Yiyang Xiushan Hydropower Project, P.R. China

Integrity

Additionality appears reasonably supported because the validation/verification record confirms an investment test and VVB confirmation. The baseline approach is project-specific (per the monitoring/validation documentation using ACM0002), and the extracted record does not state when the baseline was last reassessed, which weakens robustness over a long crediting period. Leakage is applied as a 0% deduction, but the monitoring record is inconsistent on whether leakage was quantified or not addressed, which undermines confidence in the leakage conclusion.

Transparency

The extracted record provides core MRV parameters such as the monitoring period (2012-09-23 to 2017-09-30), the grid emission factor (0.9436) and its reference year (2006), and identifies the VVB (Applus+). No material findings or corrective actions are reported in the extracted verification/monitoring record, which is a positive signal. However, transparency is weakened by major inconsistencies across official documents on ER totals and on whether leakage and safeguards were addressed.

Claim Safety

The project is stated as not CORSIA-eligible, which reduces risks of certain aviation-claims misuse. At the same time, the contradiction in verified ER totals between validation reports (2010 vs 2022) materially increases over-crediting risk perception because it is unclear which figure is authoritative. Leakage is also inconsistently described across monitoring reports while remaining at a 0% deduction, which can be problematic for conservative claims. CCP status is not found in the extracted record, leaving uncertainty for high-integrity claims.

Documentation

Documentation coverage appears relatively strong: the evidence list includes a PDD, monitoring report(s), validation report(s), and issuance records, with 13 documents used and high extraction confidence. The most recent extracted monitoring/validation documents are dated 2022-08-08/2022-08-09, which supports recency. Nonetheless, repeated contradictions across documents (safeguards, grievance mechanism, benefit sharing, FPIC, leakage treatment, crediting period, and ER totals) indicate weak document control and reduce confidence in the record as a whole.

Overall

This project benefits from VVB-confirmed additionality and a standard renewable methodology, but the extracted record contains several material contradictions that reduce confidence. For leakage justification, the 2022 monitoring report says leakage was not addressed while a 2010 monitoring report says it was quantified; I privilege the more recent 2022 statement for current documentation quality, and score down because either way the 0% deduction is not consistently supported. For safeguards/FPIC/grievance/benefit sharing, the 2022 monitoring report indicates these are present while the 2010 monitoring report indicates they are absent; I privilege the more recent 2022 report but still penalize due to inconsistency over time. For verified ERs, the 2022 validation report shows 1,076,341 versus 353,256 in the 2010 validation report; I privilege the more recent 2022 figure but apply a significant penalty because the discrepancy is large and unexplained. For the crediting period, I privilege the explicit 2007-10-01 to 2017-09-30 period stated in the 2022 monitoring report over the older validation report’s incomplete end date, but the inconsistency still reduces reliability.