Koyulhisar Hydro Electricity Power Plant

Integrity

The validation documentation indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB using a combined approach, which supports additionality robustness. Leakage is treated as negligible with a 0% deduction in the 2024 monitoring report, but an earlier monitoring report indicates leakage was not addressed, which weakens confidence in consistent application of the methodology. Baseline credibility is reduced by conflicting grid emission factors reported in validation documents (0.4607 vs 0.52826) and by an old baseline reassessment date (2011) relative to the 2022–2023 monitoring period.

Transparency

The extracted record provides a named VVB (Re-carbon), a clear monitoring period (2022-01-01 to 2023-07-31), and a verified ER figure (145,538) in the more recent validation/monitoring record. The evidence set is broad (PDD, monitoring report, validation report, issuance), supporting traceability. Transparency is nonetheless reduced because multiple monitoring/validation documents disagree on key statements (leakage justification, safeguards/grievance, and even the crediting period), making it harder for third parties to reconcile what was actually applied.

Claim Safety

The project is stated as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces one important double-claiming channel risk. However, claim safety is weakened by quantification inconsistencies: the grid emission factor differs across validation documents (0.4607 vs 0.52826), and the verified ER total differs across documents (145,538 vs 127,975), both of which can materially change credited volumes. CCP status is not found in the extracted record, leaving uncertainty for high-integrity claims aligned with CCP-style expectations.

Documentation

Documentation coverage appears strong, with 36 documents used, high extraction confidence, and core document types present (PDD, monitoring report, validation report, issuance). The latest monitoring report is recent (2024-07-10) and reports no material findings or corrective actions, which supports procedural completeness. Still, repeated contradictions across documents suggest version control and consistency issues that reduce confidence in the documentation set as a coherent basis for claims.

Overall

Overall quality is moderate: additionality is VVB-confirmed and the MRV record includes a recent monitoring period and a verified ER figure, but reliability is undermined by multiple contradictions. For leakage, the 2024 monitoring report’s 'deemed negligible' treatment was privileged over the 2022 monitoring report’s 'not addressed' because it is more recent, but the inconsistency still lowers confidence. For safeguards/grievance and FPIC, the 2024 monitoring report was privileged over the 2013 monitoring report due to recency, yet the reversal in statements is a red flag. For benefit sharing, the 2022 monitoring report’s statement was treated as more specific than the 2024 report’s absence/negation, but the conflict remains. For additionality test type, the later-dated 2011 validation report (combined) was privileged over the earlier one (investment) as the likely final version. For verified ER totals, the higher 145,538 value from the later-dated 2024 validation record was privileged over 127,975 from 2022, but the discrepancy increases over-crediting risk. For grid emission factor, the 2024 validation value (0.4607) was privileged over the 2013 value (0.52826) due to recency and alignment with the stated grid EF year (2020). For crediting period, the 2024 monitoring report’s 2019–2029 period was privileged over the 2020 monitoring report’s 2009–2019 period because it is more recent and consistent with an active monitoring period in 2022–2023; nevertheless, this contradiction is material and warrants clarification.