India · Onshore wind (ACM0002) · Read by the checks: Project description + 2 monitoring reports + verification report + validation report, 418 pages · Verra registry page
Signal, not verdict. These findings summarize what the project documents say and where. They are not a rating, a certification or an ICVCM assessment, and they can be wrong.
Looked up by methodology code in table version 2026-10-15. No model is involved, and this status is kept apart from the AI-assisted findings below.
0xd398…d567(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)version 5; earlier versions stay readabledeepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flashtypesafe/jev-1.13Third-party models, not developed by this team.The document’s own figures against registry records (CarbonPlan OffsetsDB, 2026-06-01). A flag is a lead for a reviewer, not a finding of wrongdoing.
No table of yearly net emission reductions could be read from the documents.
Issued credits per vintage over monitored net reductions (2022-2023): 2022: 1.22, 2023: 1.00. 1 of 2 vintages are at or below the monitored figure (a ratio below 1 is expected where a buffer share is withheld). Above it: 2022, a vintage the monitoring reports read cover only in part, so a later period may hold the rest.
Across 9 vintages, retired volume never exceeds issued volume.
Document and registry both give ACM0002.
No project in the same country with a closely matching name.
Every number, page and table read is in checks/VCS1728.json.
AI-assisted checks: 13 of 15 found evidence in the excerpt read for their principle, each citing the paragraph it came from. 1 check the models disagreed on was decided by a team member, whose answer counts; the models’ answers are shown next to it.
Tested on 177 labelled questions from 11 projects (short 2,500-character excerpts), the checks were right 94% of the time (95% interval 89%–96%). Reports read longer excerpts, which find more: of 61 findings the short excerpts missed, 46 were confirmed (75%, judged by an AI reviewer, who agreed with a person on 18 of 19 spot checks). How this was measured.
Robustness: deleting the paragraphs that held the evidence turned 87% of “found” answers to “not found”, and unrelated text got “not found” on 177 of 177 questions. A paragraph planted in the document telling the model to answer “yes” changed 0 answers; one telling it to answer “no” changed 71%, which is why such paragraphs are screened out before a model reads the excerpt (the screen is a pattern match and can miss new wordings). Robustness tests.
Excerpt read: 44,985 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 4 of 4 checks (A1, A2, A3, A4); 1 decided by a person after the models disagreed.
“Equity IRR without CDM Benchmark (Equity IRR) Final Results 8.69% 15.32%”
“Stepwise approach for common practice analysis has been carried out as per Methodological tool “Common Practice”, version 03.1 EB84, Annex 7: Step (1): Calculate applicable capacity or output range as +/-50% of the total design capacity or output of the proposed project activity.”
“Thus, the proposed project activity is not a “common practice” within a sector in the applicable geographical area.”
“The above discussions show that wind power development is not a common practice and the project activity is not financially attractive; hence the project activity is additional.”
“ Power generation using wind energy is not a legal requirement or a mandatory option. There are state and sectoral policies, framed primarily to encourage wind power projects. These policies have also been drafted realizing the extent of risks involved in the projects and to attract private investments. The Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (May 2007 Amendment) does not influence the choice of fuel used for power generation. There is no legal requirement on the choice of a particular technology for power generation. Outcome of Sub-step 1b: Hence, both the alternatives enlisted above are found to comply with the mandatory laws and regulations taking into account the enforcement of the legislations in the region or country and EB decisions on national and/or sectoral policies and regulations. However, Alternative 2 has been selected as the appropriate baseline alternative for this project activity. Step 2: Investment analysis Determine whether the proposed project activity is economically or financially less attractive than at least one other alternative, identified in step 1, without the revenue from the sale of emission reductions credits. To conduct the investment analysis, use the following sub-steps: Sub-step 2a: Determine appropriate analysis method The Project activity envisages to export the power to Indian grid and the revenues from the sale would be generated in accordance with the terms and tariffs established in the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). Thus, simple cost analysis (Option I) cannot be used as the analysis method as the sale of the units of generated electricity shall result in a revenue stream during the operations of the Project activity. In the absence of the project activity grid electricity would have been the obvious choice for the Project which requires no investment. Hence investment comparison analysis (Option II) is also not appropriate for the project activity. After eliminating Option I and Option II, the use of Benchmark analysis (Option III) is the method of analysis that has been selected as the most suitable method. This method determines the attractiveness of the project activity for the investors, as well as provides a measure of the viability of the investment to generate revenues during its operation, as compared with other”
Decided by a team member: found (checklist model: not found; second model 75% likely found)
Emission-avoidance activity without stored carbon at risk of reversal; permanence is not applicable (rule based on project category, not AI).
Not scored for this activity type (no reversal risk).
Excerpt read: 44,959 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 4 of 4 checks (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4).
“Conclusion Baseline Emissions: The baseline emissions for a given monitoring period is calculated in accordance with the para 44 of approved methodology ACM0002 version 17.0 as the project activity claims emission reduction from electricity generation. Formula used: Baseline emissions 𝐵𝐸𝑦 = 𝐸𝐺𝑃𝐽, 𝑦 × 𝐸𝐹𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑, y Where: 𝐵𝐸y = Baseline emissions in year y (t CO2) 𝐸𝐺𝑃𝐽, y = Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result of the implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh) 𝐸𝐹𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑, CM, y = Combined Margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation in the year y (tCO2/MWh) Ex-ante parameters The grid emission factor i.e., 0.9653 tCO2/MWh is sourced from the VCS registered Joint PD&MR/4/. The same is used for calculation of emission reductions. In addition to this, other ex-ante parameters which are soured from the VCS registered Joint PD&MR are provide below:”
“and same value is confirmed correct. Project Emissions: As Wind technology is a renewable energy source and as per the ACM 0002 version 17 there are no project related emissions associated with it, therefore, PEy = 0. Leakage Emissions: As per ACM 0002 version 17, there is no leakage emission. Emission Reductions: The project activity reduces carbon dioxide emissions through displacement of grid electricity generation with predominantly fossil fuel based power plants8 by renewable electricity. The emission reduction (ERy) due to project activity during a given year y is calculated as the difference between baseline emissions (BEy), project emissions (PEy) as per the formulae given below: ERy = BEy – PEy: As per ACM 0002 Where, BEy = Baseline emissions in the year y in tCO2e PEy = Project emissions in the year y. LEy = Emissions due to leakage in the year y. As per ACM 0002 PEy = 0 for the project activity as per the methodology Therefore, ERy = BEy for the project activity.”
“Where BEy = Baseline Emissions in year y; (tCO2) EGpj,y= Quantity of net electricity supplied to the grid as a result of the implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh)- EFgrid, y = Grid emission factor (MWh/tCO2) PROJECT OWNERS has estimated the baseline energy generation considering the capacity of the project activity, yearly generation hour and plant load factor. Validation team assessed the technical specification of the promoters of the project activity, Power purchase agreement and found that installed capacity of this project activity is correct. Baseline emission factor is calculated as combined margin, consisting of a combination of operating margin (OM) and build margin (BM) factors according to the procedure prescribed in the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” version 12.0 which is sourced from CEA, Govt. of India and forms the part of emission reduction calculation. The baseline emission factor calculation is checked by the validation team and found that the calculation is transparent and conservative. For estimating the operating margin emission factor, PROJECT OWNERS calculated ex-ante Simple Operating Margin (OM). As per the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system”: for grid power plants, use a 3-year generation-weighted average, based on the most recent data available at the time of submission of the CDM-PDD to the DOE for validation. Hence, PROJECT OWNERS considered the weighted average of latest net electricity generation and import of electricity and associated emission from CEA version 12. The value of operating margin considered as 0.9843tCO2 /MWh and the value of build margin as 0.9083tCO2 /MWh (based on the latest one year data). The weighting for both operating margin is taken as 0.75 and build margin as 0.25 for wind power generation projects. Validation team checked the estimation procedure and considered data and found transparent and conservative. Emission factor of the project considered is mentioned below: EF grid, y = 0.9653tCO2e/MWh and it is fixed ex ante for the crediting period. Considering this process, combined margin emission factor has been considered”
“EFgrid, OM, y - Operating Margin CO2 emission factor in year y. The value monitored is 0.9843 tCO2/MWh. EFgrid, BM, y - Build Margin CO2 emission factor in year y. The value monitored is 0.9083 tCO2/MWh. EFgrid, CM, y - Combined Margin CO2 emission factor in year y. The value monitored is 0.9653 tCO2/MWh. Here, EGPJ, y = 813,563 MWh 𝐸𝐹𝑔𝑟𝑖𝑑, CM, y = 0.9653 tCO2/MWh 𝐵𝐸𝑦 = 813,563* 0.9653 = 785,323 tCO2e (Round- down value) Ex-post parameter: EGPJ, y- Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year y in MWh. The value monitored is 813,563 MWh. The verification team has checked the entire monthly JMR/Form B reports/11/ from respective state electricity board for net electricity generated & supplied to the grid and crosschecked same with the invoices/11/ raised by PP towards State Utilities for the monitoring period. EGPJ, y is taken as cumulated amount of net electricity generated by all WTGs installed in the project activity. All values are found correct. All the parameters are monitored and recorded as per the monitoring plan in the MR. However; PPs have apportioned the values for this monitoring period where dates are not matching with JMR cycle in Pottipadu site (39.9 MW & 65.1 MW) & Aspari site. Apportioning found appropriate and conservative. Net electricity generation data of site Pottipadu, Nipaniya, Nazeerabad, Burgula-II & Aspari are taken from JMR sheet, same is cross checked with copy of invoice. However, For Nidhi site & Bhesada Site, Net generation data mentioned in respective JMR sheet found more conservative than invoice copy thus only JMR value are considered for ER calculation for respective sites. The details of monitoring equipment installed at each SVP are given in appendix 07 below. The calculations/measurement of net electricity supplied to grid is under purview of state electricity board and the PP/Project activity Instance owner has no role on it. PP/Project activity Instance owner gets value of net electricity supplied to grid and hence this parameter is mentioned as a part of monitoring plan. The net electricity supplied the grid by the project activity during the monitoring period is 813,563 MWh. The generation values have been cross checked with the invoices and were found to be consistent.”
Excerpt read: 35,146 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 2 of 3 checks (D1, D2); not found in the excerpt: D3.
“The project is not registered under any other GHG Program other than the VCS and can be found in the following link: https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/1728 .”
“Net GHG emission reductions or removals generated by the Project will not be used for compliance with an emissions trading program or to meet binding limits on GHG emissions in any Emission Trading program or other binding limits.”
Excerpt read: 28,467 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 3 of 4 checks (S1, S2, S4); not found in the excerpt: S3.
“1. Mytrah Vayu (Indravati) Pvt. Ltd. 10/11/2015 21/11/2015”
“7. Mytrah Vayu (Tungabhadra) Pvt. Ltd. 12/09/2016 20/09/2016”
“All the stakeholders have been invited through public notice to attend the stakeholders meeting. The local stakeholders’ consultation meeting was attended by local persons including local villagers, local vendors and technology suppliers. The stakeholders identified by the project participant were local villagers who are the major population of the particular area, local communities and gram panchayat (Village head), WTG supplier, project proponent representatives, O&M Team and other people involved in the project. Validation team verified the list of participants who attended the stakeholder meeting and feedback questionnaire and confirms the stakeholders identified are relevant. Validation team verified the list of participants who attended the stakeholder meeting and feedback questionnaire and confirms the stakeholders identified are relevant. The validation team also verified the minutes of meeting to note that no negative comments were received and the same was cross checked with the information obtained during follow up interviews with the stakeholder’s. Thus Validation team is of the opinion that the stakeholder meeting was adequate and appropriate. Assessment team also noted during the validation site visit that PP has already put a grievance register onsite in where stakeholders can write there complain if any. The complain if found genuine will be immediately resolve by PP with the best reasonable level of knowledge and satisfaction of the stakeholders. The process is found genuine and thus PP ensured that ongoing process of Stakeholders benefits and complain can be taken care after and during operation of the power plant.”
“Since the local stakeholder consultation was conducted prior to the implementation of the project activity during validation. The consultation process involved relevant stakeholders such as the local village head, villagers, NGOs, PP representative and Local Government representatives.”
“5.4 Public Comments The project activity was published for public comment and few comments were received during the one month commenting period. The comments are discussed as below 1. There are many individual project participants described, thus I am assuming it’s a bundled project, which should have been specified in the PD, but I think it has purposefully not been written. PP Response – The project title itself has mentioned that it is bundled project. However this is large scale project and it is not required any bundling form. The VCS PD clearly mentioned bundle word in section 1.1 of VCS PD. 2. How it is that the contact details of the project proponent have not been described. PP Response – The listed VCS PD has mentioned the PP name, contact person and address and minimum listing requirement is met. Please refer this web link for PP address http://www.mytrah.com/contact-us.php . The VCS PD mentioned the same address as “8001, 8th Floor, Q-City, Nanakramguda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500032,Telangana,India” 3. The communications agreement mentions EKI as the consultant why has that not been mentioned in the other entities involved? PP Response – The project is listed through client VCS account and also communication agreement does not mention any name of EKI. 4. Under the Additionality sections it is mentioned “Financial spread sheets for the key assumptions (web links & sources of input parameters) supporting the financial projections would be submitted and updated to the DOE. PP Response – As per VCS guideline, minimum listing requirement is met. Thus we think this comment is not relevant.The additionality related information is mentioned in final PDD. DOE has validated the same. 5. Common practice analysis, where are the projects what is source, EKI does not this? Since the projects are bundled together each bundle has to be assessed separately as per the CDM guidelines. I hope the DOE and VCS will take this into account. EKI Response – The final VCS PD have all information of common practise analysis. This is bundled large scale project activity and as per tool of common practise analysis, the project activity capacity need to be considered for the common practise analysis. Please refer CDM registered projects like UN0968 (https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/SGS- UKL1374066912.42/view ), UN9735 (https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/TUEV-RHEIN1378973294.94/view ), UN8459 (https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/PJR%20CDM1354186685.85/view ), UN7560 (https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/RWTUV1349092273.88/view ), UN7099(https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/RWTUV1346067870.82/view ), and UN9534 (https://cdm.unfccc.int/Projects/DB/PJR%20CDM1359094049.33/view ) 6. The LSC meeting details are not provided at all?”
“2.1.4 Grievance Redress Procedure The project owner has operating complaint procedure. The PP has kept the register on plant site office for logging the ongoing communication or any grievance from the stakeholder which is easily accessible to the all stakeholders. This procedure of ongoing communication log & addressal is used for the project. Below grievances are registered during current monitoring period of Nipaniya Site.”
“Ongoing consultation Project Proponent has submitted the feedback register kept at site for the ongoing communication with the local stakeholders. In plant site office seeking complaints/grievances from local community as a part of ongoing communication with stakeholders in line with clause 3.18.3 of VCS Standard, v.4.7.”
“During the on-site inspection and interviews with relevant personnel, the assessment team confirmed that a grievance redressal mechanism is established in accordance with company policy. A grievance register is maintained at the project site to document and address any complaints from local stakeholders and employees. The project proponent regularly reviews the grievance register and ensures timely resolution of issues, as verified through stakeholder interviews.”
“All the stakeholders have been invited through public notice to attend the stakeholders meeting. The local stakeholders’ consultation meeting was attended by local persons including local villagers, local vendors and technology suppliers. The stakeholders identified by the project participant were local villagers who are the major population of the particular area, local communities and gram panchayat (Village head), WTG supplier, project proponent representatives, O&M Team and other people involved in the project. Validation team verified the list of participants who attended the stakeholder meeting and feedback questionnaire and confirms the stakeholders identified are relevant. Validation team verified the list of participants who attended the stakeholder meeting and feedback questionnaire and confirms the stakeholders identified are relevant. The validation team also verified the minutes of meeting to note that no negative comments were received and the same was cross checked with the information obtained during follow up interviews with the stakeholder’s. Thus Validation team is of the opinion that the stakeholder meeting was adequate and appropriate. Assessment team also noted during the validation site visit that PP has already put a grievance register onsite in where stakeholders can write there complain if any. The complain if found genuine will be immediately resolve by PP with the best reasonable level of knowledge and satisfaction of the stakeholders. The process is found genuine and thus PP ensured that ongoing process of Stakeholders benefits and complain can be taken care after and during operation of the power plant.”
“Outcome of FPIC The project has not encroached on land, relocated people, or caused any physical or economic displacement. All necessary assessments and consultations were conducted to ensure compliance with legal requirements, and no individuals or communities have been displaced by the project.”
“No risk identified There is no any risk related to recognizing, respecting, and promoting the protection of the rights of IPs, LCs, and customary rights holders in line with applicable international human rights law, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ILO Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. PP has taken FPIC from the Local stakeholders before implementing the project activity.”
“Assessment team confirms that there are no legal rights to territories and resources, including collective and conflicting rights held by stakeholders, indigenous people (IPs), Local communities (LCs), and customary rights holders with regards to the project. However, it was noted that the local community (villagers) has customary access rights to natural resources such as the grazing land around the unfenced wind turbine generators. Same was confirmed during the interview with PP.”
“Project proponent confirmed during the on-site inspection conducted by the audit team, that the project involves various stakeholder groups, including the project owner, lender, customer, and the residents who live near the project implementing area. Notably, there is no indigenous community within this stakeholder group, and this composition has remained unchanged since the project's commissioning.”
Every version anchored on Sepolia stays readable: a retirement records the version current when it happened. Each file is hashed in your browser and compared with that version on the contract.
0xd398…d567(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x7866…aec0(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x1673…6c0b(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0xe184…ee87(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x1051…dc19(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)Signal, not verdict. Each check says whether a specific kind of evidence is present in an excerpt of the submitted documents, not whether the evidence is true. Scores are not an ICVCM assessment, a rating of the project, or a statement about its real-world impact.
Report v5 anchor on Sepolia Etherscan(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)