Wind Power Project At Jaibhim By SIIL

Integrity

Additionality is relatively strong on paper: the project applies an investment test and additionality is confirmed by the VVB (validation/verification package referenced in the extracted record). Baseline setting is project-specific under ACM0002, and the extracted record does not show when the baseline was last reassessed, which adds some uncertainty. Leakage is treated as a 0% deduction with a “deemed negligible” rationale in the monitoring report (2016-06-10), but this is not consistently reflected across documents. A key integrity concern is the corrective action noting missing calibration certificates for energy meters, which directly affects the accuracy of monitored electricity generation (monitoring report, 2016-06-10).

Transparency

The monitoring period (2011-03-11 to 2012-12-31), VVB name (EPIC Sustainability Services Private Limited), methodology (ACM0002 v12.3.0), and grid emission factor (0.9487) are all available in the extracted record, supporting basic transparency. The claimed and verified emissions reductions are identical at 110,347 tCO2e for the period, which is a positive MRV signal (monitoring report, 2016-06-10). However, transparency is weakened by conflicting statements across the PDD, validation report, and monitoring report on safeguards-related items and leakage treatment, making it harder for third parties to interpret non-carbon and risk controls consistently.

Claim Safety

Because the project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, there is less risk of CORSIA-related claims being made from these credits (registry extract). Still, the baseline is project-specific and the extracted record does not show a recent baseline reassessment date, which can elevate over-crediting risk in grid-connected renewables where common practice evolves. The leakage position is inconsistent between documents (validation report vs monitoring report), and safeguards/FPIC/grievance claims are also inconsistent, increasing greenwashing exposure if buyers rely on social safeguard narratives. CCP status is not found in the extracted record, so buyers cannot rely on CCP-alignment claims without further evidence.

Documentation

The extracted record indicates a reasonably complete documentation trail (PDD, validation report, monitoring report, issuance) and a relatively high number of documents used (11), with high extraction confidence. Documentation quality is nevertheless impacted by the presence of a corrective action on missing meter calibration certificates (monitoring report, 2016-06-10), which suggests incomplete evidence at the time of assessment. In addition, multiple contradictions between the PDD (2012-10-31) and later documents (2016-06-10) indicate weak document control or inconsistent reporting, which lowers confidence in the record as a whole.

Overall

Overall scoring is pulled up by VVB-confirmed additionality, a clear methodology (ACM0002), and a perfect match between claimed and verified ERs for the monitoring period (monitoring report, 2016-06-10). However, each listed contradiction reduces confidence: (1) leakage is “not addressed” in the validation report but “deemed negligible” in the monitoring report—this analysis privileges the monitoring report for the applied leakage treatment during issuance, but penalizes consistency; (2) safeguards, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing, and FPIC are marked present in the PDD (2012-10-31) but absent in the monitoring report (2016-06-10)—this analysis privileges the later monitoring report as the more current operational account, and treats the PDD claims as unsubstantiated; (3) the crediting period differs between the PDD and monitoring report—this analysis privileges the monitoring report dates as they align with the stated monitoring start and are closer to issuance, but the discrepancy signals reliability issues. The unresolved meter calibration corrective action is a material MRV risk and is reflected in lower integrity and documentation scores.