India · Hydropower (ACM0002) · Read by the checks: Project description + supporting document + 2 monitoring reports + verification report + validation report, 444 pages · Verra registry page
Signal, not verdict. These findings summarize what the project documents say and where. They are not a rating, a certification or an ICVCM assessment, and they can be wrong.
Looked up by methodology code in table version 2026-10-15. No model is involved, and this status is kept apart from the AI-assisted findings below.
0xdb7b…465b(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)version 4; earlier versions stay readabledeepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flashtypesafe/jev-1.13Third-party models, not developed by this team.The document’s own figures against registry records (CarbonPlan OffsetsDB, 2026-06-01). A flag is a lead for a reviewer, not a finding of wrongdoing.
Issuance is within 20% of the document: 2012-2020: issued 24,671,871 t, document 31,877,253 t (0.77x, table on page 9).
Issued credits per vintage over monitored net reductions (2020-2021): 2020: 1.13, 2021: 1.78. 0 of 2 vintages are at or below the monitored figure (a ratio below 1 is expected where a buffer share is withheld). Above it: 2020, 2021, a vintage the monitoring reports read cover only in part, so a later period may hold the rest.
Across 9 vintages, retired volume never exceeds issued volume.
Document and registry both give ACM0002.
No project in the same country with a closely matching name.
Every number, page and table read is in checks/VCS1742.json.
AI-assisted checks: 12 of 15 found evidence in the excerpt read for their principle, each citing the paragraph it came from.
Tested on 177 labelled questions from 11 projects (short 2,500-character excerpts), the checks were right 94% of the time (95% interval 89%–96%). Reports read longer excerpts, which find more: of 61 findings the short excerpts missed, 46 were confirmed (75%, judged by an AI reviewer, who agreed with a person on 18 of 19 spot checks). How this was measured.
Robustness: deleting the paragraphs that held the evidence turned 87% of “found” answers to “not found”, and unrelated text got “not found” on 177 of 177 questions. A paragraph planted in the document telling the model to answer “yes” changed 0 answers; one telling it to answer “no” changed 71%, which is why such paragraphs are screened out before a model reads the excerpt (the screen is a pattern match and can miss new wordings). Robustness tests.
Excerpt read: 21,624 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 2 of 4 checks (A1, A4); not found in the excerpt: A2, A3.
“Merchant Power Tariff 10.10% 9.80% 9.54% An increase in the merchant power tariff of 10% yields an IRR lesser than the benchmark. O&M Costs 9.63% 9.80% 9.98% A decrease in O&M costs is not anticipated. However, even with a 10% decrease in these costs, the IRR remains lesser than the benchmark. Return on Equity (for 15.5%) 10.11% Even though 15.5% return on equity is not applicable to the proposed project activity for the determination of tariff as per the conditions of the PPA, nevertheless the IRR in this case still remains lesser than the benchmark. Generation 10.81% 9.80% 8.80% Even though the sensitivity analysis considers a 10% increase in generation, this scenario is not likely to occur. An increase in generation is not likely to exceed 5% in the project context, which would result in an IRR of 10.29%, which remains lesser than the benchmark. The results of the sensitivity analysis as presented in the table above, confirms that the project IRR remains below the benchmark (i.e. 11.45%) even after reasonable variations in the critical assumptions.i.e. the returns from the project activity without CDM revenues remains lower than returns that would make the project economically attractive for the investors. The project activity has been found sensitive to the following critical parameters:”
“B.4. Description of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified baseline scenario: >> As the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected hydro power plant/unit, as per ACM0002, Version 12.1.0, the baseline scenario is the following: Electricity delivered to the grid by the project activity would have otherwise been generated by the operation of grid-connected power plants and by the addition of new generation sources, as reflected in the combined margin (CM) calculations described in the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (Version 02) described step wise under section B.6. B.5. Description of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment and demonstration of additionality): >> As per the decision 17/cp.7, paragraph 43, a CDM project activity is additional if anthropogenic emissions of green house gases by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in absence of registered CDM project activity. The methodology requires the project proponent to determine the additionality based on ‘Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality’, Version 05.2. The step-wise approach to establish additionality of the project activity as per the additionality tool is provided below. Prior Consideration of CDM: “Guidance on the demonstration and assessment of prior consideration of the CDM” (EB49, Annex 22), states that for project activities with a start date before 2nd August 2008, for which the start date is prior to the date of publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation, the serious consideration of CDM in the decision to proceed with the implementation of the project activity is to be demonstrated. The following elements demonstrate project proponent’s serious consideration of CDM: a) During the project evaluation in June 2003, the JKHCL Board considered the necessity of CDM”
“funds to mitigate various risks associated with the project activity. The minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors of JKHCL held on 2nd June 2003 clearly state that the CDM revenues were essential to mitigate various risks inherent to the project activity. Subsequent to the in principal decision to take up the project for further evaluation and mandatory clearances, JKHCL entered into”
Emission-avoidance activity without stored carbon at risk of reversal; permanence is not applicable (rule based on project category, not AI).
Not scored for this activity type (no reversal risk).
Excerpt read: 22,094 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 4 of 4 checks (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4).
“The baseline emissions as discussed in MR will include emissions that would have occurred in the absence of the project activity. The emission reduction calculation has been done as per the methodology ACM0002 - Version 12.1.0. BEy = EGPJ,y * EFgrid,CM,y Where, BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2/yr) EGPJ,y = Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result of the implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh/yr) EFgrid,CM,y = Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation in year y calculated using the latest version of the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (tCO2/MWh) Since the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected renewable power plant/unit at a site where no renewable power plant was operated prior to the implementation of the project activity, therefore: EGPJ,y = EGfacility,y EGfacility,y = Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year y (MWh/yr) The calculation of yearly baseline emissions is provided in the table below: BEy = 1,695,340.87 X 0.8031 = 1,361,528 tCO2e BEy = 1,361,528 tCO2e (Rounded Down value) The value of net electricity exported has been conservatively calculated deducting the energy imported and auxiliary consumption. All the export and import values were verified from the daily energy logs. Ex-ante Parameters:”
“Project does not involve any leakage emissions other than methodology requirement for hydro power project. Hence there are no any extra Leakage Management Plan and risk mitigation measures are required.”
“The baseline emissions as discussed in MR will include emissions that would have occurred in the absence of the project activity. The emission reduction calculation has been done as per the methodology ACM0002 - Version 12.1.0. BEy = EGPJ,y * EFgrid,CM,y Where, BEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2/yr) EGPJ,y = Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into the grid as a result of the implementation of the CDM project activity in year y (MWh/yr) EFgrid,CM,y = Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power generation in year y calculated using the latest version of the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (tCO2/MWh) Since the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected renewable power plant/unit at a site where no renewable power plant was operated prior to the implementation of the project activity, therefore: EGPJ,y = EGfacility,y EGfacility,y = Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project plant/unit to the grid in year y (MWh/yr) The calculation of yearly baseline emissions is provided in the table below: BEy = 1,695,340.87 X 0.8031 = 1,361,528 tCO2e BEy = 1,361,528 tCO2e (Rounded Down value) The value of net electricity exported has been conservatively calculated deducting the energy imported and auxiliary consumption. All the export and import values were verified from the daily energy logs. Ex-ante Parameters:”
“As per section B.7 and Annex-4 of the PDD/PDD-T/, monitoring plan of the project activity comprises all relevant monitoring parameters given in the applied monitoring methodology. The methodology i.e. ACM0002, Version 12.1, stipulates that monitoring shall consist continuous monitoring and at least monthly recording of quantity of net electricity supplied by the project activity to the grid in year y (EGfacility,”
Excerpt read: 24,321 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 2 of 3 checks (D1, D2); not found in the excerpt: D3.
“India is Non-annex1 country and there is no compliance with an emission trading program or to meet binding limits on GHG emissions for this project activity. The project is registered under CDM and UNFCCC (Registration ID 49934). The project is also approved by the DNA and a copy of the approval is also submitted to the DOE. Project Proponent has submitted undertaking that they will not claim same GHG emission reductions of the project from CDM and VCS. PP would not use net GHG emission reductions by the projects for compliance with emission trading program to meet binding limits on GHG emissions.”
“The current project activity is not receiving or seeking credits for reductions and removals from a project activity under another GHG program other than VCS. Verification team checked independently other registries such as UNFCCC CDM 3, Gold Standard for the Global Goals (GS4GG4), Global Carbon Council (GCC5), International Carbon Registry (ICR6) /25//26//27//26/ and confirmed that project is not participating in any other GHG programs other than VCS program. Also, International REC (I- REC) registry (https://www.irecstandard.org/) is cross-checked and found that this project is not under I-REC as well. Thus, double counting for the current monitoring period is ruled out.”
Excerpt read: 22,056 characters chosen by keyword, not the whole document
Evidence found for 4 of 4 checks (S1, S2, S3, S4).
“Year 2007 (Initial LSC conducted at the time of registration).”
“3 Nichar Yula 4 Nichar Meeru 5 Nichar Panwi 6 Nichar Urni 7 Nichar Katgaon 8 Kalpa Kamru 9 Kalpa Sapni 10 Kalpa Kilba 11 Kalpa Mewar rali 12 Kalpa Roghi The methodology for the above mentioned techniques, such as FGD and PRA. FGDs were conducted wherever a group could be organised and the discussion was based on a comprehensive FGD checklist. Interviews were conducted with individual informants like shopkeepers, Gram Pradhans etc. Discussion and Debriefing was the primary method of data collection while interacting with government officials and members of NGOs. Within each Panchayat, the study team endeavoured to meet the community from all associated villages and hamlets. It was considered important to use participatory techniques in interaction with the community. Hence each group interaction started with a PRA and social mapping exercise, which always attracted a large number of people especially youth. After mapping, FGDs were initiated using the FGD checklist as reference. The team also made sure that men and women from both tribal and non-tribal households and all possible socio-economic groups were covered and their views documented. During interactions, the team found that in some villages, women were less vocal in front of men hence separate interactions with women were also organised at several sites. The process ensured that women and people from the tribal community freely shared their opinions and feedback regarding the project. Besides above mentioned procedures, a more intensive data collection exercise was conducted with stakeholders being provided a brief on the project activity and a survey questionnaire to gauge their level of knowledge and understanding of the project activity. This exercise also involved understanding specific comments or issues the stakeholders may have with respect to the said project activity being undertaken by JKHCL, besides apprising them of the contribution of the project to GHG abatement and mitigation of climate change. The study began with an identification of the local stakeholders in the region where the project activity is being undertaken. As mentioned before, by virtue of being a run of river project, there was minimal displacement of inhabitants and the stakeholders were identified as parties being directly or indirectly impacted by the said project activity. Accordingly, the stakeholders identified for the proposed project activity are as follows: 1. Local population • Various sections from the community o SC (Scheduled Caste) o ST (Scheduled Tribe) o OBC (Other Backward Classes)”
“PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 66 The Stakeholder Consultation Report primarily deals with socio-economic impact of the project activity and provided an opportunity for the local population to express their viewpoints and comments with respect to the project. A total of eighteen community level consultation events were held during the study wherein approximately 412 people participated. In addition, 29 other stakeholders from PRIs, Government departments and local NGOs were covered. A summary of the various categories of stakeholders consulted during this process is provided in the table below. This table also provides data on the number of stakeholders consulted, issues discussed and tools used with respect to different stakeholders are mentioned in the following table: Stakeholders Stakeholder Type Number Purpose of Consultation”
“Comment from Local Villagers Response of Project Proponent The rock structure in the region is not solid enough to bear the impact of blasting as the mountains shake during blasting conducted underground, resulting in cracks in houses.”
“Ongoing consultation Project Proponent has submitted the feedback register kept at site for the ongoing communication with the local stakeholders. VVB confirmed that at the onsite audit and interviews/19/ & submitted grievance register/15/. In plant site office seeking complaints/grievances from local community as a part of ongoing communication with stakeholders in line with clause 3.18.3 of VCS Standard, v.4.7.”
“The grievance logbook/15/ is always available at the site and office for stakeholders to write in or ask for assistance to write any inquiry. No any grievance received during current monitoring period. The verification team confirmed the same from the grievance register maintained by the PP.”
“- Environmental monitoring will be ensured through a District level Inter Departmental Monitoring Committee under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur with representatives from all the concerned departments and the Proponents. This Committee will meet periodically for compliance of the recommendations as detailed in Table 9.1 of Vol. I. of EIA Report. The Project Proponents have made sufficient provision in the Project Cost to carryout CAT Plan and EMP to mitigate adverse impacts and maximize beneficial impacts. Further, the detailed measures and costs related to the EMP have been provided in Appendix II.”
“PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 CDM – Executive Board page 61 SECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments >> E.1. Brief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: >> The project activity being undertaken by JKHCL is the construction of a run of river hydro electric development on the river Satluj of 1000 MW generation capacity. The project is designed with minimal storage thus eliminating the huge storage area required by the reservoirs in such large dams. By virtue of being a run of river design the project proponent is minimizing displacement of people of the region and thus mitigating one major adverse impact of such large scale hydro-electric projects. However, JKHCL being a socially and environmentally responsible organization has endeavoured to do a detailed stakeholder consultation process with special emphasis on the socio-environmental impact of the project on the region. Since it is a run-of-river project there is no substantial displacement of people. Nevertheless JKHCL has ensured proper measures for addressing every possible impact of the project on the local stakeholders. This is a voluntary initiative by the project proponent and has been conducted by an independent third party, Sharnam Sewa Samiti (SSS) which is a NGO specializing in such social assessments. The study was done in an independent manner with direct interaction with local stakeholders to provide an unbiased picture of the concerns and comments of these stakeholders. In order to understand issues associated with the project, baseline data related to the demography in the project area was considered vital. The study utilized baseline data from secondary sources such as Census, the District Statistical Hand Book and the Planning Department, Earthquake and Dam breach sensitivity research studies by Indian Institute of Technology, EIA study and the Environmental Management Plan conducted by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). Primary data has been collected mainly through the consultation with the community members and interviews of PRI representatives from project villages. Extensive desk review was done prior to the fieldwork to enable in depth orientation of the team. The study conducted was structured in the following manner:”
“PP has also described the other environmental and social benefits in section A.2 of the PDD/PDD-T/ and the same are assessed and identified through the interviews of project proponent and local stakeholders i.e. employees, local peoples and from the local stakeholder consultaion report/LSC/. However, TÜV NORD also identified negative impacts caused by the project, particularly concerning resettlement and rehabilitation of locals as well as disposal of spoils from construction works/mh//drp/. Though there were also some minor negative comments from stakeholders in stakeholder consultation process as mentioned in the section E.2 of final PDD the PP has taken actions to address those concerns. DOE has also carried out the thourough stakeholder meeting and had positive comments from the stakeholders and thus concluded that proposed project activitycontributes towards sustainable development of host country.”
“Consent The project secured consent through inclusive community consultations, involving Indigenous Peoples (IPs), Local Communities (LCs), and customary right holders. Extensive engagement, transparent information sharing, and acknowledgment of customary rights were key. Consent was documented in clear agreements accessible to all stakeholders. Conflict resolution mechanisms and ongoing engagement ensure a responsive approach. Continuous monitoring and evaluation demonstrate the commitment to transparency and positive community outcomes. The absence of ongoing conflicts reflects the project's success in aligning with stakeholder interests and maintaining a harmonious relationship with the community.”
“Outcome of FPIC No complaints were received from Local Stakeholders. PP assures that the project has not encroached on land, relocated people without consent, and forced physical or economic displacement.”
Every version anchored on Sepolia stays readable: a retirement records the version current when it happened. Each file is hashed in your browser and compared with that version on the contract.
0xdb7b…465b(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x648f…178f(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x0316…0241(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)0x46a4…a301(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)Signal, not verdict. Each check says whether a specific kind of evidence is present in an excerpt of the submitted documents, not whether the evidence is true. Scores are not an ICVCM assessment, a rating of the project, or a statement about its real-world impact.
Report v4 anchor on Sepolia Etherscan(opens Sepolia Etherscan in a new tab)