Year-wise analysis of additionality
In the year 2006 a total of 19 wind energy projects were registered out of which 14 were small scale projects.
Small scale projects: Additionality of 3 small scale projects has been studied as a sample. These projects are:
1. Generation of electricity from 6.25 MW capacity wind mills by Sun-n-Sand Hotels Pvt. Ltd at Soda Mada Rajasthan
2. 3.75 MW Small Scale Grid Connected “Demonstration Wind Farm Project” at Chalkewadi, District Satara, State Mahararashtra
3. 10.6 MW wind farm at Village Badabagh, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
All the 3 projects demonstrated investment barrier in the additionality. The 6.25 MW and 10.6 MW project ...view middle of the document...
the project proponent demonstrated that all the projects were in some or other stage of availing CDM benefits and the project was subsequently registered.
For the 10.6 MW project, there were request for reviews on baseline emission factor calculations and the arrangement of ownership of WTGs, which were answered and the project was registered.\
Large scale projects:
The two large scale projects studied are:
1. 56.25 MW bundled wind energy project in Tirunelveli and Coimbatore districts in Tamilnadu
2. 125 MW wind power project in Karnataka
Earlier there were 2 additional steps in the tool to prove additionality for projects under the methodology ACM0002. These were step 0 and step 5, which were as follows:
Step 0: Provide evidence that the starting date of the CDM project activity falls between 1 January 2000 and the date of the registration of a first CDM project activity, bearing in mind that only CDM project activities submitted for registration before 31 December 2005 may claim for a crediting period starting before the date of registration; Provide evidence that the incentive from the CDM was seriously considered in the decision to proceed with the project activity
Step 5: Impact of CDM registration on the project activity.
After completing steps 0 and step 1, both the large scale projects proved additionality through benchmark analysis under investment analysis in step 2. The 125 MW project took the WACC of the project as the benchmark and compared it against the IRR of the project for 10 years(as they were taking CDM benefits for a fixed period of 10 years and the PPA with the state electricity board was also for a period of 10 years) the IRR was found to be lower than the benchmark without CDM benefits. It improved after considering CDM benefit but still remained lower than the benchmark. The sensitivity analysis was conducted by considering variations in annual export and OM expenses.
Common practice analysis was conducetde by demonstrating lower potential realization when compared to gross potential for the state of Karnataka. The project was also at the time of implementation largets wind farm in the state and used WTGs of higher capacity.
There were requests for reviews on the clarity of IRRs calculated for the project, since the doubt was not cleared the project was reviewed for the same, following which corrections were made and the project was registered.
The 56.25 MW project used the benchmark of 16% for the Indian electric utility industry. The sensitivity analysis was conducted through variations in annual sales. Common practice analysis was conducted by demonstrating lower penetration of wind energy in the country compared to other sources.
The project was straight away registered.
Two large scale wind energy projects from India were rejected during the year. Both the projects were by Bajaj Auto Pvt Ltd, in Maharashtra. Both the projects had similar PDD, additionality and both were...