Soma Wind Power Plant

Integrity

The project has a positive additionality signal because the verification report says the VVB confirmed additionality through an investment test. Baseline validity is moderate: the project uses a project baseline under ACM0002 and the baseline was reassessed in 2024, but leakage is marked as not addressed in the latest verification record and reversal events are also not addressed. The absence of a buffer pool figure and the weak permanence treatment keep the score below strong-project territory.

Transparency

Transparency is mixed. The verification report identifies Bureau Veritas (India) Pvt. Ltd., gives a monitoring period from 2023-07-01 to 2024-08-12, and states smart-meter monitoring, which is helpful. However, the extracted record has low extraction confidence, only one evidence document is listed, and several key fields such as CORSIA eligibility and FNRB treatment are not found in the available documents.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by the discrepancy between claimed and verified emission reductions, with 183,704 claimed versus 239,594 verified in the extracted record. The project’s baseline is at least specified and recently reassessed, but leakage treatment is inconsistent across documents and CORSIA eligibility is not stated. Because the record does not clearly resolve dual-claim exposure or over-crediting concerns, the score remains cautious.

Documentation

Documentation quality is limited by the low extraction-confidence flag and the fact that only one evidence document is listed in the extracted record. On the positive side, the report includes a named verifier, monitoring and crediting periods, and a list of corrective actions that were closed out. Still, the contradiction list shows multiple unresolved differences across documents, which lowers confidence in the completeness of the file.

Overall

I privileged the latest verification report for leakage, reversal status, and verified issuance because it is the most recent document in the record, while noting that earlier documents reported different values. Specifically, the record contains contradictions on additionality test type, leakage treatment, reversal status, verified emission reductions, and crediting period; these were all treated as reliability concerns and pushed scores downward. The project is not a clear failure, but the combination of contradictory figures, low extraction confidence, and incomplete treatment of leakage and reversals prevents a high-confidence assessment.