Wind Energy Project By Ramco Group In India

Integrity

The project applies ACM0002 (version 10) with a project-specific baseline approach, and the extracted record indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB via an investment test (validation/verification documentation). Leakage is a key weakness: one monitoring report (2011-05-09) deems leakage negligible, while a later monitoring report (2014-10-17) indicates leakage was not addressed, and no leakage deduction percentage is provided. No buffer pool contribution or reversal information is found in the extracted record; while wind is an avoidance project with low reversal risk, the absence of explicit statements still leaves an evidence gap. The presence of multiple corrective action requests suggests implementation/MRV issues that can affect integrity if not fully resolved.

Transparency

The monitoring period is clearly stated (2011-04-01 to 2013-06-30) and the VVB is identified as Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS, which supports audit traceability. However, the extracted record shows substantial inconsistencies in emissions reduction figures across documents and dates, making it difficult to reconcile what was claimed versus what was ultimately verified. Leakage treatment is also inconsistent across monitoring reports, further reducing clarity on accounting choices. Overall transparency is moderate due to these internal inconsistencies despite decent document coverage.

Claim Safety

The project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of aviation-related double-claiming channels. CCP status is not found in the extracted record, leaving uncertainty for high-integrity label claims. Over-crediting/greenwashing risk is elevated because key ERR numbers conflict across validation/verification documents and leakage is not consistently justified or quantified. The baseline is project-specific and the timing of any baseline reassessment is not stated, which adds uncertainty for long crediting periods.

Documentation

The extracted record indicates 9 documents were used and includes monitoring, validation, issuance, and an additional unknown document type; extraction confidence is high, which supports completeness. The most recent document date shown is 2014-10-17 (monitoring report), and the monitoring period sits within the 2006-2016 crediting period, which is plausible. However, seven corrective action requests are listed, indicating that documentation and/or controls required significant follow-up. Several important fields (buffer pool, leakage deduction percentage, baseline reassessment timing, safeguards) are not evidenced in the extracted record, limiting documentation strength.

Overall

Overall quality is constrained by reliability issues in core accounting figures and inconsistent leakage treatment. For the contradictions: (1) total claimed ERR differs between two validation reports (590,912 in the 2011-05-12 validation report vs 740,105 in the 2012-09-06 validation report); I privilege the later 2012 value as more recent, but the inconsistency still reduces confidence. (2) leakage is “deemed negligible” in the 2011-05-09 monitoring report but “not addressed” in the 2014-10-17 monitoring report; I privilege the later 2014 statement as it is more recent and more conservative, and this lowers integrity/claim-safety. (3) total verified ERR conflicts (740,105 in the 2012-09-06 report vs 661,206 in the 2015-02-26 report); I privilege the later 2015 figure as more recent, but the contradiction indicates weak traceability and drives a downward adjustment to transparency and claim safety. Note: gate rules may cap the overall score if integrity were below 4.0 or transparency if documentation were below 3.0; neither applies based on these scores.