avoidance Brazil Vintage 2017 Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

Delta 3 Wind Power Plant

CM-516b4d ↗

5.6 / 10

Integrity

5.2

Transparency

6.1

Claim Safety

4.6

Documentation

7.2

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified The validation/verification record indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB using an investment test.

missing Baseline and leakage substantiation are weak in the extracted record (project-specific baseline with no reassessment date found; leakage not addressed and no deduction stated).

Transparency

verified Core MRV elements are present (named VVB, monitoring period 2016–2020, and a verified ER total reported).

missing The extracted record lacks key quantification inputs (grid emission factor year/value not found) and does not explain the large claimed-versus-verified ER difference.

Claim Safety

missing Over-crediting risk signaled by the large reduction from claimed to verified ERs (about 28% lower verified than claimed).

inferred CORSIA and CCP status are not stated in available documents, leaving downstream claim/eligibility risk unclear.

Documentation

verified Multiple official documents are available (PDD, validation report, monitoring report) with high extraction confidence.

missing Internal inconsistency on safeguards (PDD mentions safeguards while the monitoring report does not) reduces reliability.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The validation/verification record indicates additionality was confirmed by Bureau Veritas Certification using an investment test. The monitoring report (2022-01-15) reports no material findings and no corrective actions, which supports procedural robustness. However, the baseline is project-specific (ACM0002) and the extracted record does not provide a baseline reassessment date or key grid emission factor details, and leakage is explicitly not addressed with no deduction stated in the monitoring report.

Transparency

Transparency is moderate because the monitoring report (2022-01-15) clearly states the monitoring period (2016-01-01 to 2020-12-31), the VVB name, and the verified ER total (1,386,386). At the same time, important calculation inputs (grid emission factor value/year) are not found in the extracted record, limiting reproducibility. The extracted record also does not provide an explanation for the difference between claimed and verified ERs.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by the sizable discrepancy between claimed and verified ERs (1,917,737 claimed vs 1,386,386 verified in the monitoring report), which increases perceived over-crediting/quality risk unless transparently explained. Leakage treatment is a further concern because the monitoring report indicates leakage is not addressed and no leakage deduction is stated. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in available documents, so buyers cannot easily assess eligibility-related claim constraints.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is relatively strong: three key document types are present (PDD, validation report, monitoring report) and extraction confidence is high. The monitoring report is dated 2022-01-15 and covers 2016–2020, which is reasonably recent for MRV. However, the safeguards narrative is inconsistent across documents, which reduces confidence in completeness and internal consistency.

Overall

Overall quality is mid-range: VVB-confirmed additionality and a clean findings/corrective-actions record support credibility, but missing baseline/leakage quantification and the large claimed-versus-verified ER gap elevate risk. The safeguards contradiction must be treated as a reliability issue: the PDD (2022-04-30) indicates safeguards are mentioned, while the monitoring report (2022-01-15) indicates they are not. I privilege the later-dated PDD for whether safeguards are mentioned, but the inconsistency itself warrants a downward adjustment to transparency/documentation because it suggests uneven reporting across the project record.

Audit Analysis

This CDM wind project shows moderate integrity: additionality is confirmed by the VVB and no material findings or corrective actions are reported. However, key baseline and leakage elements are not evidenced in the extracted record, and safeguards information is inconsistent across documents, increasing over-crediting and reputational risk.

Project Description

Delta 3 Wind Power Plant Location: Brazil Impact: Carbon Offset and Renewable Energy Generation Project Description The Delta 3 Wind Power Plant is part of the Omega Wind Power Plants Programme of Activities, which aims to address Brazil's increasing energy demands while promoting sustainability. This initiative involves the implementation of renewable energy projects in Brazil, primarily through the construction of Greenfield wind power plants connected to the Brazilian Interconnected System (Sistema Interligado Nacional – SIN). The proposed Clean Development Mechanism programme activity (CPA) includes the establishment of eight wind power plants, each with a 27.60MW installed capacity, totaling 220.80MW. These plants have the capacity to power approximately more than 200,000 households across Brazil. They are located in the municipalities of Barreirinhas and Paulino Neves, Maranhão state, in the Northeastern region of Brazil, and became operational in June 2017. Why you should support this project? Clean energy production: The Delta 3 Wind Power Plant significantly contributes to the generation of clean, renewable energy from wind sources. This helps reduce dependence on fossil fuels, mitigates climate change, and decreases greenhouse gas emissions. Meeting rising energy demand: Brazil's growing energy needs, driven by economic growth, require a stable and reliable power supply. This project plays a vital role in ensuring the nation's electricity demands are met. Economic growth: The Delta 3 Wind Power Plant serves as a catalyst for economic growth by creating employment opportunities and fostering local and regional development. Regional and global impact: By promoting the use of renewable energy, this project has a positive impact not only in Brazil but also in the broader Latin America and Caribbean region. Your

Red Flags

Large gap between claimed and verified emission reductions (1,917,737 claimed vs 1,386,386 verified) without an explained reason in the extracted record
Leakage is not addressed and no leakage deduction is stated, despite being a required consideration under methodology application
Safeguards information is contradictory between the monitoring report and the PDD

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2017 (non verificato).

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

Provide a clear reconciliation explaining why verified ERs are materially lower than claimed ERs, including which parameters or data sources changed during verification.
Disclose baseline calculation inputs (grid emission factor value and applicable year) and explicitly document leakage assessment and any resulting deduction (or a justified negligible-leakage conclusion).

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