400 MW Solar Power Project at Bhadla, Rajasthan, India

Integrity

Additionality is documented and was confirmed by the VVB in the verification report (verification report, 2020-03-27), which supports basic additionality. However, the project uses a project-specific baseline under ACM0002 (PDD/validation documents), not a jurisdictional baseline, which is weaker for baseline validity. Leakage is reported as a 0% deduction with a 'quantified' justification in the verification report, but the monitoring report later states leakage was not addressed; this inconsistency and the presence of seven corrective action requests in the verification report undermine confidence in leakage and corrective action closure. No buffer pool percentage or reversal events are documented in the extracted record.

Transparency

A named VVB (LGAI Technological Center, S.A.) and a recent monitoring period (2023-04-01 — 2023-12-31) are provided, and 21 documents were used, indicating decent disclosure. However, extraction confidence is only medium and there are explicit contradictions in key metrics (total emission reductions verified), which reduce the reliability of the reported figures. The registry is listed as Gold Standard, but CORSIA/CCP status is not stated in the available extracts.

Claim Safety

There is elevated risk of over-crediting: the project applies a project-level baseline (ACM0002) rather than a jurisdictional baseline, leakage justification is inconsistent across documents, and verified emission reduction figures contradict each other (519,243 claimed versus differing verified totals). CORSIA/CCP eligibility is not stated, so dual-claim risk cannot be ruled out.

Documentation

Evidence includes verification, validation, monitoring report and PDD entries and a reasonable document count (21), which is positive. Nevertheless, documents contain contradictions (additionality test type differs between validation and later monitoring, leakage treatment differs, and verified ERR totals differ across documents). Extraction confidence is medium and seven corrective action requests are outstanding in the verification report, reducing documentation quality.

Overall

I privileged the values from the verification report and the most recent monitoring report where possible but must note three contradictions: (1) additionality test type — validation (2020-03-27) records a combined test while a later monitoring report (2025-04-22) reports investment; I privileged the more recent monitoring report for test-type characterization but treated this as an indicator of inconsistent reporting and reduced scores. (2) leakage justification — verification report (2020-03-27) states leakage was quantified while the monitoring report (2025-04-22) says leakage was not addressed; I flagged this as a reliability issue and downgraded leakage and integrity scores. (3) total verified ERR — two different verified totals appear (430,919 in a 2024 source vs 909,798 in a 2023 source); because the verification report and the merged record carry 430,919 and the verification report is a formal VVB output, I gave more weight to the verified figure reported by verification outputs but treated the discrepancy as a major red flag and reduced transparency and claim-safety accordingly. Overall score is a weighted average reflecting these positives and concerns (additionality VVB confirmation and documented safeguards vs inconsistent leakage treatment, multiple CARs and ERR discrepancies).