Vai al contenuto principale
avoidance Vietnam Vintage 2022 Solo marketplace General Methodology v2.0

Dak Srong 3B Hydropower Plant

CT-356

1.5 / 10
Integrity
2.0
Transparency
0.5
Claim Safety
2.0
Documentation
1.0

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Additionality, baseline approach, leakage treatment, and any findings/corrective actions are not stated in available documents

inferred Hydropower is an avoidance-type renewable project, but without documentation the baseline and grid emissions assumptions cannot be validated

Transparency

missing No VVB/assurance information, monitoring period, or MRV details were found in the extracted record

missing Registry/public-data completeness cannot be assessed because no evidence documents were provided

Claim Safety

missing Over-crediting risk cannot be screened because baseline method, grid factor/FNRB approach, and verified vs claimed results are not available

inferred CORSIA/CCP status is not stated in available documents, leaving double-claim/eligibility risk unresolved

Documentation

missing No evidence documents were provided (0 documents used), so key claims are unsupported

missing Low extraction confidence reduces reliability of the extracted record

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

No project documents (PDD, monitoring report, or verification/assurance report) were provided in the extracted record, so additionality testing, baseline selection, and leakage treatment are not stated in available documents. Buffering, reversal events, and any material findings/corrective actions are also not found in the extracted record. Given hydropower’s sensitivity to baseline/grid factor assumptions, the absence of documentation materially weakens integrity confidence.

Transparency

The extracted record contains no evidence documents and therefore no information on monitoring periods, metering/QA-QC procedures, or third-party assurance. The VVB/assurance entity name and any discrepancy between claimed and verified results are not stated in available documents. As a result, transparency is scored very low.

Claim Safety

Without baseline method details, grid emissions factor/FNRB approach, or any comparison of claimed versus verified outcomes, over-crediting risk cannot be evaluated. Eligibility signals such as CORSIA eligibility or CCP status are not stated in available documents, so potential double-claim/marketing risk cannot be screened. This uncertainty drives a conservative claim-safety score.

Documentation

No evidence documents were included (0 documents used), and the minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key source was poorly readable. Key fields typically needed for assessment (methodology, monitoring, verification/assurance, findings) are not found in the extracted record. This results in a very low documentation score (note: documentation < 3.0 would cap transparency under the gate rules).

Overall

There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, but this is largely because no documents were available to compare. With zero documents and low extraction confidence, the assessment is dominated by evidence gaps across all dimensions, leading to a low overall score. Under the gate rules, the very low documentation score would cap transparency post-scoring.

Audit Analysis

Only minimal project identifiers were provided, with no extracted content from official documents to substantiate baseline setting, additionality, monitoring, or issuance details. With zero documents and low extraction confidence, the project cannot be quality-assessed beyond a very conservative, high-uncertainty score.

Project Description

Dak Srong 3B is a run of river hydro-electric plant in the Central Highlands of Viet Nam. The plant has a capacity of 19.5MW and was commissioned in 2012.

Red Flags

  • No official documents were available in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing verification of baseline, monitoring, and issuance claims
  • Low extraction confidence indicates at least one key source was poorly readable, increasing the risk of missing or misread critical information

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2022 (non verificato).

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

  • Provide the I-REC registration/issuance documentation and any assurance/verification statement covering the monitoring period and metering QA/QC
  • Provide the baseline/grid emissions factor approach (including data sources and vintage) and any leakage/safeguards documentation to enable an over-crediting and safeguards review

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

Risk Indicators

Additionality

No additionality assessment found

Permanence

Reversal/buffering not documented

Leakage

Leakage treatment not found

Baseline

Baseline method not stated

Safeguards

Safeguards/FPIC/grievance not found

Double-claim

CORSIA/CCP status not stated

Where to buy

Marketplaces

+ Know where to buy this?

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

⚑ Dispute this rating
Analysis Provenance Scored 2026-04-02 General Methodology v2.0 Solo marketplace

Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?

Correzione metadati (gratuita)

Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.

Non modifica lo score.

[email protected]

Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti

Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.

Invia Documenti