Vai al contenuto principale
CDM ENERGY Vintage 2025 Solo marketplace General Methodology v2.0

Olkaria IV Geothermal Project

XEP-320d56

1.6 / 10
Integrity
2.2
Transparency
0.8
Claim Safety
2.0
Documentation
1.2

Score Breakdown

Integrity

missing Additionality approach, baseline method, leakage treatment, and any non-conformities are not found in the extracted record (no documents provided)

inferred Geothermal is typically a low-reversal-risk technology, but permanence and leakage provisions are not evidenced in available documents

Transparency

missing VVB identity, monitoring period, and any claimed vs verified ER figures are not found in the extracted record

missing Registry/MRV completeness cannot be assessed because no evidence documents were captured

Claim Safety

missing CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are not found in the extracted record, leaving double-claim/market-eligibility risk unresolved

missing Over-crediting risk cannot be evaluated because baseline and monitoring assumptions are not available

Documentation

missing No evidence documents were captured (0 documents used), indicating severe documentation gaps

missing Low extraction confidence reduces reliability of any absence-of-evidence conclusions

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

No validation/verification, PDD, or monitoring report content is available in the extracted record (0 documents), so additionality testing, baseline selection, leakage treatment, and any material findings/corrective actions cannot be confirmed. The minimum extraction confidence is low, which further increases the chance that key integrity-relevant details were missed or unreadable. As a result, integrity must be scored conservatively due to major evidence gaps.

Transparency

The extracted record does not include the VVB name, monitoring period, or any quantified claimed-versus-verified emission reductions, so MRV transparency cannot be assessed. With no evidence documents listed and low extraction confidence, registry completeness and public traceability are effectively unverified. This warrants a low transparency score driven by missing primary sources.

Claim Safety

Because baseline method, leakage justification/deductions, and any usage or grid-related parameters are not available in the extracted record, over-crediting risk cannot be evaluated. CORSIA eligibility and CCP status are also not found, leaving market-eligibility and double-claim signaling unresolved. Given these unknowns, claim safety is scored low to reflect elevated greenwashing risk from insufficient substantiation.

Documentation

The extracted record shows zero documents used and an empty evidence document list, indicating that core CDM documentation (PDD, validation report, monitoring report, verification/certification report) was not captured. The minimum extraction confidence is low, suggesting at least one key source was poorly readable and undermining completeness. Documentation quality is therefore very weak.

Overall

There are no listed contradictions in the extracted record, but this is not reassuring because no underlying documents were captured to cross-check values. With severe evidence gaps across additionality, baseline, leakage, MRV, and eligibility, the project cannot be credibly scored higher without reviewing primary CDM documents. Note: under the gate rules, a documentation score below 3.0 would cap transparency post-scoring.

Audit Analysis

The extracted record contains no usable project documentation beyond basic identifiers, so core quality elements (additionality, baseline, leakage, and monitoring performance) cannot be substantiated. Given the low extraction confidence and zero documents captured, the project should be treated as high uncertainty and high over-crediting/greenwashing risk until primary CDM documents are reviewed.

Project Description

ENERGY

Red Flags

  • No project documents were captured in the extracted record (0 documents), preventing validation of additionality, baseline, leakage, or monitoring results
  • Minimum extraction confidence is low, indicating at least one key document was poorly readable and increasing the risk of missing or incorrect facts

Credit Vintages

Nessuna emissione registrata sul registro.

Il marketplace dichiara i vintage: 2025 (non verificato).

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

  • Provide and extract the CDM PDD, validation report, and the latest monitoring and verification/certification reports so additionality, baseline, leakage, and MRV performance can be evidenced
  • Add registry-linked issuance/verification data (monitoring period, ERs claimed vs verified, VVB identity, and any CARs/CLs) and clarify CORSIA eligibility/CCP status to reduce claim and double-claim uncertainty

Questi suggerimenti indicano quali prove pubbliche aggiuntive potrebbero migliorare il livello di confidenza di questa valutazione. Non garantiscono un punteggio futuro più alto.

Risk Indicators

Additionality

No additionality evidence found

Permanence

Low reversal risk but not evidenced

Leakage

Leakage treatment not found

Baseline

Baseline method not found

Safeguards

Safeguards not found

Double-claim

Eligibility/CCP status not stated

Where to buy

Marketplaces

+ Know where to buy this?

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

⚑ Dispute this rating
Analysis Provenance Scored 2026-04-02 General Methodology v2.0 Solo marketplace

Sei il proprietario di questo progetto?

Correzione metadati (gratuita)

Nome, paese, marketplace o link errati? Segnalacelo.

Non modifica lo score.

[email protected]

Rivalutazione con nuovi documenti

Hai documentazione aggiornata non ancora inclusa? Puoi richiedere un nuovo run della pipeline con i nuovi input.

Invia Documenti