9.5 MW wind energy based power generation by Interocean Group

Integrity

The validation/verification record indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB (KBS) using an investment test, which supports additionality robustness. The baseline is described as project-specific, and the extracted record does not state when (or whether) the baseline was last reassessed, which weakens confidence in baseline validity over time. Leakage is not addressed in the extracted record (no justification and no deduction stated), creating an integrity gap even if leakage is likely low for grid-connected wind.

Transparency

The monitoring report (dated 2021-10-05) provides a clear monitoring period (2017-05-08 to 2019-02-19) and reports a grid emission factor of 0.97704, supporting traceability of calculations. However, the monitoring/verification outcome shows a notable adjustment from 32,283 tCO2e claimed to 28,286 tCO2e verified, and the extracted record does not capture the explanation for this difference. Registry-level completeness is moderate because CORSIA and CCP status are not stated in available documents.

Claim Safety

As an avoidance renewable electricity project under AMS-I.D (version 18), the core quantification approach is standardized, which helps reduce discretionary over-crediting. That said, the absence of any stated leakage treatment in the extracted record and the lack of stated baseline reassessment timing increase uncertainty around conservative crediting. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not found in the extracted record, which increases downstream claim risk for buyers seeking specific compliance/quality labels.

Documentation

The extracted record includes three key document types (PDD, validation report, monitoring report) and indicates high extraction confidence, supporting document reliability. No material findings or corrective actions are reported in the extracted record, which is a positive signal for audit outcomes. However, safeguards-related elements (FPIC, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing) are not evidenced in the extracted record, reducing completeness for non-carbon integrity expectations.

Overall

No contradictions were identified in the extracted record, so no score adjustments were required for internal document inconsistencies. The project scores strongest on having a VVB-confirmed additionality test and a standard CDM methodology, but is pulled down by missing leakage treatment and missing baseline reassessment information. The sizable claimed-versus-verified ER difference also increases perceived MRV sensitivity, lowering claim safety and transparency relative to documentation completeness.