Jiangsu Dongtai Phase II Wind Power Project

Integrity

The project applies ACM0002 (version 20.0) with a project-specific baseline approach and a stated grid emission factor of 0.8325 (monitoring report, 2022). Additionality is described as an investment test and is confirmed by the VVB in the 2022 monitoring/verification package, supporting additionality robustness. However, the 2022 monitoring report lists corrective actions requiring revision of the grid EF determination approach and notes inconsistencies in annual ER figures and project scale classification, which can directly affect baseline emissions and credited ER volumes. Leakage is reported with a 0% deduction and described as quantified in the 2022 monitoring report, but earlier monitoring documentation (2019) indicates leakage was not addressed, reducing confidence in consistent application over time.

Transparency

The monitoring period (2018-11-01—2022-07-31), methodology, and key baseline parameter (grid EF) are disclosed in the 2022 monitoring report, and the VVB is identified as China Classification Society Certification Co., Ltd. The extracted record includes both claimed ER (2,366,077) and verified ER figures, but the verified total is inconsistent across validation reports (2019 vs 2022), which undermines transparency on the final verified quantity. Safeguards-related disclosures (FPIC, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing) appear in the 2022 monitoring report but are contradicted by an earlier monitoring report (2014), suggesting uneven disclosure quality across vintages.

Claim Safety

The project is marked as not CORSIA-eligible in the extracted record, which reduces the risk of aviation-related double claiming. Nonetheless, claim safety is weakened by MRV inconsistencies: the verified ER total differs materially between the 2019 and 2022 validation reports, and the 2022 monitoring report’s corrective actions highlight issues with grid EF determination and mismatches in stated annual ER versus the registered PDD. Leakage treatment is also inconsistent across monitoring reports (2019 vs 2022), increasing the risk that public claims could overstate conservativeness.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is relatively strong: the extracted record references the PDD, multiple monitoring reports, validation report(s), and issuance, with 19 documents used and high extraction confidence. However, the presence of multiple contradictions across documents (safeguards, leakage justification, additionality verification status, crediting period, and verified ER totals) indicates weaknesses in document consistency and version control. Corrective actions recorded in the 2022 monitoring report further suggest that key sections required revision to align with applicable grid EF references and VCS requirements.

Overall

Overall quality is moderate: the project has a recognized renewable methodology (ACM0002), a recent monitoring period, and VVB involvement, but reliability is reduced by repeated cross-document inconsistencies. For contradictions, the more recent documents were privileged where they are likely to reflect updated VVB conclusions (e.g., leakage described as quantified and safeguards/FPIC/grievance/benefit sharing reported in the 2022 monitoring report), but scores are reduced because earlier monitoring reports contradict these disclosures. For the verified ER total, the 2022 validation report figure (956,291) is privileged over the 2019 validation report (1,686,838) because it is more recent, yet the discrepancy itself is a significant transparency and claim-safety concern. For the crediting period, the monitoring report’s 2010–2030 period is treated as more plausible given the project’s long-running crediting history, but the 2022 validation report’s 2020 start-date conflict creates uncertainty about eligible issuance boundaries and therefore lowers integrity and transparency.