Wind power project in Maharashtra, India - Andhra Lake Phase - II

Integrity

The verification record confirms additionality through an investment test and says the findings were closed satisfactorily, which is a meaningful positive. However, the issuance record says leakage is not addressed, reversal events are not addressed, and the project proponent did not determine a non-permanence risk rating. The record also includes a finding that emission factor values were not correct and needed revision, which raises concern about calculation robustness.

Transparency

The monitoring period and VVB name are available, and the project has a sizable extracted document set. Even so, key MRV details are missing or not stated in available documents, including the usage monitoring method, baseline reassessment timing, and several supporting values. Low extraction confidence further reduces transparency because at least one key document was poorly readable.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by the project-specific baseline and by unresolved uncertainty around leakage treatment. The project is marked CORSIA-eligible, but CCP status is not stated, and the documents conflict on both leakage justification and total verified emission reductions. Those contradictions increase the risk of over-crediting or inconsistent claims.

Documentation

The record includes many extracted documents, a named verifier, and a recent issuance document dated 2025-11-13. However, low extraction confidence means at least one key source was poorly readable, and several important fields are missing or only partially described. The presence of multiple corrective actions and a note that emission factor values need revision also weakens documentation quality.

Overall

I privileged the most recent issuance record for leakage and reversal treatment, because it is newer and more directly tied to the current crediting decision, while noting that an earlier document had more favorable language on leakage and reversals. I also privileged the later crediting-period information in the contradiction list, but the conflict with the earlier period materially lowers reliability. The combination of contradictory emission totals, a note that emission factor values need revision, and low extraction confidence justifies a conservative overall score.