VCS removal China Vintage 2016 Registry: Registered Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Anhui Guzhen Biomass Generation Project

VCS-1121 ↗

5.9 / 10

Integrity

6.4

Transparency

5.6

Claim Safety

5.2

Documentation

6.1

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified Additionality was tested using an investment test and the VVB confirmed it in the verification/validation record.

missing No buffer pool percentage, baseline reassessment date, or reversal-event detail was found in the extracted record.

Transparency

verified The monitoring report identifies the VVB, the monitoring period, and the verified emission reductions for the latest period.

missing Claimed-versus-verified issuance, usage monitoring method, and CORSIA status were not stated in the available documents.

Claim Safety

verified The latest monitoring report states a leakage deduction of 0% with leakage deemed negligible.

missing A prior monitoring report said leakage was not addressed, and the verified emission reduction figure differs sharply across validation documents.

Documentation

verified The record draws on multiple document types, including validation, monitoring, PDD, and issuance materials, with high extraction confidence.

missing Two corrective actions were required, and the crediting period is inconsistent across documents.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The project shows a reasonably strong additionality case because the monitoring/validation record says an investment test was used and that additionality was confirmed by the VVB. However, the extracted record does not state a buffer pool percentage, does not provide a baseline reassessment date, and does not include reversal-event detail, so permanence-related confidence is limited. The latest monitoring report also notes two corrective actions, which slightly weakens confidence in implementation quality.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the monitoring report names Shenzhen CTI International Certification Co., Ltd and gives a clear monitoring period from 2015-10-01 to 2020-02-29. On the other hand, the extracted record does not state the claimed emission reductions, usage monitoring method, or CORSIA eligibility, leaving important public-accountability fields incomplete. The absence of these details limits the ability to independently reconcile issuance and use claims.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is mixed. The latest monitoring report says leakage was deemed negligible and applies a 0% deduction, which is positive, but an earlier monitoring report said leakage was not addressed, creating a reliability concern. The verified emission reduction figure also changes materially across validation documents, so the project’s crediting claims should be treated cautiously.

Documentation

Documentation quality is fair because the assessment draws on multiple official sources, including validation, monitoring, PDD, and issuance documents, and extraction confidence is high. Still, two corrective actions were required, and the crediting period is inconsistent between the monitoring report and validation report, which suggests document harmonization issues. The record is therefore usable, but not fully clean or internally consistent.

Overall

Overall, this is a mid-quality project with a credible additionality narrative but meaningful documentation and consistency weaknesses. I privileged the newer monitoring report for leakage, safeguards, and crediting-period details because it is more recent and operationally specific, while noting that the older report conflicts on those same points. I also privileged the later validation figure for verified reductions, but the large discrepancy between validation documents is a material reliability issue that pulls the score down.

Audit Analysis

The project has some solid integrity signals, including a VVB-confirmed investment test and no reported reversal events, but the evidence is weakened by missing details on buffer coverage, baseline reassessment, and leakage treatment history. Transparency is moderate because the monitoring period and verifier are identified, yet key public-facing items such as claimed-versus-verified issuance and usage monitoring are not fully stated. Overall confidence is reduced by several document contradictions, especially on credited volume, leakage treatment, safeguards, and crediting period.

Project Description

Anhui Guzhen Biomass Generation Project (hereafter referred to as the Project) is sited within Guzhen County, Anhui Province, P.R.China. The Project is invested, constructed and operated by the National Guzhen Bio Energy Co., Ltd. The Project installed one 130t/h boiler and one 30MW steam turbine generator. Rice straw, maize straw, peanut straw and wood residues are used as fuel for power generation. The annual electricity supply of the Project is expected to be 186,900 MWh, which is delivered to East China Power Grid. The construction of project was started on March 31st, 2010 and the project was put into operation on January 3rd, 2011. The expected life-time of the project is 20 years. The Project achieves emission reductions via avoiding CO2 emissions from the same amount of electricity generation from East China Power Grid, which is mainly composed of traditional fossil fuel fired power plants.

Red Flags

The record shows a large contradiction in verified emission reductions between older and newer validation documents, which raises reliability concerns.
Leakage was treated as negligible in the latest monitoring report, but an earlier report said it was not addressed.
The crediting period differs between documents, and the project has two corrective actions noted in the monitoring report.

Credit Vintages

	Issued	Retired	Available
2011	45,000	45,000	0
2012	83,300	83,300	0
2015	34,947	34,865	82
2016	143,099	133,231	9,868
2018	136,833	136,833	0
2019	139,644	31,826	107,818
2020	22,679	1,125	21,554
Total	605,502	466,180	139,322

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Publish a reconciled issuance/verification table that explains the difference in verified emission reductions across validation documents and confirms the final credited amount.
Provide explicit documentation for buffer pool treatment, baseline reassessment, leakage justification history, and CORSIA/CCP status in a single consolidated disclosure.

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