21.8 MW Wind Power Project at Jangi Vandhiya, Gujarat by Powerica Limited

Integrity

The project has a reasonably solid additionality basis because the monitoring record says an investment test was used and the VVB confirmed it. However, integrity is weakened by the 2023 monitoring report stating leakage is not addressed, by the absence of any buffer pool or reversal information, and by corrective actions noting inconsistencies with the registered monitoring plan. The project is an avoidance-style wind project, so permanence risk is inherently low, but the documentation does not fully close out all integrity questions.

Transparency

Transparency is mixed. The monitoring report identifies the VVB, the 2022 monitoring period, and the project’s reporting context, but it also lists several corrective actions for incomplete template sections, missing stakeholder communication detail, and inconsistent parameters. That combination suggests the reporting trail exists but is not fully clean or fully complete.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is below average because the monitoring report flags a need for a declaration to avoid double counting with another GHG reductions programme and India’s REC mechanism. The verified 2022 emission reductions of 38,520 are far below the earlier claimed 203,799, which raises over-crediting or at least claim-consistency concerns. The project type is a wind project under VCS, which is generally safer than many categories, but the specific evidence here is not strong enough for a high score.

Documentation

Documentation breadth is decent because the extracted record draws on multiple official documents, including validation, monitoring, PDD, and issuance materials, and extraction confidence is high. Still, the monitoring report includes several corrective actions, and some important items such as buffer pool treatment, leakage deduction, and usage monitoring details are not stated in available documents. The crediting period is also not perfectly aligned across documents, which reduces documentation quality somewhat.

Overall

I privileged the 2023 monitoring report over the older validation record where the two conflict, because it is more recent and directly tied to the monitored issuance period. That means I treated leakage as not addressed rather than negligible, and I used the 38,520 verified figure rather than the earlier 203,799 claimed amount. The contradictions materially reduce confidence: the emission reduction discrepancy, the crediting-period mismatch, and the double-counting warning all point to weaker claim reliability even though the project has a valid registration and some positive safeguards.