37.6 MW bundled wind power project in Nagercoil, Tamilnadu
#1071of 1935 in Renewable energy#552of 975 in India#796of 1459 in CDM (UNFCCC)#842of 1287 in ACM0002
Audit Analysis
A 37.6 MW CDM wind project in Tamil Nadu with a well-known VVB (Bureau Veritas) and a reasonable methodology (ACM0002 v06), but undermined by contradictory additionality verification across validation reports, a baseline method discrepancy between project-specific and jurisdictional characterisation, and 20 corrective actions tied to metering and monitoring deficiencies. The project is inherently low-risk on permanence (wind displacement of grid electricity) and leakage (0% with quantified justification), but the data reliability issues and unresolved contradictions materially weaken confidence in the claimed reductions.
Red Flags
- Additionality verification is contradictory: the 2007 validation report records VVB confirmation as true, while the 2009 validation report records it as false; the material findings note the test shifted from barrier analysis to investment analysis, raising questions about which basis was ultimately validated.
- Baseline method is stated as 'project' in the 2011 monitoring report but 'jurisdictional' in the 2007 validation report — a fundamental characterisation discrepancy that affects the credibility of the baseline.
- 20 corrective actions were required, including meter accuracy class mismatch (0.5 vs required 0.2), absence of check meters, and incomplete monitoring procedures, indicating the MRV system was not fit for purpose at the time of verification.
- Total ERR verified figure is not found in any available document, preventing an independent cross-check of the 244,103 tCO2e claimed in the 2011 monitoring report.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 97,072 | 0 | 97,072 | |
| Total | 97,072 | 0 | 97,072 |
Risk Indicators
VVB verification contradictory across reports; test type shi
Wind displacement; no reversal risk; no reversal events repo
0% deduction with quantified justification; reasonable for g
Project-specific baseline; method contradicts between docume
Safeguards mentioned and benefit sharing described; FPIC and
CORSIA and CCP status not stated in available documents
⚑ Dispute this rating
Are you the project owner?
Metadata correction (free)
Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.
Does not modify the score.
[email protected] →Pipeline re-run with new documents
Have updated documentation not yet included? You can request a new run of the pipeline with the new inputs.
Submit Documents →