Wind Power Project In Maharashtra State, India

Integrity

The VVB confirmed additionality through an investment test, which is a meaningful positive for integrity. The project reports no reversal events, and the issuance record lists no material findings. That said, there is no buffer pool percentage in the extracted record, and the project still had multiple corrective actions outstanding, including host-country approval and prior-consideration clarification, which weakens confidence in the overall crediting case.

Transparency

The monitoring and crediting period are clearly identified, and the verifier is named as LGAI Technological Center, S.A. (Applus+). However, the extracted record does not state claimed emissions reductions or the usage monitoring method, which limits public traceability. The low extraction confidence also suggests at least one key source was difficult to read, reducing documentation clarity.

Claim Safety

This is an avoidance project with a project-specific baseline, but the baseline was not shown to have been recently reassessed. Leakage treatment is not cleanly documented: one part of the record says leakage justification was quantified, while another earlier document said it was not addressed. With no verified usage rates, no FNRB value, and no CORSIA or CCP status stated, over-crediting and double-claim risk remain only partially assessed.

Documentation

The record draws on eleven documents, which is a reasonable base, and the issuance report notes no material findings. Even so, extraction confidence is low, and several corrective actions remained open in the issuance record. The project dates are relatively old, and the documentation set does not provide several key quantitative fields needed for a stronger assessment.

Overall

The project scores in the middle range because it has a credible additionality signal and no reported reversals, but the evidence base is incomplete and somewhat inconsistent. I privileged the later issuance record dated 2017-10-13 over earlier documents when there was a conflict, because it is more recent and closer to issuance; that means I treated safeguards as mentioned and leakage as quantified, while still discounting confidence because the contradictions indicate reliability issues. The contradiction on safeguards and the contradiction on leakage treatment both reduce trust in the file, and the low extraction confidence further depresses the documentation and transparency assessment.