San Jacinto Tizate geothermal project

Integrity

Additionality appears reasonably supported because the extracted record indicates an investment test and that additionality was confirmed by TÜV SÜD. However, integrity is weakened by the monitoring report (2021) listing a corrective action that the project was not implemented in accordance with the registered PDD, which can undermine baseline and monitoring assumptions. Leakage is also weakly treated: the monitoring report (2021) says leakage was not addressed and no leakage deduction is stated in the extracted record.

Transparency

The extracted record provides several core MRV fields (TÜV SÜD as VVB, monitoring period 2011-01-01 to 2012-05-31, ACM0002 v4.0, and a grid emission factor of 0.754). Transparency is reduced by inconsistencies across documents, including conflicting claimed ERR values across monitoring reports and a mismatch where verified ERR (76,651) exceeds claimed ERR (44,468), which complicates traceability of what was actually asserted versus verified.

Claim Safety

Claim safety benefits from the project being explicitly not CORSIA-eligible, lowering the risk of certain aviation-related claims. Over-crediting risk remains material because the baseline is project-specific and no baseline reassessment date is found in the extracted record, while leakage is inconsistently handled (negligible in an earlier monitoring report versus not addressed in a later one). The corrective action about non-implementation versus the registered PDD further increases the risk that public claims could overstate performance or compliance.

Documentation

Documentation coverage is relatively strong: the evidence list includes the PDD, validation report, monitoring report, and issuance, with 20 documents used and high extraction confidence. Nonetheless, reliability is weakened by repeated contradictions between the PDD/validation and the monitoring report on FPIC, safeguards, grievance mechanism, and benefit sharing, suggesting either changes over time not clearly documented or inconsistent reporting.

Overall

I privileged the more recent monitoring report (2021-04-18) over older PDD/validation statements for operational realities, which leads to a more conservative view on safeguards (FPIC, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing) and leakage treatment. Specifically: FPIC, grievance mechanism, and benefit sharing are treated as not evidenced in practice because the monitoring report contradicts the PDD; safeguards are treated as not clearly demonstrated because the monitoring report contradicts the validation report; and leakage is treated as inadequately addressed because the later monitoring report says it was not addressed despite an earlier monitoring report deeming it negligible. ERR contradictions across monitoring reports and the claimed-versus-verified mismatch reduce confidence and pull down integrity, transparency, and claim safety scores.