CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index BuyersCORSIA supplyCheck an offerAPI & MCP Method About the System Editorial Policy Score Your Project
EN
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
Re-assessment pendingGSSolar Thermal - ElectricityDominican RepublicRegistry: RegisteredACM0002

60MW Solar PV - Monte Plata

Developer: myclimate Foundation

GS-1304 ↗ · current registry ID: GS1117

Worked comparison example (English)

#3215of 5087 in Renewable energy#12of 17 in Dominican Republic#1027of 2172 in Gold Standard (GS)#2300of 3484 in ACM0002

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 1 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.1 / 10
Integrity 🔒 Transparency 🔒 Claim Safety 🔒 Documentation 🔒
Dimension scores are locked — the faint arcs are empty tracks, not zero scores.

Scale 0–10 · method weights: integrity 35% · transparency 25% · claim safety 25% · documentation 15%.

Re-assessment pending · v2.1

Scored2026-09-01medium confidence

evidence: 30/35 registry documents analyzed · 5 red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

Analysis

A 60 MW solar PV project in the Dominican Republic with a fundamentally sound design (jurisdictional baseline, combined additionality test, avoidance-type credits with no reversal risk), but undermined by an unusually large volume of material findings, calibration gaps, and an unimplemented Phase II (30 MW) that raises over-crediting concerns. The monitoring and reporting process shows systemic quality weaknesses, with over 20 corrective actions required across multiple verification cycles.

Red Flags

5 red flags detected — Unlock with Premium

Findings

Risk Indicators

Additionality

🔒

Permanence

🔒

Leakage

🔒

Baseline

🔒

Safeguards

🔒

Double-claim

🔒

Risk indicator details are a Premium feature

Score Breakdown

Score factors per dimension are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Unlock the full analysis

On this page: the analysis of 1 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 5 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 35 registry documents (30 analyzed).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

Eligibility & market

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology not approved by ICVCMACM0002

    The Integrity Council assessed this methodology as not meeting the Core Carbon Principles.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: registry label

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish Article 6 authorizations.

Information only, from public sources. Claim rules (CORSIA, SBTi, EU rules on green claims) change: check them before making a public claim. Since 27 September 2026, EU consumer rules do not allow “climate neutral” product claims based on offsets.

Registry labels last checked:2026-10-04

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2016
14,905014,905
2017
29,442029,442
2018
31,793031,793
2019
32,124032,124
2020
30,637030,637
2021
30,9053,53327,372
2022
29,51012,17617,334
2023
29,7245,00024,724
2024
40,829040,829
2025
27,984027,984
Total297,85320,709277,144

Methodology versions used

The methodology version stated in each monitoring, verification and issuance document, by period, compared with the official methodology pages.

  1. 2015–2016ACM0002 v13.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2017–2018ACM0002 v13.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  3. 2019ACM0002 v13.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2020ACM0002 v13.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2021–2022ACM0002 v13.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  6. 2023ACM0002 v13.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  • ACM0002: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on

A version is shown only when the document's own text writes it next to the methodology code. Current versions, status and CCP ranges come from the official pages linked, checked on the date shown.

Documents on the registry

Retired by

Organisations named as beneficiaries in the registry's public retirement records.

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

+ Know where to buy this?

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

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceACM0002
Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

Contest this rating

Something wrong in the analysis, or a registry document we have not used? Send us the link to the public source: you get a reference and an answer within 30 days.

Contest this rating →