{ "schema": "report-v2", "project": { "project_id": "VCS1742", "project_name": "Hydroelectric Project in Kinnaur District in Himachal Pradesh", "registry_url": "https://registry.verra.org/app/projectDetail/VCS/1742", "methodology": "ACM0002", "methodology_version": "12.1.0" }, "document": { "file_name": "PL1742_VCS PD_HBPCL_V02_17042018_Clean.pdf", "sha256": "3454d2e7a5720a252172a576c7837e1b2f0b147c490a3f32c1267af8033c2641", "pages": 444, "extra_files": [ { "file_name": "4993 PDD.pdf", "sha256": "5b628305c25ac13b2bb4020de96d072e3148701bb0e7635fbfe0b964ed7f0401" }, { "file_name": "VCS MR 1742 JSW v03 20092021.pdf", "sha256": "3152518897bbe3e6fd4a0092012c968fb239ed92740e139cbea81f628f1c0cdd" }, { "file_name": "VCS MR 1742 01082022-31122022.pdf", "sha256": "ccc87f06ca7f46605f967f78636e1051cb71785e4cdc85bd8f5cc7aa2c0df547" }, { "file_name": "VCS VeR 1742 01082022-31122022.pdf", "sha256": "40bfa16c294fc320cb67e4c376ad475d7d8e80204438dd10649ea202049797d5" }, { "file_name": "4993 FValR.pdf", "sha256": "f981d1542ca17af650bed2167c89c645ca2f34a7cf807807b8fcd00e20bd4e00" } ] }, "methodology_status": { "code": "ACM0002", "version": "12.1.0", "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) on the project description + select_paragraphs(budget_chars=15000, overview_chars=0) on the other documents", "injection_screen": "injection-screen-v1", "review_rule": "person-decides-flagged-checks-v1", "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": "0x05f2d815a67e7bfa5eba473409b663801b86b6fe07d2b1da7ae10c8d96d862e5", "principles": [ { "principle": "additionality", "status": "partial_evidence", "score": 50, "rationale": "Evidence found for 2 of 4 checks (A1, A4); not found in the excerpt: A2, A3.", "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": "x1-p28-03", "page": 28, "text": "Merchant Power Tariff \n10.10% \n9.80% \n9.54% \nAn increase in the merchant power \ntariff of 10% yields an IRR lesser than \nthe benchmark. \nO&M Costs \n9.63% \n9.80% \n9.98% \nA decrease in O&M costs is not \nanticipated. However, even with a 10% \ndecrease in these costs, the IRR \nremains lesser than the benchmark. \nReturn on Equity (for \n15.5%) \n \n10.11% \n \nEven though 15.5% return on equity is \nnot applicable to the proposed project \nactivity for the determination of tariff \nas per the conditions of the PPA, \nnevertheless the IRR in this case still \nremains lesser than the benchmark. \nGeneration \n10.81% \n9.80% \n8.80% \nEven though the sensitivity analysis \nconsiders \na \n10% \nincrease \nin \ngeneration, this scenario is not likely \nto occur. An increase in generation is \nnot likely to exceed 5% in the \nproject context, which would result \nin an IRR of 10.29%, which remains \nlesser than the benchmark. \n \nThe results of the sensitivity analysis as presented in the table above, confirms that the project IRR \nremains below the benchmark (i.e. 11.45%) even after reasonable variations in the critical \nassumptions.i.e. the returns from the project activity without CDM revenues remains lower than returns \nthat would make the project economically attractive for the investors. \n \nThe project activity has been found sensitive to the following critical parameters:" } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.98, "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": "no", "evidence": [], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.26, "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": "no", "evidence": [], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.21, "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": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "x1-p13-07", "page": 13, "text": "B.4. \nDescription of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified \nbaseline scenario: \n \n>> \nAs the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected hydro power plant/unit, as per \nACM0002, Version 12.1.0, the baseline scenario is the following: \nElectricity delivered to the grid by the project activity would have otherwise been generated by the \noperation of grid-connected power plants and by the addition of new generation sources, as reflected in \nthe combined margin (CM) calculations described in the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an \nelectricity system” (Version 02) described step wise under section B.6. \n \nB.5. \nDescription of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below \nthose that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment \nand demonstration of additionality): \n>> \nAs per the decision 17/cp.7, paragraph 43, a CDM project activity is additional if anthropogenic \nemissions of green house gases by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in absence \nof registered CDM project activity. The methodology requires the project proponent to determine the \nadditionality based on ‘Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality’, Version 05.2. The \nstep-wise approach to establish additionality of the project activity as per the additionality tool is \nprovided below. \n \nPrior Consideration of CDM: \n \n“Guidance on the demonstration and assessment of prior consideration of the CDM” (EB49, Annex 22), \nstates that for project activities with a start date before 2nd August 2008, for which the start date is prior \nto the date of publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation, the serious consideration of \nCDM in the decision to proceed with the implementation of the project activity is to be demonstrated. \nThe following elements demonstrate project proponent’s serious consideration of CDM: \n \na) During the project evaluation in June 2003, the JKHCL Board considered the necessity of CDM" }, { "paragraph_id": "x1-p13-08", "page": 13, "text": "funds to mitigate various risks associated with the project activity. The minutes of the meeting of the \nBoard of Directors of JKHCL held on 2nd June 2003 clearly state that the CDM revenues were \nessential to mitigate various risks inherent to the project activity. Subsequent to the in principal \ndecision to take up the project for further evaluation and mandatory clearances, JKHCL entered into" } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.94, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null } ], "quotes": [ { "text": "Merchant Power Tariff \n10.10% \n9.80% \n9.54% \nAn increase in the merchant power \ntariff of 10% yields an IRR lesser than \nthe benchmark. \nO&M Costs \n9.63% \n9.80% \n9.98% \nA decrease in O&M costs is not \nanticipated. However, even with a 10% \ndecrease in these costs, the IRR \nremains lesser than the benchmark. \nReturn on Equity (for \n15.5%) \n \n10.11% \n \nEven though 15.5% return on equity is \nnot applicable to the proposed project \nactivity for the determination of tariff \nas per the conditions of the PPA, \nnevertheless the IRR in this case still \nremains lesser than the benchmark. \nGeneration \n10.81% \n9.80% \n8.80% \nEven though the sensitivity analysis \nconsiders \na \n10% \nincrease \nin \ngeneration, this scenario is not likely \nto occur. An increase in generation is \nnot likely to exceed 5% in the \nproject context, which would result \nin an IRR of 10.29%, which remains \nlesser than the benchmark. \n \nThe results of the sensitivity analysis as presented in the table above, confirms that the project IRR \nremains below the benchmark (i.e. 11.45%) even after reasonable variations in the critical \nassumptions.i.e. the returns from the project activity without CDM revenues remains lower than returns \nthat would make the project economically attractive for the investors. \n \nThe project activity has been found sensitive to the following critical parameters:", "page": 28, "paragraph_id": "x1-p28-03", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "B.4. \nDescription of how the baseline scenario is identified and description of the identified \nbaseline scenario: \n \n>> \nAs the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected hydro power plant/unit, as per \nACM0002, Version 12.1.0, the baseline scenario is the following: \nElectricity delivered to the grid by the project activity would have otherwise been generated by the \noperation of grid-connected power plants and by the addition of new generation sources, as reflected in \nthe combined margin (CM) calculations described in the “Tool to calculate the emission factor for an \nelectricity system” (Version 02) described step wise under section B.6. \n \nB.5. \nDescription of how the anthropogenic emissions of GHG by sources are reduced below \nthose that would have occurred in the absence of the registered CDM project activity (assessment \nand demonstration of additionality): \n>> \nAs per the decision 17/cp.7, paragraph 43, a CDM project activity is additional if anthropogenic \nemissions of green house gases by sources are reduced below those that would have occurred in absence \nof registered CDM project activity. The methodology requires the project proponent to determine the \nadditionality based on ‘Tool for the demonstration and assessment of additionality’, Version 05.2. The \nstep-wise approach to establish additionality of the project activity as per the additionality tool is \nprovided below. \n \nPrior Consideration of CDM: \n \n“Guidance on the demonstration and assessment of prior consideration of the CDM” (EB49, Annex 22), \nstates that for project activities with a start date before 2nd August 2008, for which the start date is prior \nto the date of publication of the PDD for global stakeholder consultation, the serious consideration of \nCDM in the decision to proceed with the implementation of the project activity is to be demonstrated. \nThe following elements demonstrate project proponent’s serious consideration of CDM: \n \na) During the project evaluation in June 2003, the JKHCL Board considered the necessity of CDM", "page": 13, "paragraph_id": "x1-p13-07", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "funds to mitigate various risks associated with the project activity. The minutes of the meeting of the \nBoard of Directors of JKHCL held on 2nd June 2003 clearly state that the CDM revenues were \nessential to mitigate various risks inherent to the project activity. Subsequent to the in principal \ndecision to take up the project for further evaluation and mandatory clearances, JKHCL entered into", "page": 13, "paragraph_id": "x1-p13-08", "verification": "cited_paragraph" } ], "dropped_findings": 0, "review_flags": [], "excerpt": { "paragraphs": [ "p2-02", "p7-03", "p7-04", "p9-08", "p9-09", "p9-15", "x1-p13-07", "x1-p13-08", "x1-p17-25", "x1-p19-09", "x1-p20-01", "x1-p21-01", "x1-p21-02", "x1-p27-03", "x1-p28-03", "x1-p28-04", "x1-p31-03", "x1-p32-02", "x5-p46-13", "x5-p46-15", "x5-p68-04", "x5-p77-09" ], "chars": 21624 } }, { "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": "strong_evidence", "score": 100, "rationale": "Evidence found for 4 of 4 checks (Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4).", "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": "x4-p36-03", "page": 36, "text": "The baseline emissions as discussed in MR will include emissions that \nwould have occurred in the absence of the project activity. The emission \nreduction calculation has been done as per the methodology ACM0002 - \nVersion 12.1.0. \nBEy = EGPJ,y * EFgrid,CM,y \nWhere, \nBEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2/yr) \nEGPJ,y = Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into \nthe grid as a result of the implementation of the CDM project activity in \nyear y (MWh/yr) \nEFgrid,CM,y = Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power \ngeneration in year y calculated using the latest version of the “Tool to \ncalculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (tCO2/MWh) \n \nSince the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected \nrenewable power plant/unit at a site where no renewable power plant was \noperated prior to the implementation of the project activity, \n \ntherefore: EGPJ,y = EGfacility,y \n \nEGfacility,y = Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project \nplant/unit to the grid in year y (MWh/yr) \n \nThe calculation of yearly baseline emissions is provided in the table \nbelow: \nBEy = 1,695,340.87 X 0.8031 = 1,361,528 tCO2e \nBEy = 1,361,528 tCO2e (Rounded Down value) \n \nThe value of net electricity exported has been conservatively calculated \ndeducting the energy imported and auxiliary consumption. All the export \nand import values were verified from the daily energy logs. \n \nEx-ante Parameters:" } ], "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": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "p9-13", "page": 9, "text": "Project does not involve any leakage emissions other than methodology requirement for hydro \npower project. Hence there are no any extra Leakage Management Plan and risk mitigation \nmeasures are required." } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.92, "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": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "x4-p36-03", "page": 36, "text": "The baseline emissions as discussed in MR will include emissions that \nwould have occurred in the absence of the project activity. The emission \nreduction calculation has been done as per the methodology ACM0002 - \nVersion 12.1.0. \nBEy = EGPJ,y * EFgrid,CM,y \nWhere, \nBEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2/yr) \nEGPJ,y = Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into \nthe grid as a result of the implementation of the CDM project activity in \nyear y (MWh/yr) \nEFgrid,CM,y = Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power \ngeneration in year y calculated using the latest version of the “Tool to \ncalculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (tCO2/MWh) \n \nSince the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected \nrenewable power plant/unit at a site where no renewable power plant was \noperated prior to the implementation of the project activity, \n \ntherefore: EGPJ,y = EGfacility,y \n \nEGfacility,y = Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project \nplant/unit to the grid in year y (MWh/yr) \n \nThe calculation of yearly baseline emissions is provided in the table \nbelow: \nBEy = 1,695,340.87 X 0.8031 = 1,361,528 tCO2e \nBEy = 1,361,528 tCO2e (Rounded Down value) \n \nThe value of net electricity exported has been conservatively calculated \ndeducting the energy imported and auxiliary consumption. All the export \nand import values were verified from the daily energy logs. \n \nEx-ante Parameters:" } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.91, "needs_review": false, "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": "x5-p80-06", "page": 80, "text": "As per section B.7 and Annex-4 of the PDD/PDD-T/, monitoring plan of the project \nactivity comprises all relevant monitoring parameters given in the applied monitoring \nmethodology. The methodology i.e. ACM0002, Version 12.1, stipulates that \nmonitoring shall consist continuous monitoring and at least monthly recording of \nquantity of net electricity supplied by the project activity to the grid in year y (EGfacility," } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.87, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null } ], "quotes": [ { "text": "The baseline emissions as discussed in MR will include emissions that \nwould have occurred in the absence of the project activity. The emission \nreduction calculation has been done as per the methodology ACM0002 - \nVersion 12.1.0. \nBEy = EGPJ,y * EFgrid,CM,y \nWhere, \nBEy = Baseline emissions in year y (tCO2/yr) \nEGPJ,y = Quantity of net electricity generation that is produced and fed into \nthe grid as a result of the implementation of the CDM project activity in \nyear y (MWh/yr) \nEFgrid,CM,y = Combined margin CO2 emission factor for grid connected power \ngeneration in year y calculated using the latest version of the “Tool to \ncalculate the emission factor for an electricity system” (tCO2/MWh) \n \nSince the project activity is the installation of a new grid-connected \nrenewable power plant/unit at a site where no renewable power plant was \noperated prior to the implementation of the project activity, \n \ntherefore: EGPJ,y = EGfacility,y \n \nEGfacility,y = Quantity of net electricity generation supplied by the project \nplant/unit to the grid in year y (MWh/yr) \n \nThe calculation of yearly baseline emissions is provided in the table \nbelow: \nBEy = 1,695,340.87 X 0.8031 = 1,361,528 tCO2e \nBEy = 1,361,528 tCO2e (Rounded Down value) \n \nThe value of net electricity exported has been conservatively calculated \ndeducting the energy imported and auxiliary consumption. All the export \nand import values were verified from the daily energy logs. \n \nEx-ante Parameters:", "page": 36, "paragraph_id": "x4-p36-03", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "Project does not involve any leakage emissions other than methodology requirement for hydro \npower project. Hence there are no any extra Leakage Management Plan and risk mitigation \nmeasures are required.", "page": 9, "paragraph_id": "p9-13", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "As per section B.7 and Annex-4 of the PDD/PDD-T/, monitoring plan of the project \nactivity comprises all relevant monitoring parameters given in the applied monitoring \nmethodology. The methodology i.e. ACM0002, Version 12.1, stipulates that \nmonitoring shall consist continuous monitoring and at least monthly recording of \nquantity of net electricity supplied by the project activity to the grid in year y (EGfacility,", "page": 80, "paragraph_id": "x5-p80-06", "verification": "cited_paragraph" } ], "dropped_findings": 0, "review_flags": [], "excerpt": { "paragraphs": [ "p2-02", "p8-02", "p8-03", "p9-05", "p9-06", "p9-07", "p9-13", "x1-p40-08", "x1-p40-09", "x1-p41-01", "x1-p43-01", "x1-p44-02", "x1-p44-03", "x1-p45-01", "x1-p46-11", "x2-p29-03", "x2-p29-04", "x2-p29-05", "x4-p36-02", "x4-p36-03", "x4-p41-06", "x4-p41-07", "x4-p41-08", "x4-p43-02", "x4-p43-03", "x4-p45-04", "x4-p45-05", "x4-p46-05", "x5-p21-15", "x5-p21-16", "x5-p60-04", "x5-p60-05", "x5-p80-06" ], "chars": 22094 } }, { "principle": "no_double_counting", "status": "partial_evidence", "score": 67, "rationale": "Evidence found for 2 of 3 checks (D1, D2); not found in the excerpt: 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": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "p8-15", "page": 8, "text": "India is Non-annex1 country and there is no compliance with an emission trading program or to \nmeet binding limits on GHG emissions for this project activity. The project is registered under \nCDM and UNFCCC (Registration ID 49934). The project is also approved by the DNA and a copy \nof the approval is also submitted to the DOE. Project Proponent has submitted undertaking that \nthey will not claim same GHG emission reductions of the project from CDM and VCS. PP would \nnot use net GHG emission reductions by the projects for compliance with emission trading \nprogram to meet binding limits on GHG emissions." } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.93, "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": "x4-p21-19", "page": 21, "text": "The current project activity is not receiving or seeking credits for \nreductions and removals from a project activity under another \nGHG program other than VCS. Verification team checked \nindependently other registries such as UNFCCC CDM 3, Gold \nStandard for the Global Goals (GS4GG4), Global Carbon Council \n(GCC5), International Carbon Registry (ICR6) /25//26//27//26/ and \nconfirmed that project is not participating in any other GHG \nprograms other than VCS program. Also, International REC (I-\nREC) registry (https://www.irecstandard.org/) is cross-checked \nand found that this project is not under I-REC as well. Thus, \ndouble counting for the current monitoring period is ruled out." } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.97, "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": 0.26, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null } ], "quotes": [ { "text": "India is Non-annex1 country and there is no compliance with an emission trading program or to \nmeet binding limits on GHG emissions for this project activity. The project is registered under \nCDM and UNFCCC (Registration ID 49934). The project is also approved by the DNA and a copy \nof the approval is also submitted to the DOE. Project Proponent has submitted undertaking that \nthey will not claim same GHG emission reductions of the project from CDM and VCS. PP would \nnot use net GHG emission reductions by the projects for compliance with emission trading \nprogram to meet binding limits on GHG emissions.", "page": 8, "paragraph_id": "p8-15", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "The current project activity is not receiving or seeking credits for \nreductions and removals from a project activity under another \nGHG program other than VCS. Verification team checked \nindependently other registries such as UNFCCC CDM 3, Gold \nStandard for the Global Goals (GS4GG4), Global Carbon Council \n(GCC5), International Carbon Registry (ICR6) /25//26//27//26/ and \nconfirmed that project is not participating in any other GHG \nprograms other than VCS program. Also, International REC (I-\nREC) registry (https://www.irecstandard.org/) is cross-checked \nand found that this project is not under I-REC as well. Thus, \ndouble counting for the current monitoring period is ruled out.", "page": 21, "paragraph_id": "x4-p21-19", "verification": "cited_paragraph" } ], "dropped_findings": 0, "review_flags": [], "excerpt": { "paragraphs": [ "p2-02", "p5-03", "p5-04", "p8-02", "p8-03", "p8-04", "p8-05", "p8-13", "p8-14", "p8-15", "p8-16", "p9-02", "p9-03", "p9-04", "p9-05", "p9-06", "p9-07", "p9-08", "p9-09", "p9-17", "p9-18", "p11-11", "p11-14", "x1-p9-06", "x1-p10-01", "x1-p10-02", "x1-p13-07", "x1-p13-08", "x1-p17-25", "x1-p18-01", "x1-p31-03", "x1-p32-01", "x1-p32-02", "x1-p52-12", "x1-p53-01", "x4-p21-18", "x4-p21-19", "x4-p21-20", "x4-p22-05", "x4-p22-07", "x5-p65-04", "x5-p65-05" ], "chars": 24321 } }, { "principle": "safeguards", "status": "strong_evidence", "score": 100, "rationale": "Evidence found for 4 of 4 checks (S1, S2, 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": "x4-p25-10", "page": 25, "text": "Year 2007 (Initial LSC conducted at the time of registration)." }, { "paragraph_id": "x1-p63-02", "page": 63, "text": "3 \nNichar \nYula \n4 \nNichar \nMeeru \n5 \nNichar \nPanwi \n6 \nNichar \nUrni \n7 \nNichar \nKatgaon \n8 \nKalpa \nKamru \n9 \nKalpa \nSapni \n10 \nKalpa \nKilba \n11 \nKalpa \nMewar rali \n12 \nKalpa \nRoghi \n \nThe methodology for the above mentioned techniques, such as FGD and PRA. FGDs were conducted \nwherever a group could be organised and the discussion was based on a comprehensive FGD checklist. \nInterviews were conducted with individual informants like shopkeepers, Gram Pradhans etc. Discussion \nand Debriefing was the primary method of data collection while interacting with government officials \nand members of NGOs. \n \nWithin each Panchayat, the study team endeavoured to meet the community from all associated villages \nand hamlets. It was considered important to use participatory techniques in interaction with the \ncommunity. Hence each group interaction started with a PRA and social mapping exercise, which always \nattracted a large number of people especially youth. After mapping, FGDs were initiated using the FGD \nchecklist as reference. The team also made sure that men and women from both tribal and non-tribal \nhouseholds and all possible socio-economic groups were covered and their views documented. During \ninteractions, the team found that in some villages, women were less vocal in front of men hence separate \ninteractions with women were also organised at several sites. The process ensured that women and \npeople from the tribal community freely shared their opinions and feedback regarding the project. \n \nBesides above mentioned procedures, a more intensive data collection exercise was conducted with \nstakeholders being provided a brief on the project activity and a survey questionnaire to gauge their level \nof knowledge and understanding of the project activity. This exercise also involved understanding \nspecific comments or issues the stakeholders may have with respect to the said project activity being \nundertaken by JKHCL, besides apprising them of the contribution of the project to GHG abatement and \nmitigation of climate change. \n \nThe study began with an identification of the local stakeholders in the region where the project activity is \nbeing undertaken. As mentioned before, by virtue of being a run of river project, there was minimal \ndisplacement of inhabitants and the stakeholders were identified as parties being directly or indirectly \nimpacted by the said project activity. Accordingly, the stakeholders identified for the proposed project \nactivity are as follows: \n \n1. Local population \n• Various sections from the community \no SC (Scheduled Caste) \no ST (Scheduled Tribe) \no OBC (Other Backward Classes)" }, { "paragraph_id": "x1-p66-02", "page": 66, "text": "PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 \n \nCDM – Executive Board \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \npage 66 \n \n \nThe Stakeholder Consultation Report primarily deals with socio-economic impact of the project activity \nand provided an opportunity for the local population to express their viewpoints and comments with \nrespect to the project. \n \nA total of eighteen community level consultation events were held during the study wherein \napproximately 412 people participated. In addition, 29 other stakeholders from PRIs, Government \ndepartments and local NGOs were covered. A summary of the various categories of stakeholders \nconsulted during this process is provided in the table below. This table also provides data on the number \nof stakeholders consulted, issues discussed and tools used with respect to different stakeholders are \nmentioned in the following table: \n \nStakeholders \nStakeholder Type \nNumber \nPurpose of \nConsultation" }, { "paragraph_id": "x1-p71-06", "page": 71, "text": "Comment from Local Villagers \nResponse of Project Proponent \nThe rock structure in the region is not solid enough \nto bear the impact of blasting as the mountains \nshake during blasting conducted underground, \nresulting in cracks in houses." } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.9, "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": "x4-p25-09", "page": 25, "text": "Ongoing consultation \nProject Proponent has submitted the feedback register kept at site for \nthe ongoing communication with the local stakeholders. VVB \nconfirmed that at the onsite audit and interviews/19/ & submitted \ngrievance \nregister/15/. \nIn \nplant \nsite \noffice \nseeking \ncomplaints/grievances from local community as a part of ongoing \ncommunication with stakeholders in line with clause 3.18.3 of VCS \nStandard, v.4.7." }, { "paragraph_id": "x4-p25-15", "page": 25, "text": "The grievance logbook/15/ is always available at the site and office for \nstakeholders to write in or ask for assistance to write any inquiry. No \nany grievance received during current monitoring period. The \nverification team confirmed the same from the grievance register \nmaintained by the PP." } ], "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": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "x1-p60-13", "page": 60, "text": "- \nEnvironmental monitoring will be ensured through a District level Inter Departmental \nMonitoring Committee under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur with \nrepresentatives from all the concerned departments and the Proponents. This Committee will \nmeet periodically for compliance of the recommendations as detailed in Table 9.1 of Vol. I. of \nEIA Report. \n \nThe Project Proponents have made sufficient provision in the Project Cost to carryout CAT Plan and \nEMP to mitigate adverse impacts and maximize beneficial impacts. Further, the detailed measures and \ncosts related to the EMP have been provided in Appendix II." }, { "paragraph_id": "x1-p61-01", "page": 61, "text": "PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 \n \nCDM – Executive Board \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \npage 61 \n \n \n \nSECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments \n>> \n \nE.1. \nBrief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: \n>> \nThe project activity being undertaken by JKHCL is the construction of a run of river hydro electric \ndevelopment on the river Satluj of 1000 MW generation capacity. The project is designed with minimal \nstorage thus eliminating the huge storage area required by the reservoirs in such large dams. By virtue of \nbeing a run of river design the project proponent is minimizing displacement of people of the region and \nthus mitigating one major adverse impact of such large scale hydro-electric projects. \n \nHowever, JKHCL being a socially and environmentally responsible organization has endeavoured to do a \ndetailed stakeholder consultation process with special emphasis on the socio-environmental impact of the \nproject on the region. Since it is a run-of-river project there is no substantial displacement of people. \nNevertheless JKHCL has ensured proper measures for addressing every possible impact of the project on \nthe local stakeholders. This is a voluntary initiative by the project proponent and has been conducted by \nan independent third party, Sharnam Sewa Samiti (SSS) which is a NGO specializing in such social \nassessments. The study was done in an independent manner with direct interaction with local \nstakeholders to provide an unbiased picture of the concerns and comments of these stakeholders. In order \nto understand issues associated with the project, baseline data related to the demography in the project \narea was considered vital. The study utilized baseline data from secondary sources such as Census, the \nDistrict Statistical Hand Book and the Planning Department, Earthquake and Dam breach sensitivity \nresearch studies by Indian Institute of Technology, EIA study and the Environmental Management Plan \nconducted by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). Primary data has been \ncollected mainly through the consultation with the community members and interviews of PRI \nrepresentatives from project villages. Extensive desk review was done prior to the fieldwork to enable in \ndepth orientation of the team. \n \nThe study conducted was structured in the following manner:" }, { "paragraph_id": "x5-p57-09", "page": 57, "text": "PP has also described the other environmental and social benefits in section A.2 of \nthe PDD/PDD-T/ and the same are assessed and identified through the interviews of \nproject proponent and local stakeholders i.e. employees, local peoples and from the \nlocal stakeholder consultaion report/LSC/. However, TÜV NORD also identified \nnegative impacts caused by the project, particularly concerning resettlement and \nrehabilitation of locals as well as disposal of spoils from construction works/mh//drp/. \nThough there were also some minor negative comments from stakeholders in \nstakeholder consultation process as mentioned in the section E.2 of final PDD the PP \nhas taken actions to address those concerns. DOE has also carried out the \nthourough stakeholder meeting and had positive comments from the stakeholders \nand thus concluded that proposed project activitycontributes towards sustainable \ndevelopment of host country." } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.83, "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": "yes", "evidence": [ { "paragraph_id": "x3-p15-09", "page": 15, "text": "Consent \nThe project secured consent through inclusive community \nconsultations, involving Indigenous Peoples (IPs), Local \nCommunities (LCs), and customary right holders. Extensive \nengagement, \ntransparent \ninformation \nsharing, \nand \nacknowledgment of customary rights were key. Consent was \ndocumented in clear agreements accessible to all \nstakeholders. Conflict resolution mechanisms and ongoing \nengagement ensure a responsive approach. Continuous \nmonitoring and evaluation demonstrate the commitment to \ntransparency and positive community outcomes. The \nabsence of ongoing conflicts reflects the project's success \nin aligning with stakeholder interests and maintaining a \nharmonious relationship with the community." }, { "paragraph_id": "x3-p15-10", "page": 15, "text": "Outcome of FPIC \nNo complaints were received from Local Stakeholders. PP \nassures that the project has not encroached on land, \nrelocated people without consent, and forced physical or \neconomic displacement." } ], "second_opinion_p_yes": 0.93, "needs_review": false, "dropped": null } ], "quotes": [ { "text": "Year 2007 (Initial LSC conducted at the time of registration).", "page": 25, "paragraph_id": "x4-p25-10", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "3 \nNichar \nYula \n4 \nNichar \nMeeru \n5 \nNichar \nPanwi \n6 \nNichar \nUrni \n7 \nNichar \nKatgaon \n8 \nKalpa \nKamru \n9 \nKalpa \nSapni \n10 \nKalpa \nKilba \n11 \nKalpa \nMewar rali \n12 \nKalpa \nRoghi \n \nThe methodology for the above mentioned techniques, such as FGD and PRA. FGDs were conducted \nwherever a group could be organised and the discussion was based on a comprehensive FGD checklist. \nInterviews were conducted with individual informants like shopkeepers, Gram Pradhans etc. Discussion \nand Debriefing was the primary method of data collection while interacting with government officials \nand members of NGOs. \n \nWithin each Panchayat, the study team endeavoured to meet the community from all associated villages \nand hamlets. It was considered important to use participatory techniques in interaction with the \ncommunity. Hence each group interaction started with a PRA and social mapping exercise, which always \nattracted a large number of people especially youth. After mapping, FGDs were initiated using the FGD \nchecklist as reference. The team also made sure that men and women from both tribal and non-tribal \nhouseholds and all possible socio-economic groups were covered and their views documented. During \ninteractions, the team found that in some villages, women were less vocal in front of men hence separate \ninteractions with women were also organised at several sites. The process ensured that women and \npeople from the tribal community freely shared their opinions and feedback regarding the project. \n \nBesides above mentioned procedures, a more intensive data collection exercise was conducted with \nstakeholders being provided a brief on the project activity and a survey questionnaire to gauge their level \nof knowledge and understanding of the project activity. This exercise also involved understanding \nspecific comments or issues the stakeholders may have with respect to the said project activity being \nundertaken by JKHCL, besides apprising them of the contribution of the project to GHG abatement and \nmitigation of climate change. \n \nThe study began with an identification of the local stakeholders in the region where the project activity is \nbeing undertaken. As mentioned before, by virtue of being a run of river project, there was minimal \ndisplacement of inhabitants and the stakeholders were identified as parties being directly or indirectly \nimpacted by the said project activity. Accordingly, the stakeholders identified for the proposed project \nactivity are as follows: \n \n1. Local population \n• Various sections from the community \no SC (Scheduled Caste) \no ST (Scheduled Tribe) \no OBC (Other Backward Classes)", "page": 63, "paragraph_id": "x1-p63-02", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 \n \nCDM – Executive Board \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \npage 66 \n \n \nThe Stakeholder Consultation Report primarily deals with socio-economic impact of the project activity \nand provided an opportunity for the local population to express their viewpoints and comments with \nrespect to the project. \n \nA total of eighteen community level consultation events were held during the study wherein \napproximately 412 people participated. In addition, 29 other stakeholders from PRIs, Government \ndepartments and local NGOs were covered. A summary of the various categories of stakeholders \nconsulted during this process is provided in the table below. This table also provides data on the number \nof stakeholders consulted, issues discussed and tools used with respect to different stakeholders are \nmentioned in the following table: \n \nStakeholders \nStakeholder Type \nNumber \nPurpose of \nConsultation", "page": 66, "paragraph_id": "x1-p66-02", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "Comment from Local Villagers \nResponse of Project Proponent \nThe rock structure in the region is not solid enough \nto bear the impact of blasting as the mountains \nshake during blasting conducted underground, \nresulting in cracks in houses.", "page": 71, "paragraph_id": "x1-p71-06", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "Ongoing consultation \nProject Proponent has submitted the feedback register kept at site for \nthe ongoing communication with the local stakeholders. VVB \nconfirmed that at the onsite audit and interviews/19/ & submitted \ngrievance \nregister/15/. \nIn \nplant \nsite \noffice \nseeking \ncomplaints/grievances from local community as a part of ongoing \ncommunication with stakeholders in line with clause 3.18.3 of VCS \nStandard, v.4.7.", "page": 25, "paragraph_id": "x4-p25-09", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "The grievance logbook/15/ is always available at the site and office for \nstakeholders to write in or ask for assistance to write any inquiry. No \nany grievance received during current monitoring period. The \nverification team confirmed the same from the grievance register \nmaintained by the PP.", "page": 25, "paragraph_id": "x4-p25-15", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "- \nEnvironmental monitoring will be ensured through a District level Inter Departmental \nMonitoring Committee under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur with \nrepresentatives from all the concerned departments and the Proponents. This Committee will \nmeet periodically for compliance of the recommendations as detailed in Table 9.1 of Vol. I. of \nEIA Report. \n \nThe Project Proponents have made sufficient provision in the Project Cost to carryout CAT Plan and \nEMP to mitigate adverse impacts and maximize beneficial impacts. Further, the detailed measures and \ncosts related to the EMP have been provided in Appendix II.", "page": 60, "paragraph_id": "x1-p60-13", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "PROJECT DESIGN DOCUMENT FORM (CDM PDD) - Version 03 \n \nCDM – Executive Board \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \npage 61 \n \n \n \nSECTION E. Stakeholders’ comments \n>> \n \nE.1. \nBrief description how comments by local stakeholders have been invited and compiled: \n>> \nThe project activity being undertaken by JKHCL is the construction of a run of river hydro electric \ndevelopment on the river Satluj of 1000 MW generation capacity. The project is designed with minimal \nstorage thus eliminating the huge storage area required by the reservoirs in such large dams. By virtue of \nbeing a run of river design the project proponent is minimizing displacement of people of the region and \nthus mitigating one major adverse impact of such large scale hydro-electric projects. \n \nHowever, JKHCL being a socially and environmentally responsible organization has endeavoured to do a \ndetailed stakeholder consultation process with special emphasis on the socio-environmental impact of the \nproject on the region. Since it is a run-of-river project there is no substantial displacement of people. \nNevertheless JKHCL has ensured proper measures for addressing every possible impact of the project on \nthe local stakeholders. This is a voluntary initiative by the project proponent and has been conducted by \nan independent third party, Sharnam Sewa Samiti (SSS) which is a NGO specializing in such social \nassessments. The study was done in an independent manner with direct interaction with local \nstakeholders to provide an unbiased picture of the concerns and comments of these stakeholders. In order \nto understand issues associated with the project, baseline data related to the demography in the project \narea was considered vital. The study utilized baseline data from secondary sources such as Census, the \nDistrict Statistical Hand Book and the Planning Department, Earthquake and Dam breach sensitivity \nresearch studies by Indian Institute of Technology, EIA study and the Environmental Management Plan \nconducted by National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). Primary data has been \ncollected mainly through the consultation with the community members and interviews of PRI \nrepresentatives from project villages. Extensive desk review was done prior to the fieldwork to enable in \ndepth orientation of the team. \n \nThe study conducted was structured in the following manner:", "page": 61, "paragraph_id": "x1-p61-01", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "PP has also described the other environmental and social benefits in section A.2 of \nthe PDD/PDD-T/ and the same are assessed and identified through the interviews of \nproject proponent and local stakeholders i.e. employees, local peoples and from the \nlocal stakeholder consultaion report/LSC/. However, TÜV NORD also identified \nnegative impacts caused by the project, particularly concerning resettlement and \nrehabilitation of locals as well as disposal of spoils from construction works/mh//drp/. \nThough there were also some minor negative comments from stakeholders in \nstakeholder consultation process as mentioned in the section E.2 of final PDD the PP \nhas taken actions to address those concerns. DOE has also carried out the \nthourough stakeholder meeting and had positive comments from the stakeholders \nand thus concluded that proposed project activitycontributes towards sustainable \ndevelopment of host country.", "page": 57, "paragraph_id": "x5-p57-09", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "Consent \nThe project secured consent through inclusive community \nconsultations, involving Indigenous Peoples (IPs), Local \nCommunities (LCs), and customary right holders. Extensive \nengagement, \ntransparent \ninformation \nsharing, \nand \nacknowledgment of customary rights were key. Consent was \ndocumented in clear agreements accessible to all \nstakeholders. Conflict resolution mechanisms and ongoing \nengagement ensure a responsive approach. Continuous \nmonitoring and evaluation demonstrate the commitment to \ntransparency and positive community outcomes. The \nabsence of ongoing conflicts reflects the project's success \nin aligning with stakeholder interests and maintaining a \nharmonious relationship with the community.", "page": 15, "paragraph_id": "x3-p15-09", "verification": "cited_paragraph" }, { "text": "Outcome of FPIC \nNo complaints were received from Local Stakeholders. PP \nassures that the project has not encroached on land, \nrelocated people without consent, and forced physical or \neconomic displacement.", "page": 15, "paragraph_id": "x3-p15-10", "verification": "cited_paragraph" } ], "dropped_findings": 0, "review_flags": [], "excerpt": { "paragraphs": [ "p2-02", "p10-03", "p10-05", "x1-p60-13", "x1-p61-01", "x1-p61-02", "x1-p63-01", "x1-p63-02", "x1-p64-01", "x1-p64-09", "x1-p64-10", "x1-p66-02", "x1-p71-04", "x1-p71-05", "x1-p71-06", "x2-p15-13", "x3-p13-05", "x3-p13-06", "x3-p13-07", "x3-p15-09", "x3-p15-10", "x4-p25-09", "x4-p25-10", "x4-p25-14", "x4-p25-15", "x5-p57-08", "x5-p57-09" ], "chars": 22056 } } ], "overall": { "score": 78, "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": "2026-10-20T17:35:45+00:00" }