13.95 MW grid connected wind electricity generation by SRF Limited

Integrity

The monitoring report confirms additionality through an investment test and says the VVB verified it, which supports the project’s core integrity case. However, leakage justification is not addressed, buffer pool coverage is not found, and reversal events are not addressed in the extracted record, so permanence and leakage controls remain weakly evidenced. The project also uses a project baseline, but no baseline reassessment date is stated in available documents.

Transparency

The record identifies the VVB as LGAI Technological Center, S.A. (Applus+ Certification) and gives a clear monitoring period from 2012-03-16 to 2018-02-28. Still, total ERs claimed are not stated, the usage monitoring method is not found, and the extracted record does not show a complete registry trail. These gaps limit how fully an outside reviewer can reconstruct the issuance basis.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the fact that the project is marked not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers one route to overlapping claims. But the baseline remains project-specific, leakage treatment is missing, and the monitoring report includes corrective actions related to double counting and emission reduction sheet cross-checks. That combination leaves a meaningful over-crediting and claim-quality concern.

Documentation

Documentation is reasonably broad, with evidence drawn from the issuance record, PDD, validation report, and monitoring report, and the extraction confidence is high. Even so, the monitoring report lists multiple corrective actions, including missing host-country authorization, turbine location details, and double-counting declarations, which suggests the file was not fully clean. The crediting period also conflicts between the monitoring report and the PDD, so I privileged the later monitoring report because it is more recent and operationally specific.

Overall

Overall, this is a functioning registered wind project with some solid evidence on additionality and safeguards, but the file is weakened by missing leakage treatment, incomplete permanence evidence, and several corrective actions in the monitoring report. I privileged the monitoring report over the older PDD where the crediting period differs, because it is more recent and closer to issuance, but the contradiction itself still lowers reliability. The integrity score stays below mid-range because the documentation does not fully resolve baseline, leakage, and double-counting concerns.