WEST HUAYBONG 3 WIND FARM PROJECT
Score Breakdown
Integrity
verified Additionality was confirmed by the VVB, and the validation record shows a combined additionality test rather than no test at all.
missing Leakage is not addressed in the 2025 verification report, and the record shows no buffer pool or quantified leakage deduction.
Transparency
verified The project has a named VVB, a defined monitoring period, and a recent verification report dated 2025-03-11.
missing Total verified and claimed emission reductions are not stated in the extracted record, and the extraction confidence is low.
Claim Safety
verified The project uses ACM0002 with a project baseline and is a Gold Standard certified renewable-energy project.
missing Leakage treatment is unclear, and the record contains a contradiction between an earlier quantified leakage treatment and the latest verification report saying it was not addressed.
Documentation
verified Multiple official document types were used, including validation, monitoring, verification, PDD, and stakeholder consultation materials.
missing Four corrective actions were required, and the extraction confidence is low, suggesting incomplete or hard-to-read source material.
Detailed Analysis
Integrity
The verification report dated 2025-03-11 confirms additionality by the VVB, and the validation record indicates a combined additionality test. However, leakage is marked as not addressed in the latest verification report, with no buffer pool percentage or reversal treatment clearly documented in the extracted record, which weakens the integrity assessment.
Transparency
Transparency is moderate because the project has a named verifier, a defined monitoring period from 2021-11-01 to 2023-12-31, and a recent verification report. That said, the extracted record does not state total claimed or verified emission reductions, and the low extraction confidence suggests at least one key document was difficult to read.
Claim Safety
Claim safety is middling: the project is a Gold Standard certified wind farm using ACM0002, which supports a standardised renewable baseline. But the latest verification report says leakage is not addressed, and the record does not provide CORSIA or CCP status, so over-crediting and claim-quality risk remain.
Documentation
Documentation quality is limited by the low extraction confidence and the presence of four corrective actions in the verification report. The file set is reasonably broad, with validation, monitoring, verification, PDD, and stakeholder consultation documents, but the record still leaves key items unstated, including verified issuance figures and reversal treatment.
Overall
I privileged the 2025 verification report over older validation and monitoring records where they conflicted, because it is the most recent and should reflect the current audited status. That means I treated leakage as not addressed despite an earlier monitoring report reportedly quantifying it, and I also treated the newer verification report as more relevant for safeguards and grievance mechanism status than the older validation report. The contradictions reduce reliability, especially around leakage, safeguards, and crediting-period details, so the overall score is held below a strong-credit threshold.
Audit Analysis
This is a certified wind project with VVB-confirmed additionality and a recent verification report, but the evidence package has several reliability gaps. Leakage is not addressed in the latest verification record, multiple corrective actions were required, and the extraction confidence is low, which weakens confidence in the documentation and claims.
Project Description
The activity involves installation of large scale commercial wind farm in Thailand to supply clean renewable electricity to the Thailand grid. The scenario existing prior to the start of the project, which is the same as the baseline scenario, is the supply of electricity from power plants connected to the grid. The project will consist of 45 turbines 2.3 MW capacity with the total installed capacity of 103.5 MW.
Red Flags
- The latest verification report says leakage is not addressed, while an earlier monitoring report reportedly quantified it, creating a material inconsistency.
- Four corrective actions were required and the extraction confidence is low, indicating documentation quality issues.
- Reversal risk is not clearly addressed in the extracted record, and the project is not an avoidance project with no reversal risk.
Credit Vintages
| Issued | Retired | Available | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 14,805 | 0 | 14,805 | |
| 2020 | 96,321 | 1,926 | 94,395 | |
| 2021 | 80,193 | 4,003 | 76,190 | |
| Total | 191,319 | 5,929 | 185,390 |
Cosa migliorerebbe questo punteggio
- Publish a clear, reconciled leakage assessment and explain why the latest verification report differs from the earlier monitoring report.
- Provide verified issuance figures, reversal treatment, and a complete public documentation set with readable source files and resolved corrective actions.
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
VVB-confirmed additionality
reversal risk not clearly addressed
leakage not addressed
project baseline, reassessment timing unclear
FPIC and grievance present, but inconsistently documented
CORSIA/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
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 →