ALTACA MERAM BIOGAS PLANT

Integrity

The verification report (2025-06-18) confirms additionality using a combined test and the VVB signed off on additionality, which supports integrity. The project uses a project-specific baseline under the Gold Standard methodology and reports a grid emission factor of 0.5552. However, permanence is weakened because the latest verification does not address reversal events and no buffer pool percentage is stated in the extracted record. A large number of corrective action requests (65 CARs, 16 clarifications) were raised and closed per the verification report, which shows issues were found and addressed but also indicates earlier shortcomings in documentation and controls.

Transparency

Transparency is mixed: the VVB is named and monitoring period is provided, but core MRV numbers (total emission reductions claimed/verified, leakage deduction percentage, FNRB) are not found in the extracted record. Evidence documents are listed as unknown despite 14 documents being used, and the minimum extraction confidence is low, which reduces confidence in the completeness of the public record.

Claim Safety

There is some safety from use of an established Gold Standard methodology and a stated grid emission factor, reducing ambiguity about baseline calculation. Nonetheless, missing leakage treatment (no leakage deduction percentage, and leakage justification shown as not addressed in the latest document) increases the chance of over-crediting. CORSIA/CCP status is not stated, leaving double-claim risk uncertain.

Documentation

A recent verification report exists (2025-06-18) and corrective actions were closed, which is positive. However, many important fields are not present in the extracted record (buffer pool percentage, FNRB, claimed vs verified ERR), evidence docs are unspecified, and the extractor flagged low confidence. These factors justify a conservative documentation score.

Overall

I privileged values in the most recent verification report (2025-06-18) where contradictions existed because it is the latest VVB-signed document and would typically supersede older documents, but I note low extraction confidence. Specifically: (1) reversal events — older record (2024-11-12) reported none, but the 2025 verification indicates reversal treatment is not addressed; I privileged the 2025 verification but lowered scores because that indicates a gap. (2) leakage justification — an older 2020 document deemed leakage negligible, but the 2025 verification shows leakage justification not addressed; I privileged the 2025 verification as more recent and relevant, again reducing scores. (3) crediting period — conflicting dates exist; I privileged the 2025 verification date showing 2022-07-01 — 2027-06-30 as current. The low extraction confidence and unresolved MRV fields reduced transparency and documentation scores and therefore pulled down the overall score to a moderate–low rating (4.3).