13.75 MW Wind Power Project In Davangere, Karnataka, India

Integrity

The monitoring record (2022-11-04) indicates additionality was assessed using an investment test and states it was confirmed by the VVB, which supports additionality. However, the baseline is described as project-specific and the timing of any baseline reassessment is not found in the extracted record, weakening baseline robustness. Leakage is a key weakness: the 2022 monitoring record does not address leakage, while an older monitoring record (2011-07-28) reportedly treated leakage as negligible, creating uncertainty about consistent application. No reversal buffer is stated (not applicable/unclear for an avoidance wind project), and no reversal events are reported in the extracted record.

Transparency

The project provides a clear monitoring period (2021-07-01—2022-03-31) and the latest monitoring record (2022-11-04) shows claimed and verified ERs both at 18,520, which is a positive MRV signal. Transparency is reduced by extensive corrective actions listed in the monitoring/validation materials, including requests to align monitoring parameters and frequencies with AMS-I.D v18, provide meter calibration details, and provide baseline emissions calculations for the monitoring period. Several fields also conflict across documents (ER totals, safeguards statements, crediting period), which undermines confidence in the public record’s internal consistency.

Claim Safety

The project is explicitly marked as not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers the risk of certain high-profile aviation claims. The largest claim-safety concern is potential over-crediting and confusion over what was actually validated/verified, because ER totals differ sharply across documents (18,520 versus 62,808). Leakage treatment is also inconsistent (negligible vs not addressed), which increases the risk that buyers could overstate climate impact if relying on incomplete assumptions. CCP status is not stated in the extracted record, leaving an evidence gap for high-integrity labeling.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is moderate-to-good in breadth (23 documents referenced; evidence includes PDD, monitoring report, validation report, issuance) and extraction confidence is high, which supports usability. However, the large number of CARs indicates that key elements required for a robust audit trail were initially missing or inconsistent (baseline discussion, additionality evidence, monitoring parameter alignment, calibration details, and stakeholder consultation formatting). The presence of repeated CAR numbering and overlapping CAR lists also suggests compilation/record-keeping issues that reduce confidence in document control and versioning.

Overall

Overall quality is mid-range because the project has a standard renewable methodology (AMS-I.D), a named VVB, and a recent monitoring period with matching claimed/verified ERs in the latest monitoring record. However, multiple contradictions materially affect reliability: (1) ER totals conflict (18,520 vs 62,808); I privilege the more recent 2022-11-04 monitoring record for scoring because it is the latest period-specific monitoring evidence, but the discrepancy still lowers scores. (2) Leakage is 'not addressed' in 2022 versus 'deemed negligible' in 2011; I privilege the 2022 statement as the most recent, reducing confidence in leakage treatment. (3) Safeguards/FPIC/grievance/benefit-sharing are reported as present in 2022 but absent in 2011; I privilege the more recent 2022 monitoring record while flagging inconsistency. (4) Additionality verification is true in 2022 monitoring but false in a 2021 validation record; I treat additionality as supported but downgrade due to the contradiction. (5) Crediting period conflicts (2009–2019 vs 2019–2029); I privilege the 2022 monitoring record but reduce transparency/claim-safety due to vintage ambiguity.