Vai al contenuto principale
CDM Wind India Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

22.5 MW grid connected wind farm project by RSMML in Jaisalmer, India.

CDM-1602 ↗

4.1 / 10
Integrity
4.2
Transparency
4.6
Claim Safety
4.0
Documentation
3.4

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB in the validation report, and the project used a combined additionality test.

missing The validation report recorded three corrective action requests and five clarification requests, including concerns about the baseline choice and calculation completeness.

Transparency

verified The project has a named VVB, Bureau Veritas Certification, and a defined monitoring period in the extracted record.

missing Total verified emission reductions are not stated in the extracted record, and the extraction confidence is low, which weakens confidence in the documentation trail.

Claim Safety

verified The project is a wind farm under CDM with a project baseline method and a quantified grid emission factor, which is more conservative than an unstructured baseline.

missing Leakage treatment is weak because the record shows a 0% deduction while the justification is not addressed in the validation report, and the record is CORSIA-eligible, which keeps dual-claim risk relevant.

Documentation

verified The record includes multiple evidence documents and a detailed validation report with specific findings and corrective actions.

missing The extraction confidence is low, several key fields are not stated, and the crediting period is contradicted by a later document.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The validation report confirms additionality through a combined test and says the VVB accepted it, which supports the project. However, the same report lists three corrective action requests and five clarification requests, including issues with the baseline justification, calculation completeness, and site-specific inconsistencies, which weakens confidence in the underlying integrity of the monitoring and validation process.

Transparency

The project has a named verifier, Bureau Veritas Certification, and a clearly stated monitoring period, which helps transparency. But the extracted record does not state verified emission reductions, and the low extraction confidence suggests at least one key document was difficult to read, reducing trust in the completeness of the public record.

Claim Safety

The project uses a project baseline under ACM 0002 and reports a grid emission factor, but the leakage deduction is 0% while the justification is not addressed in the validation report. Because the project is marked CORSIA-eligible and no CCP status is stated, dual-channel claim risk is not eliminated, so claim safety remains only moderate.

Documentation

The record draws on many documents and includes a detailed validation report, which is a positive sign. Still, the extraction confidence is low, several fields are not stated in available documents, and there is a contradiction on the crediting period between the validation report and a later document; I privileged the validation report for the crediting period because it is the higher-priority and contemporaneous validation source, while the later document appears secondary.

Audit Analysis

This is a CDM wind project with VVB-confirmed additionality and a documented validation process, but the record shows several validation issues and weak treatment of leakage and monitoring detail. The documentation is incomplete and low-confidence, and there are contradictions on additionality, leakage, and the crediting period that reduce reliability.

Project Description

Status: Registered Type: PA Methodology: ACM2 Project type: Wind Sub-type: Wind Region: Asia & Pacific Sub-region: Southern Asia Reductions 1st period: 28.291 ktCO2e/yr

Red Flags

  • The validation report lists three corrective action requests and five clarification requests, including concerns about the baseline justification and project data consistency.
  • Leakage is shown as a 0% deduction, but the justification is not addressed in the validation report and a later source reportedly described it as negligible.
  • The extracted record has low extraction confidence and a contradiction on the crediting period between the validation report and a later document.

Credit Vintages

Issued Retired Available
2011
42,316 0 42,316
2013
53,467 0 53,467
2015
41,424 0 41,424
2017
32,540 0 32,540
2019
25,028 0 25,028
Total 194,775 0 194,775

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

  • Provide a complete, readable monitoring and verification package with verified emission totals, baseline calculations, and the missing monitoring methodology details.
  • Resolve the leakage and crediting-period contradictions with a clear, dated explanation from the most authoritative registry or verification source.

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.

Risk Indicators

Additionality

VVB-confirmed additionality

Permanence

No reversal treatment stated

Leakage

Zero deduction, weak justification

Baseline

Project baseline, reassessment timing unclear

Safeguards

FPIC and grievance mechanism present

Double-claim

CORSIA-eligible, CCP status not stated

Where to buy

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating
Analysis Provenance Scored 2026-04-13 General Methodology v2.0 Documentazione completa

Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?

Correzione metadati (gratuita)

Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.

Non modifica lo score.

[email protected]

Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti

Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.

Invia Documenti