Shandong Yishui Tangwangshan Wind Farm Project

Integrity

The project applies ACM0002 with a project-specific baseline approach, and additionality is supported via an investment test confirmed by the VVB (validation/verification record). Leakage is recorded as a 0% deduction, but leakage is not addressed/justified in the extracted record (monitoring report, 2022-10-28), which weakens robustness. No material findings are reported, but the presence of multiple corrective actions (including start-date and metering/calibration clarifications) suggests implementation/MRV weaknesses that can affect integrity (monitoring report, 2022-10-28).

Transparency

The monitoring period (2020-05-05 to 2021-12-31), VVB identity (Applus+), and both claimed and verified ER totals are disclosed in the monitoring report dated 2022-10-28, supporting basic transparency. However, the monitoring report lists several corrective actions, including requests to state calibration information for all electricity meters and to resolve start-date inconsistencies, which reduces MRV clarity and comparability. The extracted record also shows conflicting values across documents (e.g., grid emission factor and ER totals), which undermines transparent, consistent reporting.

Claim Safety

The project is marked as not CORSIA-eligible, which lowers the risk of high-impact aviation claims based on these credits (extracted record). Over-crediting risk is elevated by contradictions in key quantification inputs and outputs: the grid emission factor differs between the monitoring report (2022-10-28) and the validation report (2021-05-26), and verified ERs differ sharply across documents. With CCP status not stated in the extracted record, buyers have less assurance about alignment with higher-integrity labels.

Documentation

The extracted record indicates a broad evidence base (PDD, monitoring report, validation report, issuance) and 26 documents used, with high extraction confidence, which supports a solid documentation score. Nonetheless, the monitoring report (2022-10-28) includes multiple corrective actions (including LoA requests and metering/start-date clarifications), implying that key documentation elements were incomplete or inconsistent at audit time. These issues reduce confidence that the documentation is consistently complete across the project lifecycle.

Overall

Key contradictions materially affect confidence. For verified ERs, I privilege the monitoring report value (40,887; 2022-10-28) over the validation report figure (127,933; 2021-05-26) because monitoring/verification outputs are period-specific and typically supersede validation-stage estimates; the discrepancy still warrants a score penalty. For the grid emission factor, I privilege the monitoring report value (0.8405; 2022-10-28) over the validation report value (0.9309; 2021-05-26) because it is tied to the monitored period, but the inconsistency signals quantification risk. For the crediting period, I privilege the more recent monitoring report (2020-05-12 to 2030-05-11; 2022-10-28) over the earlier monitoring report (2010-05-12 to 2020-05-11; 2021-05-18), but the conflict creates eligibility/issuance uncertainty. For safeguards, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing, and FPIC, I privilege the more recent monitoring report (2022-10-28) indicating these are present, while noting the earlier monitoring report (2013-12-26) indicates they were absent; this suggests either retroactive adoption or inconsistent disclosure and reduces confidence.