CarbonMeld CarbonMeld Carbon Observatory
Tools
ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index BuyersCORSIA supplyCheck an offerAPI & MCP Method About the System Editorial Policy Score Your Project
EN
Workbench ProjectsDevelopersComparePortfolioCCP trackerA–Z index
← All projects
Re-assessment pendingGSWindChinaRegistry: RegisteredACM0002

Gansu Anxi Wind Farm Project, 100.5 MW

Developer: Camco Clean Energy PLC

GS-977 ↗ · current registry ID: GS554

Worked comparison example (English)

#2798of 5087 in Renewable energy#1445of 3065 in China#873of 2172 in Gold Standard (GS)#2009of 3484 in ACM0002

Score from methodology v2.1 (analysis of 4 Sep 2026). Re-assessment under v2.2 pending.

Assessment

CarbonMeld document-based assessment

01020304 Overall 5.3 / 10
Integrity 🔒 Transparency 🔒 Claim Safety 🔒 Documentation 🔒
Dimension scores are locked — the faint arcs are empty tracks, not zero scores.

Scale 0–10 · method weights: integrity 35% · transparency 25% · claim safety 25% · documentation 15%.

Re-assessment pending · v2.1

Scored2026-09-04low confidenceLatest monitoring period ends: 2015-06-28

evidence: 17/19 registry documents analyzed · 5 red flags

Generated by CarbonMeld Analysis Pipeline · Methodology · Editorial Policy · About the System
Download Report (PDF)

Analysis

The Gansu Anxi Wind Farm is a 100.5 MW wind project under Gold Standard with VVB-confirmed additionality and a 14-year crediting period, but its integrity is undermined by a project-specific baseline, a 0% leakage deduction with contradictory justifications across documents, and 14 material findings including a 35% discrepancy between the actual plant load factor and the PDD estimate. Data quality issues (calibration gaps, rounding errors, inter-document inconsistencies) and low extraction confidence further erode confidence in the MRV chain, though the project is over-delivering relative to its pro-rata ex-ante expectation, reducing over-crediting risk.

Red Flags

5 red flags detected — Unlock with Premium

Findings

Risk Indicators

Additionality

🔒

Permanence

🔒

Leakage

🔒

Baseline

🔒

Safeguards

🔒

Double-claim

🔒

Risk indicator details are a Premium feature

Score Breakdown

Score factors per dimension are a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Detailed Analysis

The detailed per-dimension analysis is a Premium feature — Unlock with Premium

Evidence

Unlock the full analysis

On this page: the analysis of 4 Sep 2026, marked “Re-assessment pending”. Per-dimension scores, risk indicators, 5 red flags, score factors, detailed analysis, and 19 registry documents (17 analyzed).

€9+ VAT per month · card subscription, renews automatically until you cancel

Every rated project, PDF reports, API access, portfolio alerts and per-dimension scores with red-flag details in side-by-side comparisons (public-data comparison is free; fair use: 30 projects per day). Cancel any time from your account page. Crypto: $9 for one month, no automatic renewal.

Price + VAT · By subscribing or paying you accept the Terms of Use — the card subscription renews every month until you cancel; digital content, no refunds. How Premium works

Eligibility & market

What can you claim with this credit?

Four checks buyers ask about, from the registry and the Integrity Council (ICVCM).

  • Airlines (CORSIA)

    No CORSIA label on the registry

    Not usable for airlines' CORSIA obligations.

    Source: registry label

  • Integrity label (ICVCM CCP)

    Methodology not approved by ICVCMACM0002

    The Integrity Council assessed this methodology as not meeting the Core Carbon Principles.

    Source: ICVCM assessment

  • Removal or reduction

    Emission reduction or avoidance

    Prevents or reduces emissions — fits contribution claims, not SBTi neutralisation.

    Source: registry label

  • Paris Agreement (Article 6)

    Not published

    This registry does not publish Article 6 authorizations.

Information only, from public sources. Claim rules (CORSIA, SBTi, EU rules on green claims) change: check them before making a public claim. Since 27 September 2026, EU consumer rules do not allow “climate neutral” product claims based on offsets.

Registry labels last checked:2026-09-27

Credit Vintages

IssuedRetiredAvailable
2008
133,273126,3796,894
2009
150,796149,3751,421
2010
141,168111,54229,626
2011
164,901133,71631,185
2014
167,791121,56446,227
2015
105,56424,92180,643
Total863,493667,497195,996

Methodology versions used

The methodology version stated in each monitoring, verification and issuance document, by period, compared with the official methodology pages.

  1. 2008–2009ACM0002 v8.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  2. 2009–2010ACM0002 v8.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  3. 2010–2011ACM0002 v8.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  4. 2011–2013ACM0002 v8.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  5. 2013–2014ACM0002 v8.0since replaced by v22.0

    monitoring report + verification report

    official page · verified on

  6. 2014–2015ACM0002the documents for this period state different versions (v8.0, v16.0)

    monitoring report + verification report

  • ACM0002: Active (CDM / UNFCCC) · official page · verified on

A version is shown only when the document's own text writes it next to the methodology code. Current versions, status and CCP ranges come from the official pages linked, checked on the date shown.

Documents on the registry

Where to buy

Got an offer for these credits? Check it against the registry →

+ Know where to buy this?

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

⚑ Dispute this rating

Profile & governance

Analysis ProvenanceACM0002
Methodology·Editorial Policy·About the System

Are you the project owner?

Metadata correction (free)

Name, country, marketplace or links incorrect? Let us know.

Does not modify the score.

[email protected] →

Contest this rating

Something wrong in the analysis, or a registry document we have not used? Send us the link to the public source: you get a reference and an answer within 30 days.

Contest this rating →