{ "schema": "report-v2", "project": { "project_id": "VCS1728", "project_name": "Bundled Wind Power Project by Mytrah Group", "registry_url": "https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/1728", "methodology": "ACM0002", "methodology_version": "17.0" }, "document": { "file_name": "VCS Joint PD MR_Mytrah_V03_20122017_Clean.pdf", "sha256": "5c879cd740a01ed857dbd050d40df237c7eb5168fffe173e0e34889190368f7c", "pages": 75 }, "methodology_status": { "code": "ACM0002", "version": "17.0", "status": "not_approved", "summary": "In August 2024 ICVCM rejected current grid-connected renewable energy methodologies because their additionality tests were insufficiently rigorous.", "sources": [ "https://icvcm.org/carbon-credits-from-current-renewable-energy-methodologies-will-not-receive-high-integrity-ccp-label/", "https://calyxglobal.com/research-hub/commentary/icvcm-ccp-label-tracker" ], "table_version": "2026-10-15" }, "method": { "report_schema": "report-v2", "question_set_version": "qs-v2-checklist", "prompt_version": "checklist-v1", "evidence_rule": "yes-cites-excerpt-paragraph-v2", "excerpt_rule": "select_paragraphs(budget_chars=30000, overview_chars=0)", "llm_model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash", "second_opinion_model": "typesafe/jev-1.13", "methodology_table_version": "2026-10-15", "pdf_extractor": "pymupdf 1.28.2" }, "method_hash": "0xcbc09ba01911f0718fbc17bbfdb895ca5c498e02f8b51522917086118532df35", "principles": [ { "principle": "additionality", "status": "partial_evidence", "score": 75, "rationale": "Evidence found for 3 of 4 checks (A1, A2, A3); not found in the excerpt: A4.", "checks": [ { "id": "A1", "question": "Does the text report a quantified financial analysis: at least one numeric financial indicator (such as IRR or NPV) together with a benchmark or threshold value it is compared against?", "answer": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "p69-15", "page": 69, "text": "Equity IRR without CDM \nBenchmark (Equity IRR) \nFinal Results \n8.69% \n15.32%" } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.99, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null }, { "id": "A2", "question": "Does the text discuss common practice, i.e. whether similar activities are already widespread in the region or sector?", "answer": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "p40-05", "page": 40, "text": "Stepwise approach for common practice analysis has been carried out as per Methodological tool \n“Common Practice”, version 03.1 EB84, Annex 7: \n \nStep (1): Calculate applicable capacity or output range as +/-50% of the total design capacity or \noutput of the proposed project activity." }, { "paragraph_id": "p42-05", "page": 42, "text": "Thus, the proposed project activity is not a “common practice” within a sector in the \napplicable geographical area." }, { "paragraph_id": "p42-06", "page": 42, "text": "The above discussions show that wind power development is not a common practice and the \nproject activity is not financially attractive; hence the project activity is additional." } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.98, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null }, { "id": "A3", "question": "Does the text state that the project activity is not required by any law or regulation (regulatory surplus)?", "answer": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "p36-04", "page": 36, "text": " \nPower generation using wind energy is not a legal requirement or a mandatory option. \n \nThere are state and sectoral policies, framed primarily to encourage wind power projects. \nThese policies have also been drafted realizing the extent of risks involved in the projects \nand to attract private investments. \n \nThe Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (May 2007 Amendment) does not influence the choice of \nfuel used for power generation. \n \nThere is no legal requirement on the choice of a particular technology for power \ngeneration. \n \nOutcome of Sub-step 1b: Hence, both the alternatives enlisted above are found to comply with \nthe mandatory laws and regulations taking into account the enforcement of the legislations in the \nregion or country and EB decisions on national and/or sectoral policies and regulations. However, \nAlternative 2 has been selected as the appropriate baseline alternative for this project activity. \n \nStep 2: Investment analysis \n \nDetermine whether the proposed project activity is economically or financially less \nattractive than at least one other alternative, identified in step 1, without the revenue from \nthe sale of emission reductions credits. To conduct the investment analysis, use the \nfollowing sub-steps: \n \nSub-step 2a: Determine appropriate analysis method \nThe Project activity envisages to export the power to Indian grid and the revenues from the sale \nwould be generated in accordance with the terms and tariffs established in the Power Purchase \nAgreement (PPA). Thus, simple cost analysis (Option I) cannot be used as the analysis method \nas the sale of the units of generated electricity shall result in a revenue stream during the \noperations of the Project activity. \n \nIn the absence of the project activity grid electricity would have been the obvious choice for the \nProject which requires no investment. Hence investment comparison analysis (Option II) is also \nnot appropriate for the project activity. \n \n \nAfter eliminating Option I and Option II, the use of Benchmark analysis (Option III) is the method \nof analysis that has been selected as the most suitable method. This method determines the \nattractiveness of the project activity for the investors, as well as provides a measure of the \nviability of the investment to generate revenues during its operation, as compared with other" } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.95, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null }, { "id": "A4", "question": "Does the text state that carbon credit revenue was considered before or at the start of the project (prior consideration), for example with a date or a document?", "answer": "no", "evidence": [], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.65, "needs_review": true, "dropped": null } ], "quotes": [ { "text": "Equity IRR without CDM \nBenchmark (Equity IRR) \nFinal Results \n8.69% \n15.32%", "page": 69, "paragraph_id": "p69-15", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "Stepwise approach for common practice analysis has been carried out as per Methodological tool \n“Common Practice”, version 03.1 EB84, Annex 7: \n \nStep (1): Calculate applicable capacity or output range as +/-50% of the total design capacity or \noutput of the proposed project activity.", "page": 40, "paragraph_id": "p40-05", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "Thus, the proposed project activity is not a “common practice” within a sector in the \napplicable geographical area.", "page": 42, "paragraph_id": "p42-05", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "The above discussions show that wind power development is not a common practice and the \nproject activity is not financially attractive; hence the project activity is additional.", "page": 42, "paragraph_id": "p42-06", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": " \nPower generation using wind energy is not a legal requirement or a mandatory option. \n \nThere are state and sectoral policies, framed primarily to encourage wind power projects. \nThese policies have also been drafted realizing the extent of risks involved in the projects \nand to attract private investments. \n \nThe Indian Electricity Act, 2003 (May 2007 Amendment) does not influence the choice of \nfuel used for power generation. \n \nThere is no legal requirement on the choice of a particular technology for power \ngeneration. \n \nOutcome of Sub-step 1b: Hence, both the alternatives enlisted above are found to comply with \nthe mandatory laws and regulations taking into account the enforcement of the legislations in the \nregion or country and EB decisions on national and/or sectoral policies and regulations. However, \nAlternative 2 has been selected as the appropriate baseline alternative for this project activity. \n \nStep 2: Investment analysis \n \nDetermine whether the proposed project activity is economically or financially less \nattractive than at least one other alternative, identified in step 1, without the revenue from \nthe sale of emission reductions credits. To conduct the investment analysis, use the \nfollowing sub-steps: \n \nSub-step 2a: Determine appropriate analysis method \nThe Project activity envisages to export the power to Indian grid and the revenues from the sale \nwould be generated in accordance with the terms and tariffs established in the Power Purchase \nAgreement (PPA). Thus, simple cost analysis (Option I) cannot be used as the analysis method \nas the sale of the units of generated electricity shall result in a revenue stream during the \noperations of the Project activity. \n \nIn the absence of the project activity grid electricity would have been the obvious choice for the \nProject which requires no investment. Hence investment comparison analysis (Option II) is also \nnot appropriate for the project activity. \n \n \nAfter eliminating Option I and Option II, the use of Benchmark analysis (Option III) is the method \nof analysis that has been selected as the most suitable method. This method determines the \nattractiveness of the project activity for the investors, as well as provides a measure of the \nviability of the investment to generate revenues during its operation, as compared with other", "page": 36, "paragraph_id": "p36-04", "verification": "cited_paragraph" } ], "dropped_findings": 0, "review_flags": [ "models_disagree:A4" ], "excerpt": { "paragraphs": [ "p2-02", "p3-16", "p3-17", "p25-16", "p25-17", "p27-06", "p30-06", "p30-07", "p30-14", "p30-15", "p30-16", "p31-04", "p31-05", "p31-06", "p31-07", "p32-25", "p33-06", "p33-07", "p33-08", "p33-09", "p33-10", "p34-02", "p34-03", "p35-02", "p35-03", "p35-09", "p35-10", "p35-11", "p36-03", "p36-04", "p37-02", "p37-03", "p37-04", "p38-02", "p38-03", "p38-04", "p38-05", "p38-08", "p38-09", "p38-10", "p38-11", "p38-12", "p39-03", "p39-04", "p39-05", "p40-04", "p40-05", "p42-05", "p42-06", "p53-04", "p53-05", "p57-02", "p57-03", "p69-15" ], "chars": 29993 } }, { "principle": "permanence", "status": "not_applicable", "score": null, "rationale": "Emission-avoidance activity without stored carbon at risk of reversal; permanence is not applicable (rule based on project category, not AI).", "checks": [], "quotes": [], "dropped_findings": 0, "review_flags": [], "rule": "no_reversal_risk" }, { "principle": "robust_quantification", "status": "partial_evidence", "score": 50, "rationale": "Evidence found for 2 of 4 checks (Q1, Q4); not found in the excerpt: Q2, Q3.", "checks": [ { "id": "Q1", "question": "Does the text show how baseline emissions are calculated, with an equation, parameter values or a numeric result?", "answer": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "p55-04", "page": 55, "text": "Parameter \nUnit \nValue \nEGPJ, y: \nMWh \n1,290,068 \nEF grid, CM, y: \ntCO2e \n0.9653 \n \n= \n1,290,068*0. 9653" } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.98, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null }, { "id": "Q2", "question": "Does the text address leakage (emissions shifted outside the project boundary), either by quantifying it or by justifying why it is zero?", "answer": "no", "evidence": [], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.36, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null }, { "id": "Q3", "question": "Does the text address uncertainty or the use of conservative assumptions in the emission reduction estimate?", "answer": "no", "evidence": [], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.61, "needs_review": true, "dropped": null }, { "id": "Q4", "question": "Does the text describe a monitoring plan that names the parameters to be measured and how often or by what method?", "answer": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "p50-12", "page": 50, "text": "The Net electricity exported to the grid will be cross checked \nagainst the invoice raised by the PP towards the DISCOM" } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.79, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null } ], "quotes": [ { "text": "Parameter \nUnit \nValue \nEGPJ, y: \nMWh \n1,290,068 \nEF grid, CM, y: \ntCO2e \n0.9653 \n \n= \n1,290,068*0. 9653", "page": 55, "paragraph_id": "p55-04", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "The Net electricity exported to the grid will be cross checked \nagainst the invoice raised by the PP towards the DISCOM", "page": 50, "paragraph_id": "p50-12", "verification": "cited_paragraph" } ], "dropped_findings": 0, "review_flags": [ "models_disagree:Q3" ], "excerpt": { "paragraphs": [ "p1-08", "p1-09", "p2-02", "p3-12", "p3-13", "p3-14", "p3-16", "p3-17", "p27-03", "p27-04", "p28-09", "p28-10", "p28-11", "p30-09", "p30-10", "p30-11", "p30-12", "p30-13", "p30-14", "p30-15", "p31-03", "p31-04", "p31-05", "p32-25", "p33-02", "p33-03", "p33-04", "p33-05", "p33-06", "p35-10", "p35-11", "p37-02", "p37-03", "p38-02", "p38-03", "p38-04", "p42-11", "p42-12", "p43-02", "p43-03", "p43-04", "p44-12", "p44-13", "p44-14", "p44-15", "p45-04", "p45-05", "p45-06", "p45-07", "p45-08", "p45-09", "p45-10", "p45-19", "p45-20", "p46-02", "p46-03", "p46-04", "p46-07", "p46-08", "p46-11", "p46-12", "p46-13", "p47-06", "p47-08", "p47-09", "p50-06", "p50-12", "p50-13", "p50-17", "p51-06", "p51-07", "p55-02", "p55-03", "p55-04", "p72-03" ], "chars": 29991 } }, { "principle": "no_double_counting", "status": "partial_evidence", "score": 33, "rationale": "Evidence found for 1 of 3 checks (D2); not found in the excerpt: D1, D3.", "checks": [ { "id": "D1", "question": "Does the text state whether the project is registered, or issues credits, under another GHG program (e.g. CDM, Gold Standard)?", "answer": "no", "evidence": [], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.46, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null }, { "id": "D2", "question": "Does the text address other environmental credits or certificates (e.g. renewable energy certificates, I-RECs) or participation in an emissions trading scheme?", "answer": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "p25-12", "page": 25, "text": "The Project has no intend to generate any other form of GHG-related environmental credit for \nGHG emission reductions or removals claimed under the VCS Program." } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.93, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null }, { "id": "D3", "question": "Does the text address the host country's national accounting or registry, or a corresponding adjustment?", "answer": "no", "evidence": [], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.06, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null } ], "quotes": [ { "text": "The Project has no intend to generate any other form of GHG-related environmental credit for \nGHG emission reductions or removals claimed under the VCS Program.", "page": 25, "paragraph_id": "p25-12", "verification": "cited_paragraph" } ], "dropped_findings": 0, "review_flags": [], "excerpt": { "paragraphs": [ "p2-02", "p4-24", "p25-08", "p25-09", "p25-10", "p25-11", "p25-12", "p25-13", "p25-15", "p25-16", "p25-17", "p27-09", "p27-10", "p27-11", "p27-12", "p29-10", "p29-11", "p30-15", "p30-16", "p31-02", "p31-03", "p31-04", "p31-09", "p31-10", "p40-07", "p40-08", "p41-02", "p41-03", "p42-16", "p43-19", "p43-20", "p44-24", "p44-25", "p48-29", "p50-17", "p53-04", "p53-05", "p69-15" ], "chars": 20153 } }, { "principle": "safeguards", "status": "partial_evidence", "score": 50, "rationale": "Evidence found for 2 of 4 checks (S1, S2); not found in the excerpt: S3, S4.", "checks": [ { "id": "S1", "question": "Does the text describe a stakeholder consultation with specifics such as dates, places, participants or comments received?", "answer": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "p52-12", "page": 52, "text": "1. Mytrah Vayu (Indravati) Pvt. Ltd. \n10/11/2015 \n21/11/2015" } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.93, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null }, { "id": "S2", "question": "Does the text describe a grievance or complaint mechanism through which affected people can raise concerns?", "answer": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "p53-04", "page": 53, "text": "There were no other major comments or protest raised by the stakeholders and they were totally \nin support for setting up of these kinds of projects in the region. The PP also placed an grievance \nregister onsite in where the stakeholder can put down his/her complain and the same if found \ngenuine will be addressed immediately." } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.96, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null }, { "id": "S3", "question": "Does the text report an environmental impact assessment or an analysis of the project's environmental risks?", "answer": "no", "evidence": [], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.25, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null }, { "id": "S4", "question": "Does the text address the rights of local communities or indigenous peoples, such as free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) or benefit sharing?", "answer": "no", "evidence": [], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.18, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null } ], "quotes": [ { "text": "1. Mytrah Vayu (Indravati) Pvt. Ltd. \n10/11/2015 \n21/11/2015", "page": 52, "paragraph_id": "p52-12", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "There were no other major comments or protest raised by the stakeholders and they were totally \nin support for setting up of these kinds of projects in the region. The PP also placed an grievance \nregister onsite in where the stakeholder can put down his/her complain and the same if found \ngenuine will be addressed immediately.", "page": 53, "paragraph_id": "p53-04", "verification": "cited_paragraph" } ], "dropped_findings": 0, "review_flags": [], "excerpt": { "paragraphs": [ "p2-02", "p40-07", "p40-08", "p52-10", "p52-11", "p52-12", "p53-02", "p53-03", "p53-04", "p53-05", "p54-02", "p54-03" ], "chars": 13492 } } ], "overall": { "score": 55, "included": [ "additionality", "robust_quantification", "no_double_counting", "safeguards" ], "excluded": [ "permanence" ], "weights": { "additionality": 0.25, "permanence": 0.2, "robust_quantification": 0.25, "no_double_counting": 0.15, "safeguards": 0.15 } }, "disclaimer": "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.", "generated_at": "2026-10-19T16:50:58+00:00" }