2.45 MW Wind Power Project in Rajasthan, India by Yamuna Power and Infrastructure Ltd.

Integrity

The monitoring record confirms additionality through an investment test and says the VVB verified it, which supports the core project case. No material findings or corrective actions were reported, but the record does not state a buffer pool, reversal events, or a leakage deduction percentage, and leakage is explicitly marked as not addressed in the later monitoring report. The baseline is project-based, but the last reassessment date is not stated in the extracted documents.

Transparency

The project has a named verifier, Earthood Services Private Limited, and the monitoring period and crediting period are both stated. Claimed and verified emissions reductions are both 17,450 in the extracted monitoring record, which helps traceability, but the usage monitoring method is not stated and the grid emission factor year is missing. The documentation is reasonably complete, though not fully transparent on operational monitoring details.

Claim Safety

As a wind power project under a project baseline, the core claim is straightforward, but the absence of a stated leakage deduction and the later note that leakage was not addressed weaken over-crediting protection. The project is not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces dual-market claim risk, but CCP status is not stated. No reversal events are reported, which is appropriate for an avoidance-style renewable project.

Documentation

The evidence base is fairly strong, with 21 documents used and high extraction confidence. The record also shows no material findings and no corrective actions required in the available verification material. Documentation quality is weakened by missing specifics on baseline reassessment, leakage treatment, and usage monitoring, but overall it is better than average.

Overall

The project scores in the middle range because the additionality case is supported and the documentation set is substantial, but several key risk controls are incomplete. I privileged the more recent monitoring report for safeguards, FPIC, and leakage treatment because it is later and more operationally specific, while noting that it conflicts with an earlier validation report that appears to have been more restrictive on those points. I also treated the differing verified emissions reduction figures as a reliability issue and reduced confidence accordingly.