25.70 MW Bundled Wind Power Project in Udumalpet, Tamilnadu
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB, and the project uses ACM0002 with a project-based baseline.
missing The monitoring report records numerous findings, and leakage justification is not addressed in the extracted monitoring document.
Transparency
verified The project has multiple official documents in the record, including validation, PDD, and monitoring materials, and the VVB is named as TÜV NORD CERT GmbH.
missing Key MRV quantities such as verified emissions reductions, leakage deduction, and usage monitoring details are not stated in the extracted record.
Claim Safety
verified The project is a wind CDM activity with VVB-verified additionality, which is generally lower risk than many project types.
missing The baseline is project-specific rather than a recently reassessed standardized baseline, and the leakage treatment is unclear because the available monitoring report does not address it.
Documentation
verified The record includes 13 documents used, and the extraction confidence is medium rather than low.
missing The monitoring report is dated early in the crediting period, while several important fields are missing or not stated in the available documents.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The project benefits from VVB-confirmed additionality and a recognized CDM methodology, ACM0002 Version 06, with a project-based baseline. That said, the monitoring report dated 2007-02-15 lists many findings, and leakage justification is not addressed in that document, so the integrity case is only moderate.
Transparency
Transparency is limited by missing quantified MRV information: verified emissions reductions, leakage deduction, usage monitoring method, and several grid and FNRB fields are not stated in the available documents. The presence of a named verifier, TÜV NORD CERT GmbH, and multiple source documents helps, but the record is still incomplete.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is mixed because the project is a wind CDM activity with VVB-confirmed additionality, which supports lower over-crediting risk. However, the baseline is project-specific rather than clearly standardized or recently reassessed, and the contradiction on leakage treatment leaves uncertainty about whether emissions reductions were conservatively estimated.
Documentation
Documentation quality is moderate: 13 documents were used and extraction confidence is medium, which is better than a poor record. Still, the monitoring report contains many findings, and several important fields are missing or not stated in the available documents, limiting confidence in the completeness of the evidence base.
Overall
The project has some positive signals, especially VVB-confirmed additionality and a formal CDM methodology, but the evidence base is not strong enough for a high score. I privileged the monitoring report’s statement that leakage was not addressed over the later source claiming leakage was negligible, because the monitoring report is the more directly relevant operational document for the period in question and the contradiction indicates a reliability issue. The many findings in the monitoring report and the missing quantitative MRV fields keep the overall assessment cautious.
Audit Analysis
This is a CDM wind project with VVB-confirmed additionality and a project-based baseline, which supports some integrity. However, the monitoring record shows many findings, leakage is not clearly justified in the monitoring report, and key quantitative MRV fields are missing, which weakens confidence in the claimed reductions.
Project Description
Status: Registered Type: PA Methodology: ACM2 Project type: Wind Sub-type: Wind Region: Asia & Pacific Sub-region: Southern Asia Reductions 1st period: 40.756 ktCO2e/yr
Red Flags
- The monitoring report lists many findings, including multiple corrective action requests and clarifications, which suggests material documentation or implementation issues.
- Leakage is not addressed in the monitoring report, and the contradiction with a later source claiming it was negligible reduces reliability.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 107,390 | 0 | 107,390 | |
| 2013 | 127,663 | 0 | 127,663 | |
| Total | 235,053 | 0 | 235,053 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Provide a complete, reconciled MRV package with verified emissions reductions, leakage treatment, and usage monitoring details clearly stated.
- Publish a contradiction resolution note explaining why the later source treated leakage as negligible and whether that conclusion was accepted by the verifier.
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
VVB-confirmed additionality
No reversal evidence, but not explicitly addressed
Leakage not addressed in monitoring record
Project-based baseline
FPIC and grievance mechanism present
CORSIA/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
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 →