100 MW SOLAR PROJECT IN BHADLA IN RAJASTHAN.

Integrity

The project’s additionality is reasonably supported because the monitoring report states an investment test and says it was verified by the VVB, VKU Certification Pvt. Ltd. The baseline is project-based under ACM0002, which is acceptable for a solar project, but permanence-related evidence is thin because buffer pool coverage is not stated and reversal events are not addressed. Leakage is a weakness: the 2025 monitoring report says it is not addressed, even though an older report described it as negligible.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the project has a named verifier, a defined monitoring period from 2021-09-01 to 2023-03-31, and registry information is available. Still, the latest monitoring report shows a large difference between total emission reductions claimed and verified, and the record does not provide usage monitoring details. The absence of a clear buffer pool statement and the lack of a quantified leakage deduction also reduce reporting clarity.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by the unresolved leakage treatment and by the discrepancy between claimed and verified emission reductions. The project is a grid-connected solar installation using ACM0002, which is generally lower risk than many other project types, but the latest report does not provide a leakage justification and the credited period conflict suggests some uncertainty in the issuance trail. No CORSIA or CCP status is stated, so dual-claim risk cannot be ruled out from the extracted record.

Documentation

Documentation quality is fair but not strong. The record includes multiple official document types and 30 extracted documents, and extraction confidence is high, which helps. However, the monitoring report lists several corrective actions, including missing project-operation details, missing entity disclosure, meter calibration updates, and formatting corrections, showing that the report needed cleanup before acceptance.

Overall

I privileged the 2025 monitoring report over older documents because it is the most recent and therefore most relevant for current risk assessment. Where contradictions exist, I used the newer value: leakage is treated as not addressed rather than negligible, benefit sharing is treated as not described, and the credited period is taken from the monitoring report rather than the older issuance record. The large discrepancy between claimed and verified emission reductions, plus the conflicting credited-period information, lowers confidence in the emissions trail and keeps the overall score in the middle range.