Midilli Hydroelectric Power Plant

Integrity

The verification report confirms additionality through an investment test and says no reversal events were reported, which supports the project’s core environmental integrity. At the same time, leakage is marked as not addressed, and no buffer pool percentage is stated, so permanence and leakage treatment are only partially evidenced. The baseline is project-specific rather than standardized, and no baseline reassessment date is found, which limits robustness.

Transparency

The verification report identifies LGAI Technological Center, S.A. (Applus+ Certification) as the VVB and provides a monitoring period from 2020-07-01 to 2022-12-26. However, the extracted record has low extraction confidence, and the reported emissions figures conflict materially between 48,647 verified ERs and 183,208 claimed ERs. That inconsistency, plus the editorial error noted in the crediting period, reduces transparency.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is weakened by the unresolved leakage treatment and the use of a project baseline, both of which increase over-crediting risk relative to more conservative approaches. The project is marked as not CORSIA-eligible, which helps reduce dual-market claim risk, but CCP status is not stated. The large discrepancy between claimed and verified ER figures is a major caution signal for claim reliability.

Documentation

Documentation is mixed: the verification report lists material findings and corrective actions, and it says the CARs and CLs were successfully closed. But the record is incomplete on several important items, including buffer pool coverage, usage monitoring, and baseline reassessment timing. The low extraction confidence also means at least one key source was poorly readable, which lowers confidence in the documentation quality.

Overall

I privileged the 2023-11-16 verification report over older extracted values because it is the most recent and specific source, especially for leakage, safeguards, and verified emissions. Where contradictions exist, I treated them as reliability risks rather than averaging them: the emissions and crediting-period conflicts are material, and the later report’s values were used because they are more recent and tied to verification. Under the gate rules, the low documentation score would cap transparency post-scoring, and the integrity score remains above the 4.0 threshold, so no overall cap is triggered.