Duzce Aksu Hydro Electricity Power Plant

Integrity

The validation/verification record indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB, and the project applies ACM0002 (version 16.0.0), which supports methodological consistency. However, the baseline is described as project-specific and the timing of any baseline reassessment is not stated in the extracted record, which weakens confidence that baseline conditions remain current. Leakage is treated as a 0% deduction with a justification of “deemed negligible” in the 2024 monitoring report, but an earlier monitoring report (2020) is recorded as not addressing leakage, creating an integrity-relevant inconsistency.

Transparency

The monitoring report (2024-01-08) clearly states the monitoring period (2022-01-01—2023-08-31) and provides a grid emission factor (0.53323), and the VVB is identified as Re-carbon. Transparency is reduced by the monitoring report’s corrective action requests, including inconsistencies in monitored parameters and missing supporting details such as a meter location diagram and calibration/serial/accuracy information. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not stated in the extracted record, limiting registry/market transparency for downstream claims.

Claim Safety

For the latest cycle, the extracted record shows claimed and verified emission reductions are the same (99,931 tCO2e), which is a positive signal for that monitoring period. Claim safety is nonetheless weakened by a major contradiction across validation reports: one validation report (2024-02-16) shows 99,931 tCO2e verified, while an earlier validation report (2022-10-19) shows 51,842 tCO2e, raising the risk of confusion or misstatement in marketing claims. With CORSIA eligibility and CCP status not stated in the extracted record, buyers cannot easily assess eligibility-related claim boundaries.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is relatively strong: the extracted record references a PDD, monitoring report, validation report, and issuance, with 19 documents used and high extraction confidence. However, the 2024 monitoring report includes multiple CARs (e.g., inconsistent project proponent naming, missing footnote, inconsistent monitored parameters, and incomplete metering QA/QC documentation), indicating quality-control gaps in submitted documentation. The crediting period (2014-04-25—2024-04-24) and the recent monitoring period are stated, supporting recency, but baseline reassessment timing is not evidenced.

Overall

Overall scoring reflects moderate quality with notable reliability concerns driven by contradictions and CARs. On leakage, the 2024 monitoring report’s “deemed negligible” justification was privileged over the 2020 monitoring report’s “not addressed” because it is more recent and provides an explicit position, but the inconsistency still reduces confidence. On safeguards (FPIC, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing), the 2024 monitoring report was privileged over the 2016 PDD because it is more recent, yet the direct contradiction suggests safeguards may have been added or documented later, so scores are adjusted downward. For verified ERs, the 2024-02-16 validation report value (99,931) was privileged as the more recent figure and it matches the claimed ER in the extracted record, but the earlier 51,842 figure indicates a material documentation discrepancy that lowers transparency and claim-safety scores. (Gate rules note: integrity is above 4.0 and documentation is above 3.0, so no automatic caps would apply.)