Vai al contenuto principale
ENERGY Kenya Vintage 2025 Solo marketplace General Methodology v2.0

1MW Grid Connected Wind Electricity Generation at Ngong Hills, Kenya

XEP-9aba38

1.4 / 10
Integrity
2.0
Transparency
0.5
Claim Safety
2.0
Documentation
0.8

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any non-conformities were not found in the extracted record

inferred No contradictions were flagged, but this provides little assurance given the absence of source documents

Transparency

missing No VVB name, monitoring period, or verified vs claimed ER figures were found in the extracted record

missing Registry-relevant fields (e.g., CORSIA eligibility, MRV methods) were not found in the extracted record

Claim Safety

missing Over-crediting risk cannot be assessed because the baseline method and any leakage justification were not found in the extracted record

missing Eligibility/label risks cannot be screened because CCP/CORSIA status was not found in the extracted record

Documentation

missing Zero documents were captured in the evidence set (no PDD/monitoring/verification reports available in the extracted record)

missing Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating poor readability of at least one key source

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

No evidence documents were captured in the extracted record, so additionality testing, baseline methodology, leakage treatment, and any permanence/reversal provisions are not stated in available documents. With no monitoring or verification content available, it is not possible to confirm whether any material findings or corrective actions occurred. This creates a high uncertainty and warrants a very conservative integrity score.

Transparency

The extracted record contains no VVB identity, monitoring period, or claimed-versus-verified emission reduction figures, so MRV transparency cannot be evaluated. No information was found on how grid emission factors or other key parameters were determined. Low extraction confidence further reduces confidence that the public record was captured accurately.

Claim Safety

Because the baseline method and leakage justification were not found in the extracted record, the risk of over-crediting cannot be screened. No information was found on CORSIA eligibility or CCP status, so downstream claim/label risks cannot be assessed. Given these evidence gaps, claim safety is scored conservatively low.

Documentation

The evidence set is empty (0 documents used), meaning core CDM artifacts (PDD, monitoring reports, verification reports) were not available in the extracted record. Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key source was poorly readable, which further undermines completeness and reliability. This triggers a very low documentation score (note: documentation < 3.0 would cap transparency under the gate rules).

Overall

There are no listed contradictions, but the absence of any extracted documents dominates the assessment and forces conservative scoring across all dimensions. With low extraction confidence and no documentary basis for additionality, baseline, leakage, or verified ERs, overall quality cannot be substantiated. Under the gate rules, the very low documentation score would cap transparency post-scoring.

Audit Analysis

The extracted record contains no usable project documentation, so core quality elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring) cannot be substantiated. With low extraction confidence and zero documents captured, the risk of over-crediting or misrepresentation cannot be screened reliably.

Project Description

ENERGY

Red Flags

  • No project documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing validation of additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring claims
  • Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key document was poorly readable, further reducing reliability

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2025 (non verificato).

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

  • Provide the CDM PDD and the latest monitoring and verification reports so additionality, baseline selection, and MRV results can be checked against CDM requirements
  • Provide registry/issuance details including verified vs issued ERs, VVB identity, and any corrective actions or non-conformities from validation/verification

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.

Risk Indicators

Additionality

No additionality assessment found

Permanence

Reversal/buffer provisions not evidenced

Leakage

No leakage treatment found

Baseline

Baseline method not found

Safeguards

No safeguards evidence found

Double-claim

CORSIA/CCP status not stated

Where to buy

Marketplaces

+ Know where to buy this?

Listing multiple projects? Send us a CSV at [email protected].

⚑ Dispute this rating
Analysis Provenance Scored 2026-04-02 General Methodology v2.0 Solo marketplace

Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?

Correzione metadati (gratuita)

Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.

Non modifica lo score.

[email protected]

Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti

Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.

Invia Documenti