification Services Pvt. Ltd. has been contracted by „Orange Maha Wind Energy Private Limited‟ to
perform a validation of the project:
Project title: 34 MW Wind Power Project at Khanapur, Sangli, Maharashtra, India
Host Party: India
The validation was performed in accordance with the applicable Gold Standard guidance and host country
criteria, as well as criteria given to provide for consistent project operations, monitoring and reporting.
The proposed GS project activity will result in reductions of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are real,
measurable and give long-term benefits to the mitigation of climate change. In our opinion, the project meets
all relevant Gold Standards, CDM criteria and all relevant host country criteria.
The project correctly applies the CDM methodology GS methodology: “ACM0002: Consolidated baseline and
monitoring methodology for “Grid-connected electricity generation from renewable sources” version 17. It is
demonstrated that the project is not a likely baseline scenario. The emission reductions attributable to the
project are hence additional to any that would occur in the absence of the project activity.
The total emission reductions from the project are estimated to be 459,263 tCO2e over 7 year crediting
period, averaging 65,609 tCO2e annually. The emission reduction forecast has been checked and it is
deemed likely that the stated amount is achievable given the underlying assumptions do not change.
The project will be recommended by KBS for request for registration with the Gold Standard.
Authorized Signatory
Signature:
Name: Kaushal Goyal
Place: Faridabad, India
Date: 17/11/2017
Page 5 of 55
2. Introduction
2.1 Objective
Orange Maha Wind Energy Private Limited has commissioned KBS to perform the validation of the project:
„34 MW Wind Power Project at Khanapur, Sangli, Maharashtra, India‟ in India with regard to the relevant
/B2/
requirements for Gold standard version 2.2 .
The purpose of validation is to ensure a thorough, independent assessment of proposed GS project activitiy
submitted for registration as a proposed GS project activity against the applicable Gold standard
requirements.
In particular, the project's baseline, the monitoring plan (MP) and the project‟s compliance with relevant
UNFCCC and host country criteria are validated in order to confirm that the project design as documented is
sound and reasonable and meets the stated requirements and identified criteria. The validation is seen as
necessary to provide assurance to stakeholders of the quality of the project and its intended generation of
GS, voluntary emission reduction (GS VER).
UNFCCC criteria refer to the Kyoto Protocol criteria and the CDM rules and modalities and related decisions
by the COP/MOP and the CDM Executive Board also used apart the GS criteria.
2.2 Scope
The scope of the validation is defined as an independent and objective review of the project design
document, the project‟s baseline study and monitoring plan and other relevant documents. The information in
these documents is reviewed against Kyoto Protocol requirements, UNFCCC rules and associated
interpretations, Gold Standard requirements. KBS has employed a rule-based approach in the validation,
focusing on the identification of significant risks for project implementation and the generation of GS VERs.
Page 6 of 55
3. Methodology
3.1 Review of CDM-PDD and Additional Documentation
/P1/
The validation is performed primarily as a document review of the Project Design Document (PDD) and
/P2/
GS Passport . The assessment is performed by a validation team using a validation protocol. The cross
checks between information provided in the Passport and information from sources other than those used, if
available, the validation team‟s sectoral or local expertise and, if necessary, independent background
investigations.
3.2 Site Visit
The site visit was undertaken by Narendra Kumar (Team Leader, local expert and Technical Expert-1.2) and
the details are given below:
Duration of on-site inspection: 22/11/2016 and 23/11/2016
No. Activity performed on-site Site location Date Team member
1. Opening Meeting 22/11/2016 Narendra Kumar

Gamesa Site
office
2 Visit of WTGs & Energy meters WTG Site & 22/11/2016 Narendra Kumar
GSS &
23/11/2016
3 Document verification and closing 23/11/2016 Narendra Kumar

Gamesa Site
meeting
office
During site visit, verification team interviewed representatives of PP, consultant and end-users. The details of
the interviewed persons are given below:
Page 7 of 55
No. Interviewee Date Subject Team

Last name First Affiliation member
name
1 Gupta Pavan Manager 22/11/2016 - Roles and responsibilities
(Orange) - Focal point for the Narendra
2 Pawar Uday Sr. Engineer 22/11/2016 proposed GS project Kumar
(Orange) - End user agreement
3 Bhosle Jitendar Sr. Engineer 22/11/2016
- Technical details
(Orange)
Penukonda Hardeep Sr. Engineer - Project feasibility,
4 22/11/2016
(Orange) designing, project life
5 Kumar Ramesh Sr. Engineer 22/11/2016 time
(Gamesa) - Monitoring of ER
parameters
- Sustainable development
issues
- SD parameter monitoring,
- Stakeholder consultation
process,
- ODA source if any.
6 Krishna Vamsi CDM Consultant 23/11/2016 - Baseline assessment
(Kosher - Issues in the PDD & Narendra
Climate) Passport Kumar
- ER estimation
7 Dondiram Suresh Sarpanch 23/11/2016 - LSC meeting Narendra
(Posewadi) - Opinion about the project Kumar
8 Sudam Vishwana Farmer 23/11/2016 regarding the sustainable
th (Posewadi) development.
9 Gaikwad Madav Villager 23/11/2016
- Verification of do no harm
(Posewadi)
Adsuch Nanaji Farmer assessment.
10 23/11/2016
(Posewadi) .
11 Sankho Popat Farmer 23/11/2016
(Posewadi)
12 Gaikwad Deepak Local Business 23/11/2016
(Posewadi)
13 Nichal Dinakar Villager 23/11/2016
(Posewadi)
14 Jadav Piyush Farmer 23/11/2016
(Posewadi)
15 Gaikwad Bhagwan Farmer 23/11/2016

(Posewadi)
16 Bheemji Ramdas Farmer 23/11/2016

(Posewadi)
17 Nischal Ravindra Farmer 23/11/2016

(Posewadi)
18 Agsuk Sampanth Farmer 23/11/2016

rao (Posewadi)
Page 8 of 55
19 Sudam Vasanthra Farmer 23/11/2016

o (Posewadi)
During the site visit, validation team interviewed the local stakeholders and confirmed the following:
 Local stakeholders were invited by PP for the local stakeholder consultation (LSC) meeting
convened on 11/04/2015 at Posewadi village, Sangli, Maharashtra.
 The activities performed during the LSC meeting like project briefing by client, blind SD matrix
development etc. reported in the LSC report are confirmed with the stakeholders.
 The stakeholders listed the positive impacts they are expecting from the project viz. employment
generation, CSR activities etc.
 The stakeholders also confirmed that there will not be any negative impact from the project being a
renewable energy project.
Validation Team considered the views obtained in these interviews while arriving at GS Validation Opinion.
3.3 Major Milestones in validation

Validation Contract 14/06/2016
On site Validation 22/11/2016 and 23/11/2016
Draft Validation Report 12/12/2016
Final Validation Report 08/08/2017
3.4 Use of the Validation Protocol

The validation protocol used for the assessment is designed in accordance with the latest version of
Validation and Verification Standard. It serves the following purposes:
 Reference to available information relating to projects or technologies similar to the proposed project
activity under validation;
 Review, based on the approved methodology and where applicable standardized baseline being
applied, of the appropriateness of formulae and accuracy of calculations.
 Organises, details and clarifies the requirements the project is expected to meet; and
 Documents both how a particular requirement has been validated and the result of the validation
(reporting).
The validation protocol consists of several tables. The different columns in these tables are described below.
Checklist Question Ref ID Means of Validation Draft and/or Final
Verification Assessment Conclusion
(MoV)
The various Lists any Explains how The section is This is either acceptable
requirements are references conformance used to based on evidence provided
linked to checklist and sources with the checklist elaborate and (Y), or a Corrective Action
questions the used in the question is discuss the Request (CAR) due to non-
project should meet. validation investigated. checklist compliance with the checklist
process. Full Examples of question and/or question (See below).
details are means of the conformance Clarification Request (CL) is
provided in verification are to the question. used when the validation
the table at document review It is further used team has identified a need
the bottom of (DR) or interview to explain the for further clarification.
the checklist. (I). N/A means conclusions
not applicable. reached.
3.5 Findings
As an outcome of the validation process, the validation team can raise different types of findings
Page 9 of 55
A Clarification Request (CL) is raised if information is insufficient or not clear enough to determine whether
the applicable CDM requirements have been met
Where a non-conformance arises the validator shall raise a Corrective Action Request (CAR). A CAR is
issued, where:
 The project participants have made mistakes that will influence the ability of the project activity to
achieve real, measurable additional emission reductions;
 The CDM requirements have not been met;
 There is a risk that emission reductions cannot be monitored or calculated.
A Forward Action Request (FAR) is raised during validation to highlight issues related to project
implementation that require review during the first verification of the project activity. FARs shall not relate to
the CDM requirements for registration.
Corrective Action Requests and Clarification Requests are raised in the draft validation protocol and detailed
in a separate finding document (Annex 2). In this document, the project participant is given the opportunity to
“resolve” the outstanding CARs and respond to CLs and FARs.
3.6 Internal Quality Control
Following the completion of the assessment process and a recommendation by the assessment team, the
validation opinion prepared by Team Leader is independently reviewed by internal Technical Reviewer. TR
reviews if all the KBS procedures have been followed and all conclusions are justified in accordance with
applicable standards, procedures, guidance and CDM decisions. The TR either is qualified for the technical
area within the CDM sectoral scope(s) applicable to project activity or is supported by qualified independent
technical expert at this stage.
The Technical Reviewer will either accept or reject the recommendation made by the assessment team. The
findings can be raised at this stage and PP must resolve them within agreed timeline.
The opinion recommended by Technical Reviewer will be confirmed by Manager Technical & Certification
and finally authorized by the Managing Director on behalf of KBS as final validation opinion. The Technical
Reviewer and Manager T&C maybe be same person.
Page 10 of 55
4. Validation Findings
4.1 Project Description
The project activity involves installation and operation of 17 numbers of 2 MW WTG with an aggregated
capacity of 34 MW for electricity generation from the wind which a renewable energy. The generated
electricity is supplied to Indian national grid. The installed WTGs are expected to generate about 67133
MWh of power per annum. The supplier of the WTGs is Gamesa. The project does not involve alteration of
any existing installation. The technology adopted by the project is the current industrial practices and are
deemed environmentally safe. Also project owners employ trained technicians for the operation and
maintenance of the WTG and hence assuring the proper operation and maintenance of the WTGs. The
project is located at different villages in Sangli district of Maharashtra state. The geo-graphical coordinates of
individual WTGs are given below:
No Location ID Village Geographical coordinates/Land Type
1 Ben-4 Benapur Private Agricultural Land
4 UN-47 Benapur Private Fallow Land
7 GA-55 Shedgewadi Private Agricultural Land
8 K-1 Posewadi Private Fallow Land

10 K-3 Posewadi Private Agricultural Land
11 HC-09 Kacaharewadi Private Agricultural Land

12 G-308 Jhakinwadi Private Fallow Land
13 G-67 Jhakinwadi Private Fallow Land

15 UN-2 Benapur Private Fallow Land
16 UN-54 Posewadi Private Fallow Land
17 UN-55 Kacaharewadi Private Agricultural Land
The location of the WTG is verified during the site visit.
Scenario existing prior to the implementation of the project activity
The project activity is a green field activity, which involves installation of WTGs where there was no
renewable energy power generation units installed as confirmed through the site visit and discussion with the
PP. Hence, the existing scenario is equal to baseline scenario prior to the implementation of the project
activity. The baseline scenario is generation of equal power form the grid connected power plants which are
Page 11 of 55
predominantly fossil fuel based and there by equivalent amount of CO 2 emission from the fossil fuel based
power plants.
Technology Employed:
The project involves installation of 17 numbers of GamesaG97 model 2000kW. The specification of WTG is
verified from the technical specification of manufacturer and the same is given below:
Specification Value
POWER
Rated power 2000 kW
Cut-in wind speed (10 min. mean) 3 m/s
Rated Wind Speed (10 min. mean) approx 12.5 m/s
Cut-out wind speed (10 min. mean) 22 m/s
Survival wind speed 52.5 m/s
GENERATOR
Type Doubly-fed machine
Rated power 2.0 MW
Voltage 690 V AC
Frequency 50Hz/60Hz
Protection class IP 54
Power Factor 0.95 CAP – 0.95 IND throughout the power range
ROTOR
Diameter 97 m
Swept area 7390sq.m
Speed range (variable) 9.6 to 17.8 rpm
The validation team has carried out on-site visit & interviews in order to assess the information included in
the project documentation and to gain additional information regarding the compliance of the project with the
relevant criteria applicable for Gold Standard.
Life time, start date & Crediting period:
The operational lifetime of the project has been mentioned as 25 years which corresponds to the standard
design life time of a WTG and has been verified from power purchase agreement which is executed for 25
/P5/
years . The project participant has opted for a renewable crediting period of 7 years each. The start date of
Page 12 of 55
the crediting period is mentioned as 01/03/2016 (retroactive crediting). The start date of project activity is
considered as 23/06/2014 and has been verified to be the date of placing purchase order of all the WTGs in
/P10/
the project in the project which is the first real action of the project activity.
Estimated emission reduction:
The annual average emission reduction estimated is 65,609 tCO2.
Findings: CAR-01, CAR-02 & CAR-03 are raised and closed successfully
Opinion:
The assessment team confirms that:
/P1/
(a) The project description as mentioned in PDD is validated through interview with PP and supporting
documents provided by PP.
(b) Based on discussion above the assessment team confirms that project description provided in PDD is
/B5/
complete and accurate, hence complies with VVS version 09.0
(c)The PDD complies with the relevant methodology, tools, forms and guidance at the time of PDD
submission for registration
4.2 Baseline and monitoring methodology and Standardized baseline
4.2.1 General requirement

Discussion:
Approved baseline and monitoring methodology ACM0002 “Consolidated baseline methodology for grid
connected electricity generation from renewable sources” (version 17) has been applied for the proposed
project activity. The version 17 is the latest available version in the UNFCCC.
Findings:CAR-04 is raised and closed successfully.
Opinion:
a) The validation team is of opinion that applied approved methodology is approved by Gold standard and
PP has used the version of the applied baseline and monitoring methodology that is valid at the time of
request for registration.
b) The PDD has mentioned and correctly applied the guidance relevant as per applied methodology.
4.2.2 Project Eligibility to Gold Standard

Discussion:
Eligibility criteria Means of validation & conclusion
Scale of Project As mentioned in the PDD, the project capacity is 34 MW which is

greater than 15 MW. Hence the project is a large scale project and the
PP has correctly applied the same.
Host Country Project is located in India, a non-annex-I nation which is eligible of

CDM as well as GS project
Type of Project The project is installation of WTGs which generates renewable

electricity and supply to grid from wind which is a non depleting
source. Hence, as per the toolkit version 2.2, the project falls under the
category: The renewable energy supply category.
Page 13 of 55
Greenhouse gases The project claims reduction of CO2 which is eligible GHG gas under
gold standard.
Official development assistance. The project is financed by debt from bank and equity. The project did
not receive any official development assistance fund. This is verified
/P14/
through interview with PP. A written declaration is given by PP , of
non-receipt of ODA for the project. Hence the project fulfils ODA
criteria.
Project Timeframe Previous announcement check:

The project is not previously announced to go without carbon credits. It
/P9/
is confirmed through interview with PP and the board decision which
confirms the project will seek carbon credits for the financial viability.
PP also provided a written statement confirming that the project is not
announced previously to go ahead without carbon credit revenue.
Hence the project fulfils the criteria.
Retroactive Registration:
Since the start date of the project activity is before first submission of
the project to GS, the project falls under retroactive registration. So as
per the GS requirement, the project should go through pre‐feasibility
assessment (PFA). However, PP has chosen for fast-track PFA as per
annex P of GS version 2.2. Hence the project fulfils the criteria.
Retroactive crediting:
The project chooses renewable crediting period of 7 years with 2 time
renewal which is applicable as per GS version 2.2.
Parallel submission:
The project does not apply for CDM in parallel. Hence this criterion is
not applicable.
Other certification:
The project does not apply for any other certification which is
confirmed through interview with PP. Hence the project fulfills the
criteria.
Findings: No findings
Opinion:
The validation team therefore concluded project compliance with requirements of gold standard and hence
the project is eligible under GS.
4.2.3 Applicability of selected baseline and monitoring methodology and selected

standardized baseline to the project activity
Discussion:
Applicability criteria of the methodology Criteria Determination by the validation team
(ACM0002), Version 17 fulfilled
Yes The project activity is new power plant at the site

1) This methodology is applicable to grid- where no renewable energy power plant was
connected renewable energy power No
operated prior to the implementation of the
generation project activities that: a) Install
Page 14 of 55
a Greenfield power plant; b) Involve a project. This is confirmed through site visit,
capacity additionto (an) existing plant(s); interview with PP and verifying purchase order of
c) Involve a retrofit of (an) existing the equipment
/P10/
.
operating plants/units; d) Involve a
rehabilitation of (an) existing Hence the project activity fulfils this criteria
plant(s)/unit(s);or e) Involve a
replacement of (an) existing
plant(s)/unit(s).
Yes a) The project activity is installation of wind
2) The methodology is applicable under the power plant
following conditions: No
b) Not applicable as the project is
Greenfield power plant and not involved
a) The project activity may include in capacity addition, retrofits,
renewable energy power plant/unit of rehabilitation or replacements.
one of the following types: hydro Hence the project fulfills the criteria.
power plant/unit with or without
reservoir, wind power plant/unit,
geothermal power plant/unit, solar
power plant/unit, wave power
plant/unit or tidal power plant/unit;
b) In the case of capacity additions,

retrofits, rehabilitations or
replacements (except for wind, solar,
wave or tidal power capacity addition
projects the existing plant/unit started
commercial operation prior to the
start of a minimum historical
reference period of five years, used
for the calculation of baseline
emissions and defined in the baseline
emission section, and no capacity
expansion, retrofit, or rehabilitation of
the plant/unit has been undertaken
between the start of this minimum
historical reference period and the
implementation of the project activity.
Yes This project is not hydro power project. Hence

3) In case of hydro power plants, one of the this criterion is not relevant.
following conditions shall apply No
4) -Refer the conditions in the methodology

Yes This project is not hydro power project. Hence
5) In the case of integrated hydro power this criterion is not relevant.
projects, project proponent shall: No
6) Demonstrate that water flow from

upstream power plants/unitsspill directly
to the downstream reservoir and that
collectively constitute to the generation
capacity of the integrated hydro power
project; or
7) Provide an analysis of the water balance

covering the water fed to power units,
with all possible combinations of
Page 15 of 55
reservoirs and without the construction of

reservoirs. The purpose of water balance
is to demonstrate the requirement of
specific combination of reservoirs
constructed under CDM project activity
for the optimization of power output. This
demonstration has to be carried out in the
specific scenario of water availability in
different seasons to optimize the water
flow at the inlet of power units. Therefore
this water balance will take into account
seasonal flows from river, tributaries (if
any), and rainfall for minimum five years
prior to implementation of CDM project
activity.
Yes  The project activity does not involve fuel

8) The methodology is not applicable to: switch.
No
 The project is not biomass power plant
 Project activities that involve
switching from fossil fuels to
renewable energy sources at the site
Hence this criterion is not relevant.
of the project activity, since in this
case the baseline may be the
continued use of fossil fuels at the
site;
 Biomass fired power plants/units.
Yes The project does not involve in retrofits,

9) In the case of retrofits, rehabilitations, rehabilitations, replacements, or capacity
replacements, or capacity additions, this No
additions.
methodology is only applicable if the most
plausible baseline scenario, as a result of
Hence the criterion is not relevant.
the identification of baseline scenario, is
“the continuation of the current situation,
that is to use the power generation
equipment that was already in use prior
to the implementation of the project
activity and undertaking business as
usual maintenance”.
Findings: CAR-04 is raised and closed successfully

Opinion:
Thus, the project fulfills all relevant criteria of the applied methodology „ACM0002 “Consolidated baseline
methodology for grid connected electricity generation from renewable sources” (version 17). Hence, use of
the selected methodology is appropriate for this project activity.
4.2.4 Project boundary

Discussion:
Page 16 of 55
Project activity boundary is delineated as physical and geographical boundary of the project WTGs and all
/P1.2/
the power plants that are connected to the Indian grid and is adequately described in the PDD in Section
B.3. The project boundary included the WTGs, the metering points and Indian national grid which has been
shown pictorially in section B.3 of the PDD The geographical and physical project boundary of the project
activity was determined by the validation team during the on-site assessment. The coordinates were
correctly documented in the PDD. The sources and sinks of greenhouse gas identified in the PDD are
deemed to be appropriate. The coordinates of the WTGs verified by the validation team through Google
maps (https://maps.google.co.in/maps?hl=en) and confirmed during site visit.
The sources and sinks of greenhouse gas identified in the PDD are deemed to be appropriate as explained
below.
Emissions GHGs involved Description
Baseline emissions CO2 Major emission source, which is emitted from the
electricity generation by fossil fuel-fired power plants
connected to the Indian national grid
Project emissions N/A Project emission is regarded as zero as the project

is a renewable energy (wind power plant) project
Leakage N/A Not applicable as per ACM0002 since the project

has purchased the energy generating equipment
/P10/
(i.e., WTG) from the manufacturer (i.e., Gamesa)
and not transferred from any other project activity
Opinion:
By checking the information in PDD and by the physical site, validation team could confirm that all the
/P1/
emission sources and gases have been included in the project boundary and the description in the PDD is
accurate and complete, and also that the selected sources and gases are justified for the proposed project
activity.
4.2.5 Baseline identification

/B2/
According to the applied ACM0002, Version 17.0 , the validation team can confirm that the identified
baseline scenario to the Greenfield grid connected wind energy project, is that the electricity delivered to the
grid by the project activity would have otherwise been generated by the operation of grid-connected power
plants and by the addition of new generation sources into the Indian national grid. In addition, as described in
/P1.2/
the PDD , the baseline emission of the project is the electricity generated by the project multiplied by the
emission coefficient which is reflected in the combined margin (CM), i.e. the weighted average of the
operating margin (OM) emission factor and the build margin (BM) emission factor as per the “Tool to
/B3/
calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” version 5 , which is in line with the applied
methodology ACM0002, version 17.0. Hence the validation team confirms that the proposed project activity
meets the methodological requirement. Therefore, the baseline scenario as prescribed in the ACM0002
(version 17.0) is applicable to the proposed project activity.
The approved baseline methodology applicable to The selected ACM0002, Version 17.0 is
Yes
the project explicit criteria implicit criteria (e.g. demonstrated to be applicable to the
Page 17 of 55
available scenarios, applicability of formulas for No project in the section 3.5 above
BE/PE/LE calculations)
PDD includes all assumptions and data used by The PDD listed all assumptions and data
project participants in accordance with ACM0002, version
/B2/
17 and the “Tool to calculate the
emission factor for an electricity system”,
/B3/
version 5 . The baseline scenario is
selected by methodology itself as below
“If the project activity is the installation of

a Greenfield power plant, the baseline
scenario is electricity delivered to the grid
Yes
by the project activity would have
No otherwise been generated by the
operation of grid-connected power plants
and by the addition of new generation
sources, as reflected in the combined
margin (CM) calculations described in the
“Tool to calculate the emission factor for
an electricity system”. In accordance with
the methodology and emission factor tool,
the CM is calculated which is explained in
below sections.
All the references and documents used are relevant The baseline scenario to the project is
Yes
for establishing the baseline scenario prescribed as per the applied
No methodology ACM0002, version 17.0
All the references and documents used are The baseline scenario to the project is
Yes
correctly quoted and conservatively interpreted in prescribed as per the applied
the PDD No methodology ACM0002, version 17.0
All relevant policies / regulations considered are The baseline scenario to the project is
Yes
listed in the PDD prescribed as per the applied
Identified potential baseline scenarios reasonably The baseline scenario to the project is
Yes
represent what would/could occur in the absence of prescribed as per the applied
the proposed project activity No methodology ACM0002, version 17.0
The baseline scenario selection is appropriate and The baseline scenario to the project is
Yes
determined according to the methodology prescribed as per the applied
The approved methodology used is applicable to The baseline scenario to the project is
Yes
the identified baseline scenario prescribed as per the applied
Finding: CAR-04 is raised and closed successfully
Page 18 of 55
Opinion:
The approved baseline methodology has been correctly applied to identify a realistic and credible baseline
scenario, and the identified baseline scenario most reasonably represents what would occur in the absence
of the proposed CDM project activity. All the assumption and data used by the project participants are listed
in the PDD and supporting documents. All documentation relevant for establishing the baseline scenario and
correctly quoted and interpreted in the PDD. Assumptions and data used in the identification of the baseline
scenario are justified appropriately, supported by evidence and can be deemed reasonable.
4.2.6 Demonstration of Additionality
Discussion:
The project applies the “Tool for demonstration and assessment of additionality” version 07.0.0 to
demonstrate additionality.
The data, rationales, assumptions, justifications and documentation provided by the project participants are
reliable and credible to the demonstrated additionality.
The validation team was able to verify that CDM has been introduced and considered prior to the starting of
the project In conclusion, the assessment of the arguments presented in the PDD has been sufficient to
demonstrate that the proposed project is not likely the baseline scenario and the emission reductions
resulting from the project activity are additional The following sections described how is the additionality of
the project activity has been validated
Carbon Credit consideration
Timeline Milestone Determination by the validation team
The extract of the board resolution copy is verified

and found that the carbon credit was the decisive
factor in the investment decision on these project
Board Decided to invest in
01/03/2014 activities. As mentioned above Green Horse PP
the project activity
has decided to go ahead the project with the
consideration of carbon credit benefits and hence
acceptable by validation team.
/P10/
The respective work order for purchase of WTG
is verified and found to be correct. Since placing
Placement of work order the work order is the first real action in the project
23/06/2014
for purchase of WTGs activity, the dates of these work orders were
considered as start date of the respective project
activities.
As verified from LSC documents, the PP has

11/04/2015 LSC meeting conducted LSC meeting in parallel with the
implementation of the project.
Page 19 of 55
Timeline Milestone Determination by the validation team
/P15/
Appointment of the CDM The consultant contract is verified and found to
06/04/2015
consultant be correct.
The contract with DOE is verified and found that is

16/06/2016 Appointment of DOE
correct.
/P16/
The PP has also submitted the declaration that project was not previously announced to go ahead
without carbon credit revenue. Hence it is clear that the project was implemented with the consideration of
revenue from carbon credits.
Alternatives:
/B2/
As prescribed in the methodology ACM0002 , the following two alternatives are identified:
Alternative 1: Project activity undertaken without carbon credit benefit
Alternative 2: No project activity; Continuation of the current situation
The both the alternatives are consistent with mandatory laws and regulations of India. There is no mandate
to set up wind power projects nor is it a legal requirement.
The validation team considers the selected baseline is credible and complete
Investment analysis:
The investment analysis is done in accordance with the stepwise approach provided in the “Tool for the
demonstration and assessment of additionality” version 07.0
3.9.3.1 Choice of Approach:
According to the “Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality” Version 07.0.0 and the Tool for
‟Investment Analysis‟ Version 06, the benchmark analysis was selected by the PP while conducting the
project‟s financial assessment. The selection of “benchmark analysis” is justified in considering that, other
than CDM revenue, the proposed project would generate revenue through the sale of electricity to the grid.
In addition, the alternative identified in Section 3.9.2 to the project activity is the baseline scenario, i.e. the
supply of electricity from the regional grid.
Benchmark selection:
As noted in the PDD, an investment analysis is carried out through applying benchmark analysis method,
which is mainly based on the comparison between project IRR and the local commercial lending rate. The
Page 20 of 55
project participant has considered local commercial lending rate as the benchmark, which is considered
appropriate according to the § 16 of tool for “Investment Analysis” (Version 06)
Since the wind power project can be developed by any entity other than the PP, the benchmark (lending
rate) is taken based on the standard parameter in market
Lending rate of state bank of India valid at the time of investment decision has considered as benchmark for
this project. The state bank of India (SBI) is a major commercial bank in India, the lending rate of the same is
an appropriate benchmark for this project activity. The SBI lending rate at the time of investment decision is
/B14/
14.5% and the same is considered as benchmark. This conservative compared to the lending rates of
/B14/ /B13/
other major commercial banks like ICICI Bank and Standard Charted Bank .
Therefore, the validation team considers that the benchmark considered is appropriate.
Input parameters:
For the purpose of validating the financial input parameters, the validation team has considered the
investment decision date in order to validate the consistency, appropriateness of the input values with this
/P2.2/
timing & consistency of the listed input values application in the financial calculation sheet . The validation
team had reviewed the following input values used in the financial calculation through review of sources
presented in the PDD Section B.5 & financial calculation sheets.
Date of investment decision: 01/03/2014
Parameter: Project Cost
Value applied for the IRR calculation: 25895.76 lakh INR

/P4/
Source of the value: Project information memorandum, § 5.1
Consistency of the value: Yes
Validity of input value at the time of

Yes
investment decision making:
The project cost is based on the project information

memorandum which was available at the time of investment
decision.
/P10/
The bank loan application (attested by bank) was also
verified, and found that the project cost provided in the bank
Justification by the validation team
loan application is same as cost mentioned in the DPR (ie,
according to the VVS 25895.76 lakh INR) which is on the same month of investment
decision.
/P23/
As per the report provided by the charted accountant , the
actual cost of project is 25800 lakh INR which could be
recalculated again though verification of purchase/work orders
and annual reports. Hence the actual project cost is in the
Page 21 of 55
same range (+/-5%) as considered for the financial calculation.
Based on the project cost considered for the financial

calculation, the cost per MW works out to be 761.64 Lakh
INR/MW. The cost/MW is less than the cost/MW considered in
many registered wind power project in India. Some of the
registered projects are listed below:
Ref. Project Capital cost

No
(lakh
INR/MW)
9621 Wind Power Project by Surana 797.26

Corporation Limited at Tamil
Nadu, India
9804 Wind Electricity Generation at 774.82

Tamil Nadu, India
10163 37.5 MW Wind power project at 733.00

Pratapgarh, Rajasthan
Moreover the sensitivity analysis has been done for the project
cost and it shows that IRR is below benchmark with ± 10%
variation.
Taking into consideration of all these factors and based on the

local and sectoral expertise, the validation team concludes that
the project cost considered in the project activity is appropriate
for the given project activity.
Parameter: Plant Load Factor
Value applied for the IRR calculation: 23%
Wind Resource Assessment study undertaken by 3TIER for the

Source of the value: /P17/
Project

Yes
Page 22 of 55
The plant load factor is based on wind resource assessment

/P4/
study which was prepared by third party, and it was also
available at the time of investment decision. The same PLF is
also considered for bank loan which is verified from bank loan
/P10/
application letter (attested by bank) . Since the PLF
calculated is based on the power study is conducted by third
party engineering company and also the same is considered for
sanction of loan, it is in line with EB 48, annex 11 requirement.
/B15/
The MERC tariff order dated 25/01/2016 recommends the
PLF of only 22% for the wind projects in districts in wind zone 1
where the project is located. The following wind projects in India
registered under UNFCCC are also checked and its PLF is
found to be in the less than the PLF considered in this project.
Ref. Project PLF

Justification by the validation team No
according VVS
9166 31.5 MW grid connected wind power 16.13%
project in Rajasthan
7804 Suzlon 8.40 MW Wind Power 18.74%

Project
8829 4.2 MW Wind Power CDM Project 18.0%

by Shri Tradco India Pvt. Ltd.,
Rajasthan, India
Moreover sensitivity analysis has been done for the PLF and it
shows that IRR is below benchmark with ± 10% variation.
Hence the PLF considered in the project activity is appropriate,
conservative and in line with EB 48, annex 11 requirements.
Parameter: O & M Cost & insurance
O&M: 18.50 lakh INR/WTG.

Value applied for the IRR calculation:
(@ 5% escalation)
/P4/
Source of the value: Project information memorandum

Yes
Justification by the validation team The O&M cost, insurance and their escalation is based on the
/P4/
according to VVS project information memorandum which was available at the
Page 23 of 55
time of investment decision

/B15/
The MERC wind energy tariff order suggests 8.83 Lakh
INR/MW with 5% escalation. The CERC suggest the O&M cost
of 3.09% of the capital cost. Hence the O&M cost considered in
the project is appropriate.
It is also to be noted that even without considering O&M cost,

the IRR will be within the benchmark. Taking into consideration
all these factors and based on the local and sectoral expertise,
the validation team concludes that the escalation O&M cost is
reliable and appropriate for the given project activity.
Parameter: Tariff
Value applied for the IRR calculation: 5.70 INR/kWh
/P4/

Yes
The tariff rate is based on the Project information

/P4/
decision. The tariff mentioned in the project information
memorandum is based on MERC wind tariff order dated
/B15/
07/07/2014 which is applicable for the project activity. The
same tariff was applicable at the time of decision making the is
according to §120, 122 of VVS version
same (ie, 5.70 INR/kWh) fixed for 25 years. Hence, it is
(09.0) ( cross checking and comparison as
considered for the financial calculation.
applicable)
Moreover sensitivity analysis has been done for the tariff rate
and it shows that IRR is below benchmark with ± 10% variation.
Hence the tariff rate considered for the project activity is
appropriate.
Parameter: Debt:Equity
Value applied for the IRR calculation: 70:30
P4/
Source of the value: Project information memorandum, § 3.4.1
Page 24 of 55

Yes
The debt-equity ratio is based on the Project information

/P4/
decision.
according to §120, 122 of VVS version Normally in infrastructure sector the loan amount of 50% to 80%
(09.0) ( cross checking and comparison as is given and the project debt component is within this limit. The
/B15/
applicable) RERC tariff order is also suggest the debt equity ratio of
30:30.
Hence the debt amount considered for the project activity is

appropriate.
Parameter: Interest on Debt
Value applied for the IRR calculation: 12.5%
/P4/

Yes
The interest rate is based on the Project information

/P4/
Justification by the validation team memorandum which was available at the time of investment
according to §120, 122 of VVS version decision.
(09.0) ( cross checking and comparison as /B15/
The MERC tariff order suggest the interest rate of 12.83%.
applicable)
Hence the interest rate of debt considered in the project is
appropriate and conservative.
Parameter: Working capital requirements
Value applied for the IRR calculation: 2 months of power revenue & 1 month of O&M cost
/P4/

Yes
Justification by the validation team The working capital requirement is based Project information
according to §120, 122 of VVS version memorandum
/P4/
which was available at the time of investment
(09.0) ( cross checking and comparison as decision. This is in line with the MERC tariff order
/B14/
and CERC
Page 25 of 55
applicable) renewable energy tariff order.

Hence the working capital requirements considered in the
project are appropriate.
Parameter: Interest on working capital
Value applied for the IRR calculation: 12.5%
/P4/

Yes
The working capital interest rate is based Project information

Justification by the validation team /P4/
according to §120, 122 of VVS version decision. This is less than the value provided in MERC tariff
(09.0) ( cross checking and comparison as /B14/
order and hence acceptable.
applicable)
Hence the working capital requirements considered in the
project are appropriate.
Parameter: Book depreciation
5.28%
Value applied for the IRR calculation:
(SLM method)
/B16/
Source of the value: As per companies act

Yes
The book depreciation considered is based on the Companies

Justification by the validation team /B16/
act in the SLM method. Validation team checked book
according to §120, 122 of VVS version
depreciation provided in the companies act and found it to be
(09.0) ( cross checking and comparison as
correct. Hence, the input parameter is valid, correct and
applicable)
appropriate.
Parameter: IT depreciation
Value applied for the IRR calculation: Civil work: 10%
Page 26 of 55
Equipment & machinery : 15%
(WDV method)
/B17/
Source of the value: As per IT act

Yes
/B17/
Justification by the validation team The book depreciation considered is based on the IT act in
according to §120, 122 of VVS version the SLM method. Validation team checked book depreciation
(09.0) ( cross checking and comparison as provided in the IT act and found it to be correct. Hence, the input
applicable) parameter is valid, correct and appropriate.
Financial calculation and conclusion:
The financial analysis is in accordance with the Tool “investment analysis” version 06. Spread sheet IRR
/P2.2/
calculation sheets is submitted by PP. The Excel spread sheet is a clear, viewable and unprotected. All
input parameters used in the IRR calculation were valid at the time of investment decision making. Though
the project life time is 25 years, the financial calculation is projected for 20 years and remaining book values
th
and expected profit/loss are added along with the residual value on the 20 year and hence is in line with
/B9/
guidance 3 of Investment guideline tool . The validation team confirms that the project IRR –post-tax
without any CDM revenue works out to be as follows:
IRR (%) Benchmark (%)
8.59% 12.5%
From the above table, it is clear that the IRR of the project activity is well below the benchmark. It is clearly
demonstrated that the proposed project activity without carbon credit revenues is financially unattractive.
3.9.3.2 Sensitivity analysis:
According to the para 28 of tool “investment analysis” (version 06), only variables including the initial
investment cost, that constitute more than 20% of either total project costs or total project revenues should
be subjected to reasonable variation and the results of this variation should be presented in the PDD and be
reproducible in the associated spread sheets. The validation team thus confirms that the following
parameters meet the requirement and these parameters have been subjected to variations in the range of
+10% and -10% in the PDD.
 Project Cost
 PLF
 Tariff Rate
 O& M Cost
Page 27 of 55
Input Values -10% 0% 10%
Project Cost 10.27% 8.59% 7.09%
PLF 6.72% 8.59% 10.29%
Tariff Rate 6.72% 8.59% 10.29%
O& M Cost 8.76% 8.59% 8.42%
The table below summaries the situation where the IRR would reach the benchmark:
Input value Variation Validation team’s opinion
If the project cost decrease to 21.6% then the

project cost will be 20302.28 Lakh INR. Project
If the investment cost
cost decreasing to 20302.28 Lakh INR is not
Project cost decreases by 21.6%, the IRR
possible as the project activity is already
reaches the benchmark.
commissioned and spent about 25800 Lakh
/P10/
INR .
The plant load factor considered for the project is

22.5% based on the third party wind resource
assessment study. The PLF increase of 24.5% (ie.,
achieving 28.64% PLF) in this project is unlikely as
/B15/
If the PLF increases by the MERC itself suggest the PLF of only 22% .
Electricity
24.5%, the IRR crosses the Moreover the PLF considered in this project is
Generation/PLF
benchmark. more than the PLF considered in the many
registered hydro projects in Rajasthan.
Hence PLF increase by 24.5% from the value

considered now is unlikely.
Increase in the electricity tariff up to 24.50% is

If the electricity tariff hypothetical as the actual tariff itself is same as
Electricity tariff increases by 24.5%%, the tariff taken is taken for calculation.
IRR reaches the benchmark.
Even without considering

Even without considering O&M cost, the IRR will
O&M cost O&M cost, the IRR will not
not cross the benchmark
cross the benchmark
The validation team thus confirms that the sensitivity analysis is in accordance with the tool “investment
analysis” version 06. All input parameters used for sensitive analysis constitute more than 20% of either total
project costs or total project revenues. The justifications provided by the PP with the variations of these
parameters are been analysed, clarified and accepted by the DOE.
Page 28 of 55
3.9.4 Barrier analysis
PDD does not describe any barrier
3.9.5 Common practice analysis
Since the project activity is a wind energy project, as per the para 10 of common practice tool, version 3.1
the project will fall under the following measure (a) Ie., § 10 (b) Switch of technology with or without change
of energy source (including energy efficiency improvement as well as use of renewable energies); Hence,
the common practice analysis is done based on the §58 of the "Tool for the demonstration and assessment
of additionality” version 07.0.0 which is appropriate. The assessment of common practice is provided below:
Criteria selected Determination by the validation team
Applicable PP has selected the State Rajasthan as applicable geographical area. Since the
geographical Area: policies, tariff and wind potential are different from other states of India, considering
Rajasthan the state as the geographical area seems to be appropriate.
Generation projects The proposed project activity has an installed capacity of 34 MW. The selected
installed capacity range of installed capacity for the discussion is between +/-50% which is in
/B10/
between 17 MW to 51 accordance with the Common practice tool . Hence the range (17 MW to 51
MW MW) of installed capacity considered for the common practice analysis is correct
/P10/
Start date: 23/06/2014 23/06/2014 is the date of issuance of purchase order for WTG which is the first
real action of the project activity. Hence the start date considered is correct and in
line with the Glossary of CDM terms.
Identification of similar As per the step 2 tool the project, PP selected the projects apply same technology
projects: All wind measure (ie, wind energy generation) within the identified capacity range (ie, 17
projects in the MW to 51 MW, in the selected geographical area (ie, India) which commercial
capacity range operating date before the start date of the project (ie, 23/06/2014) have been
identified. Total of 21 projects falls in this criteria. The Indian wind power
/B18/
directory is verified and found that the projects selected is appropriate
Nall=21 Since all the 21 projects are registered under CDM, the Nall is calculated as zero.
This is verified to be correct.
Ndiff=0 Since, Nall itself zero, Ndiff also calculated as zero. This is verified to be correct.
Project is not a Based on the calculated Nall & Ndiff values the „F factor‟ & „Nall-Ndiff are calculated
common practice as:
F= 1 ; Nall-Ndiff = 0
So the common practice conditions:
(a) F > 0.2 - Fulfilled
Page 29 of 55
(b) Nall-Ndiff > 3 – Not fulfilled
Since the condition (b) is not fulfilled, the project is justified as “not common
practice“ is correct and appropriate
From the above assessment, validation team concludes that the common practice analysis also supports the
financial assessment result. Hence the project is additional.
Findings: CAR-05 is raised and closed successfully

Opinion:
The assessment team confirms that
(a) The CDM was seriously considered by the PP. The evidences were transparently reviewed by the
validation team and considered to be effective.
(b) Investment analysis and sensitivity analysis clearly demonstrate that the proposed project activity is
financially unattractive.
(c) Therefore, the proposed project activity is not business-as-usual, i.e. the proposed project activity is
additional.
4.2.7 Algorithms and/or formulae used to determine emission reductions
Discussion:
The GHG emissions reduction calculations are transparently documented and appropriate assumptions
regarding the expected amount of electricity generated have been used to forecast emission reductions.
/P1.2/
According to the applied formulae in the PDD , the emission reductions (ERy) by the project activity during
the crediting period is the difference between the baseline emissions (BE y) and sum of emissions arising
from leakage (LEy) and project (PEy), which is expressed as follows:
ERy = BEy-PEy -LEy
While the leakage and project emission are zero, the baseline emissions are equal to the emission
reductions due to the project activity. According to the applied meth, the baseline emissions are
demonstrated in Section B.6.1 of PDD and are calculated as follows:
BE y= EGPJ,y .EFgrid,CM.y
Where,
BE y Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2/yr)
EGPJ,y Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result of the
implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh/yr).
EFgrid,CM,y Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation in year y
calculated using the latest version of the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an
Page 30 of 55
electricity system” (tCO2/MWh)
Since the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected renewable power plant/unit at a site
where no renewable power plant was operated prior to the implementation of the project activity:
EGPJ, y= EG facility, y
Where:
EGPJ,y Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result of the
implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh/yr).
EGfacility,y Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year y
(MWh/yr)
EG facility, y will be monitored in ex-post. For the ex-ante calculation, the estimated generation of 67,133 MWh/
/P4/
year based on the project information memorandum prepared by third party is considered. It is verified and
found to be appropriate.
EF, EFCO2,grid,y in this case is taken as Combined margin CO 2 emissions factor for grid connected power
generation in year y. According to the Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system (version
/B3/
05) , the grid emission factor of the project calculated in the PDD is 0.9773 tCO2e/MWh which is assessed
by the validation team as follows:
STEP 1. Identify the relevant electricity systems:
The PP has selected Indian national grid grid as the relevant electricity system.
/B7/
As per the Central electricity authority all the Indian states will falls under the Indian national grid grid .
Hence selecting Indian national grid as relevant electricity system is appropriate for this project activity.
STEP 2. Choose whether to include off-grid power plants in the project electricity system (optional).
The PP has selected Option-I (ie., Only grid power plants are included in the calculation.)
/B3/
Since the tool allows to choose both the option for any project without any condition, choosing not to
include the off grid power plants and include only grid connected power plant is acceptable.
STEP 3. Select a method to determine the operating margin (OM) method.
PP has selected simple OM method for calculation of operation margin emission factor and „ex-ante‟ option
for usage of the OM
/B3/
As per the tool the OM can only be selected if the percentage of total grid generation by low cost/must run
plants (on the basis of average of the five most recent years or based on long-term averages for
hydroelectricity production.) for the electricity system is less than 50% of the total generation. As per the
/B8/
CEA CO2 baseline database of India, version 10 the average percentage of low cost must run power
Page 31 of 55
plants in the last five years (ie., 2010-11 to 2014-15) in the Indian grid is just 18.06% of total generation
which is less than 50%. Hence selecting simple OM method is appropriate for this project activity.
Also the tool allows choosing any option among „ex-ante‟ and ex-post‟ for the usage of the OM without any
condition, choosing „ex-ante‟ option is acceptable.
STEP 4. Calculate the operating margin emission factor according to the selected method.
PP has calculated generation weighted average of the simple operating Margin is calculated as 0.993
tCO2/MWh
The CEA CO2 database itself the operating margin of every year is calculated. This has been calculated in
/B3/
accordance with the tool to calculate emission factor of an electricity system and the same is explained in
/B8/
the CO2 Baseline Database for the Indian Power Sector User Guide, version 11 .
It is verified that the calculation provided in the database is correct. Moreover the calculation is published by
Central Electricity Authority (CEA) of India, a government agency which is responsible for power sector in
India. Hence the data and the calculation provided in the database are most authentic.
Since the PP chose to use „ex-ante‟ option for the operating margin, as per the tool the operating margin
should be calculated based on the generation weighted average of most recent 3 years OM. The weighted
/P2/
average simple operating margin (0.993 tCO2/MWh) calculated in the emission reduction calculation sheet
is verified and found to be correct and appropriate.
STEP 5. Calculate the build margin emission factor (EFBM, y )

/P1.2/P2.2/
The Build margin is calculated as 0.93 tCO2/MWh .
/B3/
As per the tool the generation-weighted average emission factor (tCO2/MWh) of all power units connected
to the electricity system during the most recent year for which power generation data is available should be
calculated. The CO2 baseline database provides the calculation and the BM of the most recent year (during
the time of webhosting based on the data availability) 2014-15 for the NEWNE grid is 0.93 tCO2/MWh. Since
/B7/
the calculation is published by Central Electricity Authority (CEA) of India, a government agency which is
responsible for power sector in India, the data and the calculation provided in the database are most
authentic. Hence the build margin considered for the project activity is correct and appropriate.
STEP 6. Calculate the combined margin (CM) emissions factor
The PP calculated combined margin as 0.9773 tCO2/MWh.

/B3/
As per the tool , the weights of OM & BM for the wind and solar projects should be considered as 75% and
25% for the calculation of combined margin emission factor. Since the project is wind power project the PP
has considered same weightage for the calculation of CM. The same is verified through calculation provided
/P1/ /P2/.
in the PDD & ER sheet
Hence it is concluded that the combined margin emission factor calculated (0.9773 tCO2/MWh) in this project
is correct and appropriate. As mentioned in the PDD, this value is fixed ex-ante.
Page 32 of 55
Ex-ante calculation:
So, based on the estimated net electricity generation (67,133 MWh/ year) and the calculated emission factor
of the NEWNE grid (0.9773 tCO2/MWh), the ex-ante emission reduction of this project is estimated as
follows:
ERy=BEy -PEy= (EGBL,y *EFCO2,grid,y) - PEy -LEy
= (67,133 * 0.9773) – 0-0 = 65,609 tCO2/ year
The source of the parameter which are used for ex-ante calculation are verified and found to be correct. The
emission reduction calculation provided in the excel spread sheet is verified and found to be transparent,
correct and in line with the methodology.
Findings: CAR-06 raised and closed successfully.

Opinion:
The assessment team confirms that
(a) All assumptions and data used by the project participants are listed in the PDD, including their
references and sources;
(b) All documentation used by project participants as the basis for assumptions and source of data is
correctly quoted and interpreted in the PDD;
(c) All values used in the PDD are considered reasonable in the context of the proposed project
activity;
(d) The baseline methodology has been applied correctly to calculate project emissions, baseline
emissions, leakage and emission reductions;
(e) All estimates of the baseline emissions can be replicated using the data and parameter values
provided in the PDD.
4.3 Application of Monitoring Methodology, Approved standardized Baseline and

Monitoring Plan
The monitoring plan is in compliance with the applied CDM methodology
According to the methodology ACM0002, version 17, the main parameter required for the wind power project
to be monitored is net electricity supplied to the grid.
Sl. Parameters Description Measured/calculated
No.
1 EG facility,y Quantity of net electricity

supplied to the grid during the In the project, two metering is done. One at
year y. generation site (either from through energy meter
at pooling substation or through WTG controller)
and another at the government substation as
explained below.
The reading of the bulk energy meter (installed at

government substation) is recorded monthly by
DISCOM and project O&M operator ie, Gamesa
Page 33 of 55
and provide the readings in the Joint Meter

Reading (JMR). Generation of the project WTGs is
apportioned monthly by the O&M operator
(Gamesa) and provided in the share certificate.
The invoice will be raised to DISCOM based on

the generation details mentioned share certificate.
The accuracy class of energy meter installed at government substation for the measurement of electricity
exported & electricity imported is 0.2 which is verified during site visit. This energy meter will be calibrated
annually which is in accordance with the MERC/CERC requirement.
The energy meters (main meter & check meter) are installed in the Govt. substation. The energy meters are
sealed and are at the control of DISCOM.
The measurement and calculation method EGfacility,y given in the PDD is verified and found it is correct and
inline with the PPA requirements. The net electricity is not only monitored for the GS purpose but it will be
the basis for the electricity billing to the state utility. The apportioned reading mentioned in the monthly share
certificate will be used as the source for EG facility,y (ie., Quantity of net electricity supplied to the grid during
the year y.) for ex-post emission reduction calculation.
The steps taken to assess whether the monitoring arrangements described in the monitoring plan are
feasible within the project design are described below:-
(a) On-site visit – The monitoring procedures described in the PDD were cross-checked by conducting
an on-site visit. Representatives of PP and consultant were interviewed in-order to understand the
project design.
(b) Review of Management and QA/QC procedures - According to the QA/QC procedure, data and
records will be cross-checked by the Valuators before sending it to consultant.
In summary, the validation team is convinced of compliance of the monitoring plan with the requirements of
the monitoring methodology of ACM0002, version 17. During the on-site assessment, the validation team
interviewed the PP also confirmed that the monitoring arrangements described in the monitoring plan are
feasible within the project design. The emission reductions resulting from the proposed GS project activity
can be reported ex post and verified.
The validation team considers that the description of the monitoring plan contains all necessary parameters,
that they are described and that the means of monitoring described in the plan complies with the
requirements of the methodology including applicable tool(s)
Data management and QA/QC:

The section B.7.3 of the PDD/1.3/ clearly describes the detailed monitoring procedures, monitoring structure,
monitoring items, training, calibration procedure and handling of emergency situation, which in conformity
with applied methodology. The validation team confirms that the specific uncertainty levels, methods, and
associated accuracy level of measurement instruments and calibration procedures used for various
parameters and variables are identified in the PDD, along with detailed quality assurance and quality control
procedures. The accuracy class and the method and frequency of calibration of the electricity meters
(conforming to the national standards). Moreover, training plan for the operation and maintenance and CDM
monitoring of the project activity has been laid down by the PP, which was verified by validation team.
Page 34 of 55
Based on review of the PDD and interview with relevant stakeholders during site visit, the validation team
confirms that the monitoring plan presented in PDD is feasible to implement and will result in credible
emission reduction calculations.
All data collected will be archived and be kept for at least two years after the end of the last crediting period.
Opinion:
The validation team confirms that:
(a) All the values used from official sources and the authenticity of sources has been verified and the
validation team confirms that all relevant parameters to calculate the GHG emissions reductions of
the project have been sufficiently considered and the value of the ex-ante fixed parameter used for
emission reduction calculation determined conservatively. The validation team considers that the
monitoring plan has complied with the requirements in the approved methodology thereby satisfying
requirement of VVS version 09.0
(b) The monitoring plan based on the methodology, ACM0002 –Version. 17.0 is included in Section B.7
of the PDD and is correctly applied to the GS project activity. The monitoring plan has been found to
be in compliance with the requirements of the applied methodology. The monitoring plan will give
opportunity for real measurements of achieved emission reductions.
(c) The validation team considers that monitoring arrangements described in the monitoring plan and
feasible within the project design and the PP will be capable to implement the monitoring plan.
4.4 Environmental Impacts

Discussion:
As per the Schedule 1 of the EIA notification 2006, given by the Ministry of Environment and Forests under
/B18/
the Environment (Protection) Act 1986 , the proposed biogas project activity doesn‟t fall under the list of
activities requiring EIA.
The validation team concludes that the environmental impact by the project activity need not be assessed by
the project proponent and the same is stated in the PDD. It is validation team‟s opinion that the project
activity does not cause adverse environmental impacts and there are no regulations or requirement by India
to conduct the EIA for the project activity. The same is confirmed from the
(http://moef.nic.in/legis/eia/so1533.pdf).
Opinion:
As per EIA notification, the project is exempted from assessment of environmental impacts.
4.5 Local Stakeholder consultation & Local Feedback Round

Discussion:
Since the project is a retroactive project, the Local stakeholder consultation was not conducted. However a
Local feedback round (SFR) meeting was conducted. As detailed in the GS Passport, the Stakeholder
Feedback Round (SFR) was conducted on 11/04/2015 at villages of Pratapgarh districts of Rajasthan. The
/P8/
stakeholders were invited through newspaper (“Nav Sandesh” dated 03/04/2015) , invitation letter, poster
publication and e-mail communication to various categories of stakeholder‟s like local communities, local
policy makers, official representatives, local NGOs, Gold Standard international NGOs, local NGOs and the
DNA to attend the stakeholders meeting. The meeting was attended by 46 people from nearby villages,
Page 35 of 55
members of the Village Panchayat, local officials, farmers and local entrepreneurs. Secondly, whether
adequate and advance information was provided to the invitees about the likely agenda for the meeting and
whether the information about the project was available to them beforehand. Since the project is a Gold
standard, the PP has followed the procedure as mentioned in Gold standard to conduct the stakeholder
feedback round. All factors had been taken care and the same was confirmed during the interview and
documentary evidences. This also includes the original copies of list of participants, stakeholder evaluation
forms, meeting minutes and record of due accounts to address all comments received from the stakeholders.
The participants were eager to see that the project was implemented early as it would help them / their
dependents to get employment, improve quality of living. The project proponent distributed evaluation form
with questionnaires. All the stakeholders are free to fill the evaluation form and mention suggestions about
the project activity. The main discussion during the stakeholder consultation process was about the
employment provided and CSR activities. All the comments were satisfactorily explained by the PP to the
/P8/
stakeholder. No negative comments were received . The project participant has taken due account of all
/P4/
comments received by the stakeholders and its summary is described in the passport and PDD
/P1/
adequately .
Also, the stakeholder Feedback Round (SFR) was officially open to stakeholders by making the PDD,
Stakeholder Consultation Report and GS Passport publicly available in GS website for 60 days between
12/10/2016 to 11/12/2016. No comments were received during this period.
/P2/
Details of the SFR have been provided in GS Passport Section E.2 . As reported in the GS Passport, there
is no comment received during the feedback round and thus no follow-up is needed. The validation team
confirms that the stakeholder feedback round has been carried out according to the requirements in GS
Toolkit Sections 2.11 and the reporting in the GS Passport is complete and valid.
Opinion:
The validation team reviewed all relevant information of local stakeholder consultation meeting and confirms
that the stakeholder consultation meets to the GS v2.2 requirement. The validation team have verified the
related documents and found acceptable and interviewing some of the attendees of the stakeholder meeting
during onsite visit which concludes that the project participant conducted the stakeholders‟ consultation
process in transparent and unbiased manner. The validation team was able to conclude that the project
activity has not received any adverse comment during stakeholders‟ consultation process. The validation
team confirms that the process for conducting the local stakeholders meeting is adequate and credible.
5. Grievance Mechanism
Discussion:
During the stakeholder feedback round the local villagers and other stakeholders were informed about the
continuous input mechanism, the expression method and contact details were briefed. This was confirmed
by the validation team during interview with the stakeholders. The grievance booklet has been placed at PP‟s
office. The book will be made available at the PP‟s office to receive the feedback or confirmation of
corresponding stakeholder which is accessible to the stakeholders. Validation team also verified the
telephone numbers and e-mail ID and found that to be valid. Also PP has confirmed they will nominate
village level volunteers after the project start where the stakeholders can easily express their grievance
through the volunteers.
Opinion:
Page 36 of 55
The grievance mechanism proposed in the passport by PP is verified to be adequate and in line with the
requirement of Gold Standard, version 2.2.
6. Sustainability Assessment
Project Proponent has conducted an additional sustainable development analysis and presented the Gold
standard sustainable development assessment matrix and the Do No Harm assessment in the Gold
/P3.2/
standard Passport . The validation opinion of the sustainable development assessment is described
below,
6.1 Do no harm assessment

Discussion:
/P3.2/
Details of “Do no harm” assessment has been carried out & documented in the GS Passport by the
project participant. The assessment has been performed in accordance to requirements prescribed in the GS
/B2/ /B5/
Toolkit 2.2 , Section 2.4.1 & Safeguarding Principles – guiding questions as listed in Annex H .
Validation team has carried out the project site visit on 09/11/2016 to cross check the „Do No Harm‟
/P3/
assessment conducted by the PP. DOE has also reviewed the GS passport and found that the PP has
/B19/
assessed all the required critical safeguarding principle of UNDP in project activity. It has been found that
the project activity fulfill all the principles like Human Rights, Labour standards, environment protection, and
anti-corruption. Project activity imposes all positive impacts on humans and environment and no mitigation
measures were required for the implementation of the project activity. The potential risks alongside the
safeguarding principles are analysed in the Section F of the GS Passport. The “Do no harm” assessment is
carried out according to the relevance to the project activity, such as labour force, construction work safety
and environmental habitat etc. The validation team considers the “Do no harm” assessment has been based
on the accurate information and the reference sources are included in the GS Passport.
None of the principles is associated with the medium/ high risk of breaching the safeguarding principles.
Safeguarding Description of relevance to my Assessment of Mitigation measure
principles project my project risks
breaching it
(low/medium/high)
Human Rights
The project During construction and operation Low No measure
respects of the project the project suggested.
internationally proponent respects all the human
proclaimed rights. DOE confirms
human rights The project is not in any kind of through the
including conflict with the livelihood of local stakeholder‟s
dignity, cultural people. Project proponent had consultation process,
property and conducted a stakeholders it is evident that it
uniqueness of consultation and sought their does not conflict the
indigenous opinion. local communities
people. The values or practices.
project is not
complicit in
Human Rights
abuses.
2. The project The proponent obtained Low Not relevant for
Page 37 of 55
does not involve necessary clearances from nodal project activity as no

and is not agencies and NOC from all the resettlement was
complicit in Gram Panchayats for establishing required. Same has
involuntary the plant. The project does not been verified by DOE
resettlement. involve and is not complicit in from the NOC and
involuntary resettlement in any clearances from local
way. bodies for the project
activity. Hence, the
low risk level was
found applicable.
3. The project The project does not alter, Low No cultural heritage
does not involve damage or remove any cultural has been hampered,
and is not heritage .The site below gives the and has been
complicit in the list of cultural heritage sites in verified during the on
alteration, India by UNESCO from which it is site visit. Hence, the
damage or clear that the project site does not low risk level was
removal of any a cultural heritage site. found applicable.
critical cultural Source:
heritage http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesp
arties/in
4. The project The proponent conforms that all Low The PP has ensured
respects the the fundamental rights of the that standard labour
employees‟ employees will be respected and law is strictly
freedom of there will be no restrictions on followed.
association and freedom of association and right
their right to to collective bargaining. The employees were
collective The rights of industrial trade interviewed and no
bargaining and unions and their members have such restriction was
is not complicit been protected by law in India imposed. Also,
in restrictions of since 1926. confirmed the same
these freedoms The Trade Unions Act, 1926: through HR
and rights http://msmestartupkit.com/sites/ policy/p18/ of PP and
default/files/knowledge_base/poli model code of
cies_and_regulations/the_trade_u conduct of PP. DOE
nions_act_1926.pdf confirms that PP has
labour policy in place
which provides a
work place free from
harassment. Hence,
the low risk level was
found applicable.
Labour
Standards
5. The project The proponent assures that there Low The employees were
does not involve will be no bonded or forced labour interviewed and no
and is not during construction and operation such restriction was
complicit in any of the project activity. Uniform imposed. DOE
form of forced or policy will be implemented for all confirms that, the PP
compulsory employees. recognizes the
labour. The host country has robust laws Bonded Labour
in place prohibiting forced and System (Abolition)
compulsory labour. Act 1976,that
http://labour.nic.in/content/ prohibits forced and
bonded labour in
India. Hence, the
Page 38 of 55
low risk level was

found applicable.
6. The project Child labour is strictly prohibited Low The employees were
does not employ in the country .The proponent interviewed and no
and is not assures that no child labour will such restriction was
complicit in any be employed during construction imposed. Also,
form of child and operation of the plant. confirmed the same
labour. The project proponent has a set through HR policy of
mechanism to ensure the age of organization and
all the temporary/ permanent model code of
employees during the life time of conduct. DOE
the project. confirms that, the PP
Source: recognizes the Child
http://www.indianchild.com/chil Labour (Prohibition &
d_labour_law_in_india.htm Regulation) Act,
1986, that the
engagement of
children in
employments.
Hence, the low risk
level was found
applicable.
7. The project The project will not employ any Low The employees were
does not involve personnel based on gender, race, interviewed and no
and is not religion, sexual orientation or any such discrimination
complicit in any other basis. As the Constitution of was imposed. Also,
form of the host country prohibits confirmed the same
discrimination discrimination on the basis of a through model code
based on person's race, sex, religion, place of conduct of
gender, race, of birth, or social status organization. DOE
religion, sexual confirms that , PP
orientation or recognizes the Equal
any other basis. Remuneration Act
1976 and Civil Rights
Act, 1955,that
provides right of
equal opportunity for
all gender, race,
religion, sexual
orientation or any
other basis. Hence,
found applicable.
8. The project The proponent assures to follow Low The project activity is
provides all the safety measures and generation of power
workers with a create healthy working conditions by wind mills. The
safe and healthy during construction & operation operation phase is
work too. The project proponent being monitored by
environment respects all the acts on health the PP from the sub-
and is not and safety and will follow them. stations. Only for
complicit in http://www.legalserviceindia.co maintenance the
exposing m/articles/occ.htm O&M personnel may
workers to require to go to the
unsafe or turbine to check for
unhealthy work faults. Otherwise the
environments. work environment is
Page 39 of 55
found to be safe.
Environmental
Protection
9. The 34 MW wind project provides Low No harm to the
The project clean and renewable energy environment has
utilizes a supply. been indicated. The
technology for wind energy project
power is a green energy
generation that project as per the
is internationally host country and is a
recognized as categorized project
amongst the of renewable energy.
most Hence, the low risk
environmentally- choice is acceptable.
friendly
solutions
currently
available.
10. It is confirmed that the project Low During the interview

The project conforms with local and national with the O&M team it
takes a environmental regulations and was observed that all
precautionary has communicated with emergency
approach with stakeholders. measures in place.
regard to The PP have
environmental ensured on safety
challenges and practices by its
is not complicit personnel during the
in practices that operation of the
are contrary to project activity.
the
precautionary
principle.1
11. It is confirmed that the project is Low No harm to the

The project not in the proximity of any critical environment has
does not involve natural heritage site on the World been indicated or nor
and is not Heritage list or key national the land fall under
complicit in scenic area, national nature protected zone.
significant reserves or national parks. Project activity has
conversion or Host country ratification of the been erected and
degradation of World Heritage Convention WTG premises,
critical natural (1977): which have not been
habitats, http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesp used for any purpose
including those arties/ before the project
that are (a) Further, the project site is not in activity. Same has
legally the proximity of ecologically- been verified by DOE
protected, (b) sensitive or biodiversity hotspot from the local
officially as the project is situated at a clearance
proposed for designated wind site identified by documents during
protection, (c) government agency considering validation of the
identified by all the necessary factors for project activity.
authorities‟ developing wind projects Hence, the low risk
sources for their The project has been developed level was found
high with transparent communication applicable
conservation with local communities.
value or (d) Stakeholder consultation.
Page 40 of 55
recognized as
protected by
traditional local
communities.
12. The project The proponent conforms that All the legal
does not involve there is no corruption involved in requirements were
and is not the project activity. taken care regarding
complicit in The host country has strict laws the project and were
corruption. and robust arrangements to checked by the
prevent such activities. assessment team. It
http://cbi.nic.in/The DOE has can be confirmed
been provided with company that all the
internal policies and it is clear that operations are done
it has laid provisions to as per the provisions.
prevent/identify any corruption. DoE confirms that,
organization abides
by the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988,
which prohibits
companies from
indulging in corrupt
practices. Hence,
found applicable.
N/A N/A N/A N/A
During the site interview, the O&M operator Gamesa stated that they will monitor the design, construction,
operation and maintenance of wind farm in order to check whether the project proponent can implement the
project according national policy such as land occupation and environmental mitigation measures etc. The
plant technical staff will be trained by the Gamesa for plant operation and maintenance.
The validation approach didn‟t reveal any situation that could lead to the violation of Do No Harm principles
/B19/
and DOE has confirmed that the project activity fulfill all the safeguarding principles given by UNDP .
All supporting information & reference sources stated in the GS Passport in order to support the assessment
have been verified by the validation team & confirmed the assessment has been carried out based on
accurate information. All of the 12 Safeguarding Principles were evaluated and assessed as low risk. There
is no mitigation measure identified and was found to be adequate & appropriate to address the risk by the
validation team.
Opinion:
All supporting information & reference sources stated in the GS Passport in order to support the assessment
have been verified by the validation team & confirmed the assessment has been carried out based on
accurate information. All of the 12 Safeguarding Principles were evaluated and assessed as low risk. There
is no mitigation measure identified and was found to be adequate & appropriate to address the risk by the
validation team.
Page 41 of 55
7.2 Monitoring of do no harm assessment
The project developer was not required to develop a monitoring plan for do no harm assessment since there
is no risk of breaching any of the indicator. The appropriate mitigation measures are already taken.
7. Sustainability Development Matrix

Discussion:
Detailed impact assessment - sustainable development matrix
/B2/ /B5/
Detailed impact assessment accordance to GS Toolkit 2.1 , Section 2.4.1 & Annex I has been applied to
establish the sustainable development matrix by the project participant.
The validation team had assessed the detailed impact assessment & found out of 12 indicators evaluated by
the project participant, 6 indicators were scored as positive and the remaining were scored as “0”. There is
no single indicators are scored as negative. The validation team found that the scoring is reproducible and
the results from local stakeholder consultation have been considered adequately as the input to the detailed
assessment process by the project participant.
The details of the validation team‟s opinion for the sustainable development matrix assessment are as
follows,
Component
Score Validation Opinion & Conclusion
Indicators
Environment
Air quality + The validation team considers that the project brings positive
impact to the air quality. As the project avoid electricity from grid,
air pollutants such as CO2, NOx and SOx can be reduced during
the project operation period by replacing electricity generated
from fossil fuel fired power plants. So the validation team
considers that the project activity would cause positive impact to
air quality by reducing GHG and other pollutants emissions from
replacement of fossil fuel consumption. The score for the air
quality is confirmed to be “+”.
Water quality and 0
According to the on-site interview with the representative from
quantity
the local stakeholders, the operation of wind mill will not affect
the nearby water quality and quantity. The project is located in
the mostly barren land without any nearby water resources such
as rivers. Apart from domestic water consumption in the wind
farm, the wind power generation process does not involve water
usage. The validation team also considers that the project activity
would not cause any adverse impact to water quality and
quantity. Thus the score is confirmed to be “0”.
Soil condition 0 The validation team considers the operation of windfarm does
not involve any impact to the soil environment. According to the
approved PP, the wind turbines will be located mostly in he
barren land, and will not occupy any farmland area. In addition,
there is no indication of soil pollution and erosion, as the project
does not release any pollutants that will affect the soil condition.
The validation team also considers that the project activity would
not cause any adverse impact to soil condition. Thus the score is
Page 42 of 55
confirmed to be “0”.
Other pollutants 0 The project developer & operator Gamesa considers that the
impact of noise during the construction period can be minimized
with suitable mitigation measures. He also stated that they would
monitor the implementation of environmental mitigation
measures during the wind farm construction, and there will be no
other pollutant during the operation period. The validation team
also considers that the project activity would not cause any
adverse impact to other pollutants. Thus the score for “Other
pollutants” is confirmed to be “0”
 Biodiversity 0 During the on-site visit, the validation team observed that the
project wind farm is located on the barren land where there is no
vegetation. According to the on-site interview with the Gamesa,
the wind farm is not located in bird migration routes, thus would
not cause threat to migrating birds. Moreover, there is no extinct
species of plant and fauna in the project site. The validation team
also considers that the project activity would not cause any
adverse impact to biodiversity. And also due to the GS review
comment, the validation team checked the EIA report to confirm
that the trajectory path is avoided by the project activity.
The EIA in section 5.9 calrifies as follows:

The scope of study have included,
“Identification of area which are important or sensitive for

breeding, nesting, foraging, resting, over wintering areas
including wildlife corridors/avain migratory routes”
And under section 5.12, it states “ No migratory birds identified”.
Also the PP, the local personnel were also questioned to confirm
that the migratory bird trajectory route is not affected by the
project activity. Hence, it is found to be acceptable. Thus the
score for “Biodiversity” is confirmed to be “0”
Social Sustainability
and Development
 Quality of + According to the Gamesa, technical training was provided to the
employment plant staff for plant operation and maintenance. The training
records conducted till now are also checked by the validation
team. The plant O&M requires lots of skilful workers, and the
training can enhance the skill of workers and leads to better
income, thus the quality of employment can be improved.
Moreover, the improvement can be quantified from the training of
plant staff. The validation team considers that the project activity
brings positive impact to the quality of employment. Thus the
score is confirmed to be “+”.
 Livelihood of the poor + According to the project proponent, CSR activities will be done in
the villages near by the project location. The activities like Health
Page 43 of 55
Camps, Knowledge and information dissemination regarding

natural disasters will be done which is confirmed through
interview with PP. The validation team considers that the project
activity brings positive impact to the livelihood of poor. Thus the
 Access to affordable + The validation team considers that the project activity uses clean
and clean energy energy source (i.e. wind power) to generate electricity and would
services increase the share of clean energy in the local power supply.
Though, the electricity is delivered to the power grid and would
not directly increase its access by the local people, it will
increase the share of clean energy in the grid electricity which
will be supplied to the Indian national grid. The validation team
also considers that the project activity would bring positive impact
to access to affordable and clean energy services. Thus the
 Human and 0 The validation team agrees that the project activity could
institutional capacity probably improve the employment opportunities for women
(including during the project construction and operation periods. The project
empowerment, staff can obtain better benefit by working in the wind farm for
education and
better training, welfare and income. However, it may not bring
gender equality)
obvious impacts to the education and skills, gender equality, and
empowerment. The validation team also considers that the
project activity would not cause any adverse impact to access to
human and institutional capacity. Thus the score is confirmed to
be “0”.
Economic and
Technological
Development
 Quantitative + Before the project implementation, there were no extra job
employment and opportunities for local workers. The validation team considers the
income generation number of jobs will be created for local residents during the
project construction and operation. As reported from the project
owner, the overall income and welfare of the villagers will be
improved as compared to the baseline. The actual impact can be
verified by the number of jobs created by the project activity. The
validation team considers that the project activity brings positive
impact to the quantitative employment and income generation.
Thus the score is confirmed to be “+”.
 Balance of payments 0 According to the GS Passport, foreign currency will be obtained

and investment through VER sale. However, compared to the baseline, there is
no indication that foreign currency is required for local investment
activities. The project also adopted the domestic equipment such
as wind generators and turbines, thus there is no impact on the
demand on foreign currency caused by the project activity. The
validation team also considers that the project activity would not
cause any adverse impact to balance of payments and
Page 44 of 55
investment. Thus the score is confirmed to be “0”
 Technology transfer + According to the GS passport, the training programs will be

and technological conducted for O&M staffs. This would help them in proper
self-reliance operation and maintenance of the wind farm. Hence PP has
rated positive for this parameter. The validation team also
considers that the project activity would bring positive impact to
access to Technology transfer and technological self-reliance.
Thus the score is confirmed to be “+”.
During the desk review discussion, the validation team was able to verify the supporting evidences for
stakeholder feedback including questionnaires completed by the local stakeholder; which are in turn
considered while completing the matrix.
The project applied the sustainable development assessment matrix as required by the Gold Standard.
The total score obtained is +6 based on the above validation opinion. While for the other indicators, they are
checked to be neutral in which the project activity would not cause any adverse impact to other neutral
indicators.
The scoring in each section is summarized below:
 Environment scores a subtotal of +1 (from positive impact of air quality);
 Social development subtotal of +3 (from positive impact of quality of employment, livelihood of the
poor & Access to affordable and clean energy services);
 Economic and technological development scores a subtotal of +2 (from positive impact of
quantitative employment and income generation and Technology transfer and technological self-
reliance).
Thus the project activity is eligible under the Gold Standard as per GS Toolkit Section 2.4.2, in which the
project activity contributes positively to all three categories (Environment, Social development and Economic
st
& Technological development) in the 1 crediting period.
Sustainability monitoring plan

/P2/
GS Passport Section G has included (9) parameters into the Sustainability Monitoring Plan. The chosen
parameters are relevant to the indicators indicated in the Sustainable Development Matrix.
The detailed assessment of monitoring plan is mentioned in below table,
SI No Sustainable Monitoring Parameter Monitoring procedure
Indicator
01 Air Quality CO2 emission reduction The parameter is calculated based on the net
electricity supplied to grid by the project and the
combined margin emission factor. The ex-post
VER estimation will considered for this parameter.
This parameter is same as the emission reduction
calculated for VER and hence monitoring this
parameter is seems to be possible.
02 Quality of Trainings & workshops Training and workshops will be conducted by the
employment conducted for O&M staffs Gamesa to the O&M staffs. The records will be
maintained for the training & workshops which
also will be used as source for this parameter.
The DOE review the explanation provided by the
PP and accepts the same.
Page 45 of 55
04 Livelihood of Health Camps, Knowledge The activities conducted like Health Camps,
the poor and information Knowledge and information dissemination
dissemination regarding regarding natural disasters in the project villages
natural disasters. will be recorded as and when it is conducted. The
records shall be used for reporting the same in
verification. This monitoring procedure seems to
be appropriate for the parameter.
05 Access to Net electricity supplied to The net electricity supplied is monitored through
affordable and grid energy meters. The apportioned electricity for the
clean energy project is recorded monthly in the share certificate
services and the same will be considered for ex-post
reporting. This monitoring procedure seems to be
appropriate for the parameter
07 Quantitative 1. Cost spent for O&M The PP will record the money spent on operation
employment and maintenance of the WTGs. This can be
and income 2. Number of O&M staffs verified from the invoices raised by O&M operator,
generation involved in the project ie, Gamesa.
The number of O&M staffs involved in the project

will be taken from O&M operator (ie, Gamesa)
employee records.
Hence the monitoring parameters are found to be

feasible and possible for the PP.
09 Technology Number of training/workshop Training and workshops will be conducted by the

transfer and conducted to the O&M Gamesa to the O&M staffs. The records will be
technological maintained for the training & workshops which
self-reliance also will be used as source for this parameter.
The DOE review the explanation provided by the
PP and accepts the same.
The sustainability monitoring plan is unambiguous & has clearly stated who will monitor each of the
parameter & the monitoring frequency requirements. No concerns are anticipated with regards to the
feasibility of the plan.
Opinion:
The validation team confirms that the project activity meets the Gold Standard requirements for Sustainability
Development Matrix. The indicator have been appropriately identified and sufficiently monitored.
The sustainability monitoring plan is unambiguous & has clearly stated who will monitor each of the
parameter & the monitoring frequency requirements. No concerns are anticipated with regards to the
feasibility of the plan.
7.3 Pre-feasibility Assessment

Since the project start date is before the date of the first submission of the project documents to the GS, the
project is applying through retroactive registration root. So, as per the GS toolkit version 2.2, the pre-
feasibility assessment is required. However, as per Annex P, PP preferred to go for fast track pre-feasibility
assessment. Mail from gold standard also confirms the project is considered under fast-track. Hence, no pre-
feasibility report was issued by Gold standard.
Page 46 of 55
8. References
Ref no.
Reference Document
PDD titled “34 MW Wind Power Project at Khanapur, Sangli, Maharashtra, India”, Version 01,
/P1.1/
Date 28/08/2015
/P1/
/P1.2/
Date 17/12/2016
/P1.3/
Date 30/10/2017
/P2.1/ IRR calculation sheet (draft) pertains to version 01 of PDD

/P2/
/P2.2/ IRR calculation sheet (modified) pertains to version 02 of PDD
/P2.3/ IRR calculation sheet (modified) pertains to version 03 of PDD
Gold Standard (GS) Passport titled “34 MW Wind Power Project at Khanapur, Sangli,
/P3.1/
Maharashtra, India”, Version 01, Date 01/11/2015
/P3/
Gold Standard (GS) Passport titled “34 MW Wind Power Project at Khanapur, Sangli,
/P3.2/
Maharashtra, India”, Version 01, Date 17/12/2015
/P4/ Information Memorandum of the project prepared by SBICAPS dated August 2014
Application for execution of Power purchase agreement (PPA) between Orange Maha Wind
/P5/
Energy Private Limited and Vidyut Vitram Nigam Limited
/P6/ NOC from Village Panchayat
/P7/ Loan sanction letter to Orange Maha Wind Energy Private Limited from various banks
SFR meeting documents
 Newspaper Invitation, dated 05/04/2015

/P8/
 Panchayat/public notification, dated 05/04/2015
 Attendance sheet, dated 11/04/2015
 Minutes of stakeholder consultation meeting, dated 11/04/2015
 Filled feedback forms, dated 11/04/2015
Summary of minutes of board meeting of M/s Orange Maha Wind Energy Private Limited,
/P9/
dated 11/04/2015
Purchase orders dated 23/06/2014

/P10/
CA Certificate
Page 47 of 55
/P11/ GS consultant contract with M/s Kosher Climate India Pvt. Ltd dated 06/04/2015
/P12/ Commissioning Certificate (commissioning date 31/10/2015)
/P13/ Manufacture specifications of WTG
/P14/ ODA declaration letter
/P15/ Contract with DOE for validation of the GS project
/P16/ Declaration from PP on the previous announcement
/P17/ Wind Resource Assessment study undertaken by 3TIER for the Project
HR policy
/P18/
Model code of conduct of Orange Group.
Background investigation document:
Ref No Document
Standards:
GS Toolkit, (version 2.2)

/B1/
CDM Validation and Verification Standard (Version 9.0).
CDM project standard, (Version 9.0)
/B2/ Approved Baseline & Monitoring Methodology: ACM0002, version 17
/B3/ Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system, version 05.0
/B4/ Tool for the demonstration and assessment of Additionality, version 7.0
/B5/ GS Annexes (Energy), version 2.2
As applicable:
/B6/
CDM-PDD –FORM – Project Design Document form, version 08
1. Glossary of CDM terms, version 07

/B7/
2. Relevant CDM and PoA specific requirements (CDM M & P and decisions by the CMP and
documents released by CDM EB) published on the UNFCCC CDM website
CO2 Baseline Database for the Indian Power Sector, version11
/B8/
www.cea.nic.in/reports/others/thermal/tpece/cdm_co2/user_guide_ver11.pdfm
Corporate Tax Rate:

/B9/
http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-
Page 48 of 55
table.aspx
Tool: Investment analysis, Version 06

/B10/
Tool: Common practice, version 3.1
MAT rate:
/B11/
http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2006-07/bh/bh1.pdf
/B12/ 2006 IPCC Guidelines on National GHG Inventories
Prime Lending rates of major commercial banks published by Reuters:

/B14/
http://in.reuters.com/article/india-plr-idINL3N12Q2RJ20151026
The RERC tariff order dated 29/05/2015

/B15/
The RERC tariff order dated 16/07/2014
/B16/ Book depreciation as per the companies act.
/B17/ IT Depreciation as per the IT act
/B18/ Indian Wind Power Directory
/B19/ Safeguarding principle of UNDP
Page 49 of 55
Annex 1: Detailed Findings
Summary of findings CAR CL FAR
06 0 0
Date Type & Number Raised by Reference
06/12/2016 CAR 01 Assessment team Validation Protocol
Non conformities raised
The latest format of PDD template is not used. The PDD template used is version 6, which is no more valid
one.
Project Participant’s response Date:
The PDD template is changed to version 8 which is the latest available version in the UNFCCC website
Documentation Provided as Evidence by Project Participant
Revised PDD.
Information Verified by Team Leader Date of review: 17/12/2016
PP has changed the PDD Template to version 8, a valid version.

Reasoning for not acceptance or close out
Necessary corrections are made in the PDD.
Date of acceptance or non- acceptance Date: 17/12/2016 Status: Closed
The project capacity is inconsistent between the submitted documents. Two different capacities are
mentioned in various documents ie, 100 MW & 34 MW. Explanation should be provided.
The initial planned capacity of the project was 100 MW. However, due to various reasons, the project capacity
is reduced to 34 MW. The necessary documents for the revised capacity is submitted to DOE.
Revised PDD.
Page 50 of 55
As per the submitted documents, the project capacity is reduced from 100 MW to 34 MW. Hence accepted.
The explanation is provided.
The geographical coordinates of the WTGs are not provided in the PDD
The geographical coordinates of the WTGs are now provided in the PDD
Revised PDD.
The geographical coordinates provided in the PDD are checked and confirmed the coordinates correct as
verified from site visit.
The revised PDD with the required details are provided
The latest version of the methodology and tools are not applied in the PDD. The methodology & tools version
referred in the PDD are no more valid.
The PDD is updated with the latest version of the methodology and tools.
Revised PDD.
Page 51 of 55
The submitted revised PDD now refers the valid version of the methodology and tools.
The project is a large scale project. As per the additionality tool for large scale, the common practice analysis
should be provided .
The PDD is updated with the common practice analysis .

Revised PDD.
The common practice analysis is provided in the revised PDD. The validation team checked the analysis and
the references and found that the analysis is done in line with the additionality tool for large scale project.
As per the CEA website, the latest version of the CEA database is version 11. However, PDD refers version
10 & version 5 of the CEA database which is not appropriate.
The PDD is updated with the version 11 of the CEA database. The emission reductions are updated as per
the revised emission factor.
Revised PDD.
Page 52 of 55
The PDD now refers version 11 of CEA database which is the latest one available in the CEA website. The
grid, emission factor and emission reduction are updated in the revised PDD & ER calculation sheet.
Page 53 of 55
Annex 3: Certificate of Competence
Appendix 1.
Personnel Name: Narendra Kumar

Qualified to work as:
Team Leader Technical Expert
Validator/Verifier Financial Expert
Technical Reviewer Local Expert
Area(s) of Technical Expertise
Sectoral Scope Technical Area
Energy Industries (renewable/non-renewable TA 1.1: Thermal energy generation from fossil fuels and biomass
sources) including thermal electricity from solar
Energy industries (renewable/non-renewable TA 1.2: Energy generation from renewable energy sources
sources)
Energy Demand TA 3.1: Energy Demand
Approved by (Manager C& T) Akhilesh Joshi
Approval date: 16/01/2016
Personnel Name: M P Kanal

Technical Reviewer Local Expert (India)
Energy industries (renewable/non- TA 1.2: Energy generation from renewable energy sources
renewable sources)
Energy Demand TA 3.1: Energy Demand
Waste handling and disposal TA 13.1. Solid waste and wastewater
Agriculture TA 15.1. Agriculture
Approved by (Manager C & T) Gagandeep Kakkar
Page 54 of 55
Personnel Name: Chetan Swaroop Sharma

Technical Reviewer Local Expert (India)
Energy industries (renewable/non-renewable TA 1.2: Energy generation from renewable energy sources
sources) TA 1.1: Thermal energy generation from fossil fuels and biomass
including thermal electricity from solar
Approved by (Manager C & T) Gagandeep Kakkar
History of the document
Version Date Nature of revision Reviewed by Approved by

6.0 20/02/2015 Revised For VVS 7.0 Manager CDM Quality Managing Director
21/02/2015 24/02/2015
5.0 08/10/2014 Section 4.8.4 and 4.8.5 Manager CDM Quality Managing Director
are revised based on 13/10/2014 14/10/2013
the corrective actions
proposed during the
performance
assessment.
4.0 29/07/2013 Revised for VVS 3.0 Manager CDM Quality Managing Director
and 4.6 section added 04/08/2012 08/08/2013
3.0 05/09/2012 Revised for VVS track Manager CDM Quality Managing Director
07/09/2012 10/09/2012
2.0 31/12/2011 Comprehensively Manager CDM Quality Managing Director
revised 31/12/2011 31/12/2011
Page 55 of 55

34 MW Wind Power Project

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

34 MW Wind Power Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Template (CDM-D-32) Version 6.

34 MW Wind Power Project at

KBS Certification Services Pvt. Ltd.

01/11/2017 KBS Ref. No.:GS.16.VAL.002

 Will be recommended to the Gold Standard with a request for registration

Duration of on-site inspection: 22/11/2016 and 23/11/2016

No. Activity performed on-site Site location Date Team member

1. Opening Meeting 22/11/2016 Narendra Kumar

3 Document verification and closing 23/11/2016 Narendra Kumar

No. Interviewee Date Subject Team

15 Gaikwad Bhagwan Farmer 23/11/2016

16 Bheemji Ramdas Farmer 23/11/2016

17 Nischal Ravindra Farmer 23/11/2016

18 Agsuk Sampanth Farmer 23/11/2016

19 Sudam Vasanthra Farmer 23/11/2016

3.3 Major Milestones in validation

3.4 Use of the Validation Protocol

No Location ID Village Geographical coordinates/Land Type

1 Ben-4 Benapur Private Agricultural Land

2 Ben-5 Benapur Private Agricultural Land

3 Ben-2 Benapur Private Agricultural Land

4 UN-47 Benapur Private Fallow Land

5 Ben-3 Benapur Private Agricultural Land

6 Ben-1 Benapur Private Agricultural Land

7 GA-55 Shedgewadi Private Agricultural Land

8 K-1 Posewadi Private Fallow Land

10 K-3 Posewadi Private Agricultural Land

11 HC-09 Kacaharewadi Private Agricultural Land

13 G-67 Jhakinwadi Private Fallow Land

14 K-14 Posewadi Private Fallow Land

16 UN-54 Posewadi Private Fallow Land

17 UN-55 Kacaharewadi Private Agricultural Land

The location of the WTG is verified during the site visit.

Scenario existing prior to the implementation of the project activity

Rated power 2000 kW

Cut-in wind speed (10 min. mean) 3 m/s

Rated Wind Speed (10 min. mean) approx 12.5 m/s

Cut-out wind speed (10 min. mean) 22 m/s

Survival wind speed 52.5 m/s

Type Doubly-fed machine

Rated power 2.0 MW

Swept area 7390sq.m

Speed range (variable) 9.6 to 17.8 rpm

Life time, start date & Crediting period:

Estimated emission reduction:

The annual average emission reduction estimated is 65,609 tCO2.

4.2 Baseline and monitoring methodology and Standardized baseline

4.2.1 General requirement

4.2.2 Project Eligibility to Gold Standard

Scale of Project As mentioned in the PDD, the project capacity is 34 MW which is

Host Country Project is located in India, a non-annex-I nation which is eligible of

Type of Project The project is installation of WTGs which generates renewable

Project Timeframe Previous announcement check:

4.2.3 Applicability of selected baseline and monitoring methodology and selected

Yes The project activity is new power plant at the site

b) In the case of capacity additions,

Yes This project is not hydro power project. Hence

4) -Refer the conditions in the methodology

6) Demonstrate that water flow from

7) Provide an analysis of the water balance

reservoirs and without the construction of

Yes  The project activity does not involve fuel

 Biomass fired power plants/units.