Grid Connected Wind Power Project by M/s. D. J. Malpan…

Integrity

Additionality appears reasonably supported: the validation/verification record indicates the VVB confirmed additionality using an investment test. The baseline approach is project-specific under AMS-I.D., and the grid emission factor is stated (0.9487 for 2011), but the timing of any baseline reassessment is not found in the extracted record. Leakage is a key weakness: the 2017 monitoring report indicates leakage was not addressed, while an earlier monitoring report (2014) describes leakage as deemed negligible, and no leakage deduction is evidenced.

Transparency

The monitoring period is clearly stated in the monitoring report dated 2017-02-16 (2014-04-01 to 2016-09-30), and the VVB is identified as Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance Limited. However, the monitoring report shows a sizable difference between claimed and verified ERs (34,109 claimed vs 29,192 verified), and earlier monitoring documentation reports different totals, which reduces transparency and confidence in the MRV trail. No usage monitoring method is applicable/available for this grid electricity project in the extracted record, but core ER accounting inconsistencies remain the main transparency issue.

Claim Safety

The project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers the risk of CORSIA-related claim misuse, though CCP status is not found in the extracted record. Over-crediting/greenwashing risk is elevated because the 2017 monitoring report shows a material reduction from claimed to verified ERs, and both claimed and verified totals conflict with an earlier monitoring report (2014). Leakage treatment inconsistency (not addressed vs deemed negligible) further increases the risk that credited reductions are overstated or insufficiently justified.

Documentation

The extracted record includes multiple supporting documents (PDD, financial, validation report, monitoring report) with six documents used and high extraction confidence, which supports a solid documentation score. At the same time, several important items are not evidenced in the extracted record: baseline reassessment date, any leakage deduction percentage, buffer/pooling (not applicable for avoidance but still relevant to completeness), and safeguards documentation (FPIC, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing). No material findings or corrective actions are reported, which is positive, but the missing/contradictory content limits completeness.

Overall

Overall quality is moderate: additionality is VVB-confirmed and the project uses an established methodology, but MRV reliability is weakened by contradictions across monitoring reports and a large claimed-versus-verified gap. For contradictions, the more recent monitoring report (2017-02-16) is privileged for totals (29,192 verified; 34,109 claimed) because it is later-dated and likely reflects the latest verification outcome, but the existence of different totals in the earlier monitoring report (2014-08-07) is a material reliability concern and lowers scores. Leakage justification is also contradictory ("not addressed" in 2017 vs "deemed negligible" in 2014); the conservative interpretation is that leakage is not robustly treated, which reduces integrity and claim safety. Gate rules note: documentation is above 3.0 and integrity is above 4.0, so no deterministic caps would apply post-scoring.