20 MW Solar Project in Sanwreej, Jodhpur, Rajasthan- Pre CDM Clone

Integrity

The verification report from EPIC Sustainability Services Private Limited confirms additionality through a combined test and reports no material findings or corrective actions. Baseline method is described as project-based, but the baseline was not shown to have been recently reassessed, and leakage treatment is weak because the verification record says it is not addressed. Reversal risk is not a major issue for a solar electricity project, but the record does not provide a buffer pool or explicit reversal treatment.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the project has a named verifier, a clear monitoring period from 2017-03-30 to 2018-07-31, and a dated verification report. However, the extracted record does not state verified or claimed emissions reductions, usage monitoring method, or any FNRB method/value, which limits public MRV clarity. The registry is identified as CDM, but the record does not provide enough complete emissions accounting detail to score higher.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is middling because the project is a standard grid-connected solar activity under ACM0002, which generally supports conservative accounting. That said, leakage is not addressed in the verification report, and the contradiction notes another document reportedly treated leakage as negligible; I privileged the verification report because it is the more recent and higher-assurance document, but the inconsistency still raises over-crediting risk. No CORSIA or CCP status is stated, so dual-market risk cannot be ruled out from the extracted record.

Documentation

Documentation is reasonably broad, with validation, monitoring, verification, and PDD documents all represented and seven documents used in extraction. Still, the extraction confidence is only medium, and several key fields are missing rather than merely unspecified, including emissions totals, leakage deduction, and usage monitoring details. The crediting period also conflicts with the PDD version; I privileged the verification report because it is later and reflects the period actually covered by verification.

Overall

The project looks better than average on additionality and basic project documentation, but it is held back by incomplete MRV disclosure and weak leakage treatment. Two contradictions matter: leakage is described as not addressed in the verification report but reportedly deemed negligible in another document, and the crediting period differs between the verification report and the PDD. I privileged the verification report in both cases because it is the more recent and assurance-backed source, but the contradictions still reduce confidence and keep the overall score in the mid range.