Vai al contenuto principale
GS avoidance India Vintage 2022 Registry: Certified & crediting Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

100 MW Solar Power plant in Maharashtra, India

GS-1974 ↗

4.9 / 10
Integrity
5.6
Transparency
4.8
Claim Safety
4.6
Documentation
4.2

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB using an investment test, which is a meaningful positive for project integrity.

missing Leakage is not clearly addressed in the latest verification record, and reversal events are not addressed; buffer pool coverage is also not stated.

Transparency

verified The project has a named VVB, a defined monitoring period, and a public Gold Standard registry status, which supports basic traceability.

missing The record shows a large gap between claimed and verified emission reductions, and the latest extraction has low confidence with several unresolved document issues.

Claim Safety

verified The project is a renewable-energy avoidance project with a project baseline and no evidence of double registration in the extracted facts.

missing Leakage justification is inconsistent across documents, and the project is marked CORSIA-eligible while CCP status is not stated, leaving some claim-risk uncertainty.

Documentation

verified Multiple official documents were used, including validation, verification, monitoring, and PDD materials, and safeguards such as FPIC and a grievance mechanism are documented.

missing Low extraction confidence, six corrective action requests, and contradictions on baseline timing, leakage treatment, reversal treatment, and verified ER totals weaken documentation quality.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through an investment test and states no material findings, which supports the project’s core environmental claim. At the same time, leakage is not clearly justified in the latest record, reversal events are not addressed, and buffer pool coverage is not found in the extracted documents, so permanence and leakage robustness remain only moderate. The six corrective action requests also suggest the verifier found several items needing follow-up.

Transparency

The project has a named VVB, a defined monitoring period, and a public Gold Standard registry status, which helps traceability. However, the extracted record does not state the usage monitoring method, and the verified emissions are substantially lower than the claimed amount, which raises questions about reporting clarity. The low extraction confidence further reduces confidence in the completeness of the documentation trail.

Claim Safety

This is a solar avoidance project using ACM0002 with a project baseline, which is generally supportive of lower claim risk than many land-use projects. Still, the record shows a mismatch between claimed and verified emission reductions, and leakage treatment is inconsistent across documents, which increases over-crediting concern. CORSIA eligibility is stated, while CCP status is not found, so the claim stack is not fully closed.

Documentation

The evidence set includes validation, verification, monitoring, and PDD documents, and safeguards such as FPIC, grievance handling, and benefit sharing are documented. Even so, the extraction confidence is low, and the verification report lists six corrective action requests involving evidence checks, serial numbers, naming consistency, employee counts, and calculations. Those issues, plus contradictions on baseline timing and verified ER totals, weaken the documentation score.

Overall

Overall, the project looks directionally credible because it is a certified renewable-energy project with VVB-confirmed additionality and documented safeguards. But the record quality is only moderate: leakage and reversal treatment are incomplete, verified emissions are well below claimed emissions, and the extracted facts contain contradictions that must be resolved. I privileged the latest verification report for leakage and verified ER totals because it is the most recent direct assurance document, while noting that earlier documents sometimes point to more favorable values; those inconsistencies reduce confidence and the score. The baseline timing contradiction is also material, because the verification report’s crediting period differs from the validation report’s period, so the more recent verification record was given priority.

Audit Analysis

This is a certified Gold Standard solar project with VVB-confirmed additionality and a grievance mechanism, which supports a moderate integrity profile. However, the record shows several documentation gaps, unresolved leakage and reversal treatment, and multiple corrective action requests, which reduce confidence in the claimed emission reductions.

Project Description

Juniper Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. and its 100% subsidiary Nisagra Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. have together setup a 100 MW Solar power project in the state of Maharashtra, India. Out of 100 MW, Juniper Green Energy Pvt. Ltd. has setup 30 MW (10x3) project while the 70 MW (10x7) project has been setup by Nisagra Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. The projects feed the power generated directly into dedicated agricultural feeders. It has played an important role in reducing CO2 emissions by generating 240 GWh of clean electricity annually, which is equivalent to powering 56,000 households every year. Project Impacts and Benefits Agriculture is a major consumer of electricity, accounting for nearly 20% of the total consumption in the country. Access to groundwater depends on reliable and affordable electricity supply. This is an important issue as it concerns livelihoods of the rural poor and food security of the country. Since the 1970s, agriculture in many states has been receiving electricity at either low tariffs or for free. Subsidized supply has played a key role in the growth of groundwater irrigation and agriculture production. Because it is seen as a loss-making sector, agriculture often gets poor quality supply leading to problems such as frequent pump burnouts and power failures. Further, the supply is unreliable and often available during late nights. All these factors make farmers distrustful of DISCOMs and both of them are caught in a low-level equilibrium. This scheme directly addresses the pressing concerns of the marginalized farmers by: Improvement in the availability of the grid in the rural areas. Normally, the grid system in the rural areas is not properly maintained. However, given that the solar power generators' profits are directly linked to availability of the grid, the generator pushes the local DISCOM to take great care to maintain the grid properly. This in turn ensures quality supply of electricity, leading to improved life of farm equipmen

Red Flags

  • The verification report lists six corrective action requests, including checks on evidence, serial numbers, village names, employee counts, and calculations.
  • Leakage is not clearly justified in the latest record, and reversal events are not addressed in the extracted documents.
  • Verified emission reductions are materially below claimed reductions, with 83,696 verified versus 112,616 claimed.
  • The extracted record has low extraction confidence and several contradictions across documents, including baseline period and crediting-period timing.

Credit Vintages

Issued Retired Available
2019
21 21 0
2020
176,431 140,011 36,420
2021
199,937 27,198 172,739
2022
203,508 97,318 106,190
2023
200,865 10,506 190,359
2024
198,496 109,601 88,895
Total 979,258 384,655 594,603

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

  • Provide a clear, consistent leakage assessment and document whether any deduction applies, with supporting calculations.
  • Resolve the contradictions on verified emission reductions and crediting-period dates, and publish the evidence behind the corrective action requests.

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.

Risk Indicators

Additionality

VVB-confirmed investment test

Permanence

No reversal treatment stated

Leakage

Leakage justification inconsistent

Baseline

Project baseline, reassessment timing missing

Safeguards

FPIC and grievance mechanism documented

Double-claim

CORSIA-eligible; CCP status not stated

Where to buy

Marketplaces

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating
Analysis Provenance Scored 2026-04-14 General Methodology v2.0 Documentazione completa

Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?

Correzione metadati (gratuita)

Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.

Non modifica lo score.

[email protected]

Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti

Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.

Invia Documenti