Suzlon 8.40 MW Wind Power Project

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through an investment test and names RINA Services S.p.A. as the VVB, which supports the project’s core environmental case. No material findings were reported, but the report still lists multiple corrective actions, including unclear monitoring dates, missing installed-technology details, and incomplete meter calibration coverage, which weakens confidence in the MRV basis. Leakage is not addressed in the latest record, so I treat that as a meaningful weakness for integrity.

Transparency

Transparency is mixed: the project has a defined monitoring period from 2021-09-01 to 2023-04-30 and the latest verification report shows claimed and verified reductions both at 13,797 tCO2e. However, the extraction confidence is low, the evidence set includes only an unspecified document list, and the report itself flags unclear monitoring dates and missing section 3.1 details. Those gaps reduce the clarity and auditability of the public record.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is moderate because this is a wind avoidance project under VCS, and the latest verification report shows no gap between claimed and verified emissions reductions. That said, the project is not CORSIA-eligible, CCP status is not stated, and leakage is not addressed in the latest verification record. Earlier documents also conflict on the credited amount and crediting period, which raises over-crediting and reliability concerns.

Documentation

Documentation breadth is decent, with 25 documents used and a recent verification report dated 2024-03-19. Even so, the extraction confidence is low, and the report contains several corrective actions and missing details on installed equipment, calibration coverage, and monitoring-period clarity. The record is therefore incomplete enough to materially reduce the documentation score.

Overall

I privileged the latest verification report for the verified emissions reduction figure of 13,797 tCO2e and the current monitoring period because it is the most recent and project-specific source. I also privileged the latest report’s statement that leakage is not addressed, even though an earlier document reportedly treated leakage as negligible; that inconsistency lowers reliability and is explicitly reflected in the score. Likewise, I treated the newer crediting period of 2020-12-31 to 2030-12-30 as controlling over the older period, but the contradiction itself remains a red flag and reduces confidence.