6.5 MW Cogeneration Project In Akbarpur, Punjab

Integrity

The project’s additionality case is moderately credible because the VVB confirmed an investment test, and the monitoring report reports no material findings. That said, permanence is not a major issue for an avoidance project, but leakage handling is weak because the report only says it is deemed negligible and does not state a deduction percentage. The baseline is project-specific, and the record does not show when it was last reassessed, which limits confidence in the emissions estimate.

Transparency

Transparency is mixed. The project has a VVB name, a defined monitoring period, and a monitoring report with no material findings, but the same report lists many corrective actions and missing supporting documents, including commissioning evidence, calibration details, logbooks, and double-counting declarations. The monitoring approach for usage is not stated, and the record does not provide a clear public trail for several key MRV inputs.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by the discrepancy in emission reduction figures: the monitoring record shows 53,803 tCO2e verified and claimed, while the earlier validation record shows 193,456 tCO2e. I privileged the later monitoring report for the current claim because it is more recent and directly tied to the issuance period, but the contradiction still lowers confidence. The project is not CORSIA-eligible, which helps, but the lack of quantified leakage treatment and the project-specific baseline keep over-crediting risk above average.

Documentation

Documentation quality is moderate rather than strong. There are multiple official documents available and extraction confidence is high, but the monitoring report itself contains a long list of requested corrections and missing evidence, which suggests incomplete recordkeeping. The crediting period is much longer than the monitoring period, and several important items such as buffer pool treatment and baseline reassessment timing are not found in the extracted record.

Overall

I privileged the 53,803 tCO2e figure from the monitoring report over the 193,456 tCO2e figure in the earlier validation report because it is more recent and appears to reflect the current issuance claim, but the contradiction materially reduces reliability. I also privileged the monitoring report’s statement that leakage is deemed negligible over the validation note that leakage was not addressed, while still penalizing the score because the treatment is not quantified. The project is not CORSIA-eligible and has VVB-confirmed additionality, but the many corrective actions and missing MRV details keep the overall assessment only moderate.