Wind Power Project In Rajasthan

Integrity

The project applies ACM0002 (version 12.3.0) with a project-specific baseline approach and a stated grid emission factor (0.9529) referenced to a 2012 grid EF year (monitoring record). Additionality is reported as an investment test and is confirmed by the VVB (validation/verification record). Leakage is treated as a 0% deduction with leakage deemed negligible in the 2022 monitoring report, but an earlier 2020 monitoring report indicates leakage was not addressed, which weakens confidence in consistent application of the methodology. As an avoidance (renewable electricity) project, reversal risk is inherently low, but no buffer pool information is provided in the extracted record.

Transparency

The extracted record shows the same total ERs claimed and verified (60,570), and an issuance record also lists 60,570, which supports internal consistency for the latest issuance figure. However, the 2022 monitoring report lists numerous corrective actions requesting core evidence (PPAs, commissioning certificates, calibration certificates, invoices/JMR, feeder-wise turbine details, and monitoring practice descriptions) and notes alteration of the VCS monitoring report template, which undermines MRV transparency. The monitoring period shown is very short (2021-06-01 to 2021-06-18), and the extracted record does not provide further detail on how monitoring completeness was ensured beyond the corrective-action list.

Claim Safety

The project is explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of high-impact aviation claims (registry eligibility flag). Nevertheless, there is a major inconsistency in ER quantities across documents: one validation report version cites 13,086 while later validation/issuance information cites 60,570, creating a material over-crediting/communication risk if stakeholders rely on the wrong figure. Leakage claims also vary between monitoring reports (not addressed in 2020 vs deemed negligible with 0% deduction in 2022), which can affect confidence in conservative accounting even if leakage is typically low for grid-connected wind. CCP status is not stated in the extracted record, leaving uncertainty about alignment with higher-integrity claim frameworks.

Documentation

The evidence set is reasonably broad (PDD, monitoring report(s), validation report, issuance; 24 documents used) and extraction confidence is high, suggesting the corpus was readable. Despite that, the 2022 monitoring report documents extensive missing attachments and requested declarations (including no-double-counting undertakings and participation in other GHG programs), plus missing calibration certificates and commercial/operational records (JMR/invoices), indicating documentation weaknesses at the time of assessment. These gaps reduce confidence that the monitoring report package, as submitted, was complete and audit-ready.

Overall

Overall scoring is pulled down primarily by contradictions and audit-readiness issues. For ER totals, the issuance record dated 2021-10-26 (60,570) is privileged over the older validation report dated 2020-10-30 (13,086) because issuance is the authoritative registry outcome for verified units; however, the existence of both figures is a significant reliability red flag. For leakage, the more recent 2022 monitoring report’s 'deemed negligible' treatment is privileged over the 2020 monitoring report’s 'not addressed' statement due to recency, but the inconsistency still reduces confidence. For safeguards/grievance/FPIC, later monitoring reports (2020–2022) indicating these elements are privileged over the 2013 monitoring report indicating absence, but the shift suggests either evolving practice or inconsistent disclosure; this uncertainty lowers transparency and claim-safety scores. For the crediting period, the 2022 monitoring report’s specific dates (2011-06-19 to 2021-06-18) are privileged over the 2012 validation report’s incomplete/unclear period, but the discrepancy indicates recordkeeping inconsistency.