Aryan Coal 15 MW Wind Project in Maharashtra, India

Integrity

The verification documentation confirms additionality through an investment test, and the monitoring report describes a quantified leakage treatment, which are both positive signs. At the same time, the project file shows no buffer pool information and no reversal history, so permanence is not strongly evidenced beyond the fact that this is a wind project. The monitoring report also lists missing evidence for JMRs, invoices, meter calibration details, and double-counting avoidance documentation, which weakens operational integrity.

Transparency

The record includes a named VVB and several official documents, which supports basic transparency. However, the extracted record does not state the usage monitoring method, and the monitoring report shows a substantial difference between claimed and verified ERs. The documentation also indicates missing vintage-wise VCU history and other supporting records, which reduces clarity around how the issuance was substantiated.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the fact that the project is not CORSIA-eligible, lowering one route for overlapping claims. Still, the verified ER volume is materially lower than the claimed amount, which raises over-crediting concern. The baseline is project-specific and the baseline reassessment timing is not stated, so the claim rests on a less robust baseline structure than a recently updated standardized approach.

Documentation

The evidence base is reasonably broad, with validation, monitoring, PDD, and issuance documents all present, and extraction confidence is high. Even so, several important fields are not found in the available record, including buffer pool treatment, usage monitoring, and baseline reassessment timing. The monitoring report also explicitly lists missing technical and contractual documents, which lowers documentation quality despite the number of files used.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-quality project file: it has VVB-confirmed additionality and some quantified monitoring elements, but the evidence base is weakened by missing supporting documents and a large gap between claimed and verified ERs. I privileged the 2021 monitoring report over older validation-era statements where they conflicted, because it is more recent and directly tied to monitored issuance; that means I treated the later report as the better source for leakage treatment, safeguards, and credited volume. The contradictions on FPIC, safeguards, benefit sharing, and credited period indicate reliability issues, so scores are held to a conservative middle range.