Lingasugur Wind Power Project in Karnataka

Integrity

The verification report from LGAI Technological Center, S.A. confirms additionality using an investment test, which is a meaningful positive for project integrity. The same report states that no extreme event caused a reversal, but reversal-event treatment is still marked as not addressed in the extracted record, and leakage is shown as 0% without a supporting justification. The baseline method is project-based, which is acceptable but less robust than a recent standardized baseline.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the project has a named verifier, a defined monitoring period from 2023-09-01 to 2024-03-31, and a verification report with several CARs closed. However, total claimed and verified emission figures are not found in the extracted record, grid emission factor data are missing, and the usage monitoring method is not stated. That leaves important MRV details incomplete.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is helped by the use of ACM0002 Version 20.0 and the baseline reassessment in 2021, which suggests the methodology was at least updated during the crediting period. Still, the project is marked CORSIA-eligible, CCP status is not mentioned, and the leakage justification is not addressed, so over-crediting and dual-claim risk are not fully resolved. The absence of verified usage-rate data also limits confidence in the claimed reductions.

Documentation

Documentation quality is fair but not strong: four document types were used, including the PDD, monitoring report, and verification report, and extraction confidence is medium. The verification report lists many CARs as closed, but one FAR remains for the next verification, indicating unresolved follow-up. The contradictions on the crediting period and reversal-event wording further reduce reliability, even though the benefit-sharing and safeguard elements are present.

Overall

I privileged the verification report for additionality and reversal-event statements because it is the most recent assurance document, while the PDD was used for the earlier crediting-period reference. The contradiction on crediting period is material: the monitoring report date in the extracted record points to 2021-08-05 to 2026-08-04, while the PDD shows 2016-08-05 to 2026-08-04, so I treated the later monitoring-report value as more relevant for current assessment. The reversal-event contradiction is also important because one source says not addressed while another says no extreme event occurred; I gave more weight to the verification report’s direct statement but still discounted reliability because the record is inconsistent overall.