Vai al contenuto principale
GS Wind New Zealand Documentazione completa General Methodology v2.0

*Te Apiti Wind Farm

GS-1668 ↗

5.0 / 10
Integrity
6.7
Transparency
3.4
Claim Safety
5.2
Documentation
3.1

Score Breakdown

Integrity

verified Additionality was tested using an investment test and was confirmed by the VVB in the project document.

missing Leakage treatment is not addressed, and reversal risk is not clearly managed beyond the project being a wind farm.

Transparency

verified The project document identifies the project, crediting period, and baseline approach, giving some core project context.

missing Key MRV details such as the monitoring period, verifier name, and verified emissions figures are not stated in the extracted record.

Claim Safety

verified The project is a renewable-energy wind project, which generally lowers over-crediting risk compared with more complex land-use projects.

missing The baseline is project-specific rather than a clearly standardized or recently reassessed jurisdictional baseline, and leakage is not addressed.

Documentation

verified The record includes a project design document and shows no material findings or corrective actions required.

missing Extraction confidence is low, and only limited document coverage is visible in the extracted record.

Detailed Analysis

Integrity

The project document states that additionality was assessed with an investment test and that the VVB confirmed it, which is a meaningful positive for integrity. The same document reports no material findings and no corrective actions required. On the negative side, leakage is marked as not addressed and no leakage deduction is provided, so the integrity score is held back.

Transparency

Transparency is limited because the extracted record does not state the verifier name, monitoring period, or verified emissions totals. The project design document does provide the project identity, crediting period, and a project baseline approach, but the overall MRV picture remains incomplete. Low extraction confidence further reduces confidence in the documentation trail.

Claim Safety

Claim safety is moderate because this is a wind project, which is generally lower risk than many other credit types, and the project has VVB-confirmed additionality. Still, the baseline is project-specific rather than clearly standardized, leakage is not addressed, and there is no evidence in the extracted record for usage monitoring or other safeguards that would reduce over-crediting risk. With no CORSIA or CCP status stated, channel-risk clarity is also limited.

Documentation

The available evidence appears to come mainly from a project design document, with four documents used in extraction, but the record is sparse. The extraction confidence is low, which suggests at least one key source was difficult to read. Although no material findings or corrective actions were reported, the missing monitoring and registry details keep the documentation score low.

Overall

Overall, the project looks directionally credible because additionality was VVB-confirmed and no material findings were reported. However, the evidence base is incomplete, with low extraction confidence and several missing MRV fields, so confidence in the claim is only moderate. There are no contradictions listed in the merged facts, so no document-priority conflict needed to be resolved.

Audit Analysis

This is a wind project with VVB-confirmed additionality and no reported material findings, which supports integrity. However, the record is thin, the extraction confidence is low, and several key MRV and registry details are not stated, which weakens transparency and claim safety.

Project Description

Developer: Meridian Energy Ltd Type: Wind Size: Large scale Crediting period: 2008-04-29 → 2015-04-28 Estimated annual credits: 180000 tCO2e SDGs: Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy, Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, Goal 13: Climate Action

Red Flags

  • Leakage is not addressed, with no quantified deduction or justification found in the available record.
  • The project has low extraction confidence and missing monitoring/registry details, limiting confidence in the claims.

Credit Vintages

Issued Retired Available
2004
56,399 56,399 0
2005
183,663 183,663 0
2006
174,375 174,365 10
2007
191,374 191,027 347
Total 605,811 605,454 357

Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio

  • Provide the verification report and monitoring report with verified emissions totals, monitoring period, and verifier identity.
  • Document leakage treatment, buffer or reversal safeguards, and registry/channel status to clarify claim safety.

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

VVB-confirmed investment test

Permanence

No reversal evidence, but buffer status not stated

Leakage

Leakage not addressed

Baseline

Project baseline, reassessment timing unclear

Safeguards

FPIC and grievance mechanism present, but partial detail

Double-claim

CORSIA/CCP status not stated

Where to buy

+ Know where to buy this?

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

⚑ Dispute this rating
Analysis Provenance Scored 2026-04-10 General Methodology v2.0 Documentazione completa

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