Tadi 16 MW Hydropower Project In Zhejiang Province

Integrity

The monitoring report (2010-08-03) indicates additionality was confirmed by the VVB using an investment test and reports no material findings and no corrective actions. Baseline setting is project-specific (ACM0002 v07), and the grid emission factor is reported as 0.9046, but the grid EF vintage year and any baseline reassessment date are not found in the extracted record. Leakage is explicitly not addressed in the monitoring report and no leakage deduction is stated, which weakens accounting robustness.

Transparency

For the monitoring period 2008-01-01 to 2009-11-22, the monitoring report (2010-08-03) reports 97,521 tCO2e claimed and 97,521 tCO2e verified, suggesting a consistent verification outcome. The VVB is identified as Bureau Veritas Certification Holding SAS, supporting audit traceability. However, several contextual MRV details are missing in the extracted record (for example, the grid EF year and leakage quantification), limiting reproducibility from the extracted data alone.

Claim Safety

The project is marked as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces the risk of certain aviation-related claims. Still, the baseline is project-specific and the extracted record does not show when it was last reassessed, increasing uncertainty around baseline conservativeness over time. In addition, leakage is not addressed in the monitoring report, which increases residual over-crediting/claim risk because a potential deduction is neither justified nor quantified.

Documentation

The extracted record includes a monitoring report, validation report, and PDD, with high extraction confidence and a relatively large number of documents used (8). The monitoring report (2010-08-03) shows no corrective actions required, which supports completeness for that period. Nevertheless, contradictions across documents on safeguards/FPIC and the crediting period indicate documentation inconsistency that reduces confidence in the overall record.

Overall

Overall scoring is pulled down mainly by evidence gaps on leakage and baseline reassessment, plus cross-document inconsistencies. On safeguards, the validation report (2009-06-26) indicates safeguards were mentioned, while the monitoring report (2010-08-03) indicates they were not; the more recent monitoring report is privileged for the score because it reflects what was actually reported during monitored implementation, but the contradiction reduces confidence. On FPIC, the PDD (2009-06-15) indicates FPIC was conducted while the monitoring report (2010-08-03) indicates it was not; again the monitoring report is privileged as the later implementation-period document, and the inconsistency is treated as a reliability red flag. On the crediting period, two validation reports conflict (2009-06-26 shows 2009-10-01—2016-09-30; 2010-09-27 shows 2008-01-01—2009-11-22); the period matching the monitoring report (2008-01-01—2009-11-22) is privileged because it aligns with verified issuance for the monitored interval, but the contradiction materially weakens documentation reliability.