50 MW (DCR) Nalgonda Solar PV Power Project by Parampujya Solar Energy at Telangana

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through an investment test and names VKU Certification Private Limited as the VVB, which supports the project’s core crediting logic. That said, the same report says leakage is not addressed, and it lists multiple CARs and CLs, including requests to clarify the grid emission factor and fix inconsistencies in the monitoring period and meter numbers. These issues weaken confidence in the robustness of the emissions claim.

Transparency

Transparency is mixed: the project has a defined monitoring period from 2021-01-01 to 2023-11-15 and a recent verification report dated 2025-11-25. However, the extracted record does not provide verified or claimed ER totals, and the report itself notes inconsistencies in the monitoring period and meter data. That limits the ability to independently trace the reported reductions.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is constrained by the leakage and baseline record. The baseline was last reassessed in 2023, which is a positive sign, but the latest verification report says leakage is not addressed, while an earlier monitoring report had described it as negligible. The project is also marked CORSIA-eligible, and no CCP status is stated, so dual-market claim risk is not fully resolved.

Documentation

The file set is reasonably broad, with evidence from the monitoring report, validation report, verification report, and PDD, and the project has 17 documents used in extraction. Still, the extraction confidence is only medium, and the verification report lists several open documentation requests, including benchmark and IRR calculations, stakeholder consultation records, and updated emission reduction calculations. That suggests the documentation is substantial but not fully clean or complete.

Overall

The main contradiction is on leakage: the monitoring report dated 2020-10-14 says leakage was deemed negligible, while the verification report dated 2025-11-25 says leakage is not addressed. I privileged the verification report because it is the later and more authoritative assurance document, but this lowers confidence and the score. I also privileged the verification report’s crediting-period statement over the validation report because it is more recent, while noting the mismatch as a reliability issue; similarly, the additionality test is treated as investment-based because that is the value carried in the extracted record and confirmed in verification, despite the validation report’s different wording.