Skip to main content
CDMBiomass EnergyIndiaAMS-I.D

12 MW biomass based renewable power generation in Rajasthan, India

CDM-6878 ↗

#30of 352 in Biomass#264of 975 in India#349of 1459 in CDM (UNFCCC)#187of 806 in AMS-I.D

5.7/ 10
Integrity
7.0
Transparency
5.0
Claim Safety
4.0
Documentation
6.5

Audit Analysis

A 12 MW biomass power project in Rajasthan with a solid investment-test additionality case (IRR 5.81% vs 13.25% benchmark) and a standardised AMS-I.D. methodology, but the monitoring report reveals the project delivered only about 19% of the pro-rata emissions reductions expected for the elapsed crediting period, raising serious over-crediting and greenwashing concerns. The verification process generated 24 corrective action requests and a biomass-type correction, and several key MRV parameters (FNRB, usage monitoring method) are absent from the extracted record.

Red Flags

  • Monitoring report (2019) reports 68,273 tCO2e for the 2013–2019 period, only ~19% of the pro-rata expectation (~360,000 tCO2e) derived from the PDD lifetime estimate of 582,780 tCO2e over 10 years — a severe under-delivery that suggests the PDD was highly optimistic or the project suffered major operational shortfalls.
  • 24 Corrective Action Requests and 10 Clarification Requests were raised during verification, indicating significant initial documentation and methodological weaknesses.
  • Biomass feedstock type was corrected from 'Juliflora' to include mustard crop residue and wood chips, and the methodology version (AMS-I.D v15) had expired and needed updating to v17 before approval.
  • Grid emission factor of 0.84 tCO2/MWh is anchored to 2009 data, which is dated and may not reflect current grid mix in Rajasthan.

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2023
68,269068,269
Total68,269068,269

Risk Indicators

Additionality

VVB-confirmed investment test, IRR well below benchmark

Permanence

Avoidance-type project, no reversal risk identified

Leakage

0% deduction justified by >25% surplus biomass

Baseline

Jurisdictional grid EF (2009), contradiction in method descr

Safeguards

Safeguards mentioned, stakeholder consultation assessed, but

Double-claim

CORSIA and CCP status not stated in available documents

Where to buy

+ Know where to buy this?

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

⚑ Dispute this rating
Analysis ProvenanceScored2026-08-24AMS-I.D. ver. 17

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected]

Pipeline re-run with new documents

Have updated documentation not yet included? You can request a new run of the pipeline with the new inputs.

Submit Documents