Aydin Salavatli Dora-1 Geothermal Power Plant

Integrity

The validation report confirms additionality through an investment test, while the monitoring report reports no material findings. That said, the monitoring report also says the 2017 baseline emission was wrongly calculated and must be corrected, which weakens confidence in the baseline and the credited volume. Leakage is only justified as negligible, with no quantified deduction, and reversal risk is not addressed in the extracted record.

Transparency

The project has a substantial document set, including validation, monitoring, PDD, and issuance records, and the extraction confidence is high. Even so, the monitoring report does not state the electricity meter installation details, serial number, model, calibration entity, or validity dates, and the usage monitoring method is not found in the extracted record. The verified and claimed ER totals match in the latest monitoring report, but the earlier calculation discrepancy still reduces transparency.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by the monitoring report’s admission that the 2017 baseline emission was wrongly calculated, because that points to possible over-crediting. The project is not CORSIA-eligible, which helps reduce dual-market claim risk, but there is no CCP status in the extracted record. Leakage is treated as negligible rather than quantified, so the overall over-claim risk remains moderate.

Documentation

Documentation is fairly strong because 43 documents were used and the extraction confidence is high. The latest monitoring report and validation report are available, but the record still shows missing meter specifications and a need to compare actual versus estimated emission reductions. The crediting period is long and the monitoring period is recent, which helps, but the unresolved correction request lowers the score.

Overall

I privileged the 2023 monitoring report and 2023 validation report over older documents because they are more recent and more specific to the latest issuance period. Where contradictions exist, I treated them as reliability issues rather than ignoring them: the additionality test is best read as investment-test based because that is the VVB-confirmed validation finding, while the baseline and ER totals are less secure because the monitoring report explicitly says the 2017 baseline calculation was wrong. The project therefore looks viable but not high-confidence, with the main concerns being baseline accuracy, leakage treatment, and incomplete monitoring detail.