Q&A

A large-scale project is a project whose emissions are more than 60,000 tCO2e/yr. Therefore, if your VPA has only 16,000 tCO2e/yr, it falls within the small scale threshold and can be listed as small scale instead of large scale. You could, however, select the large scale for your project and therefore adopt the large scale methodology.

The difference between real case and regular VPA is only covered in the Programme of Activity Requirements ver 2.0 (https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/standards/107_V2.0_PAR_Programme-of-Activity-Requirements.pdf), there is no other document that explains this.

If the real case is included in the monitoring report, yes, they will be issued. if the PP wants to claim emission reduction from a real case VPA, it must be verified. It has to be verified and included in the monitoring report, but if the PD does not want to include then emission reduction credits definitely will not be issued. Refer to paragraph 8.5.6- 8.5.9 of Programe of Activity Requirements ver 2.0

Please check this under Rule Clarification- REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTAINING THE TOTAL SALES RECORDS UNDER TPDDTEC METHODOLOGY available on the GS4GG website. (https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/rc-2023-requirements-for-maintaining-the-total-sales-records-under-tpddtec-methodology/)

In this case, if the methodologies are expired, it has to be validated at the time of the renewal of the
crediting period, but the methodologies can continue to undergo verification. If it is already registered with the previous version of the methodology, verification can happen, but in case the methodology is expired at the time of renewal, the PDD has to be validated.

Internal Validation and Verification was never applied to LUF projects, therefore the changes are not applicable to A/R projects.

That is correct. Refer to Site Visit and Remote Audit Requirements ver 2.0 (https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/standards/112_V2.0_PAR_Site-Visit-and-Remote-Audit-Requirements.pdf)

The rule clarification says name, telephone number (if available), address, and/or GPS coordinates to be available for all end users. So the idea is to capture the information in one of these formats, not necessarily all. So for example, if the address is captured, then GPS is not a must.

GPS is one among the many ways of locating the device, but not a must-have (if other ways are captured)

You may hire other VVBs that are outside Latin America and/or functional in that area. For the purpose of auditing instances where a physical site visit is not mandatory, the VVB may employ remote auditing means if they don’t want to visit the place physically. please refer to (https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/standards/112_V2.0_PAR_Site-Visit-and-Remote-Audit-Requirements.pdf)

A PoA can comprise mixed scales. Refer to Paragraph 4.1.2 of PoA requirement ver 2.0 (https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/standards/107_V2.0_PAR_Programme-of-Activity-Requirements.pdf)

In the rule requirement, it says that there are several different end-user details that you can collect: the spirit of the rule is not just to collect the end-user details but to allow traceability and sampling aspects. So for example, if the end-user does not want to share their name or their telephone number, then their locations can be collected. If you can collect their GPS coordinates for example, then it’s easy for you to trace that specific device, because using the GPS coordinates you can drive there or go there and check whether the unit is still in use or not.

Telephone number is one among the many means of identifying the end users. If the project has the name of the end user, and their location/GPS coordinates, then the telephone number, if not available, does not disqualify the project from meeting the requirement on end-user details.

There is no such requirement that the VVB has to perform this many verifications.
However, it is the responsibility of the VVB to see that the team does not have any conflict of interest or familiarity risks with the PD.

Since the real case VPA is implemented like any regular VPA, the VPA shall be monitored and verified. Refer to to paragraph 8.5.6- 8.5.9 of Programe of Activity Requirements ver 2.0 (https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/standards/107_V2.0_PAR_Programme-of-Activity-Requirements.pdf)

Yes, they will be eligible.

There is no such limitation for VVBs to not perform certification stages in a row, but the VVB must ensure the team does not have any conflict of interest or familiarity risks with the project.

The rule as it is now is that if you are applying version 3.1 of the methodology whereby you don’t have all the end user details you should continue monitoring the same even beyond June 2024.
However, any new sales you make, and which are included in the project database, must have all end user details. If, for any new sales, you don’t have all the details, then you cannot add it to the database and that device cannot claim earnings, but the previous ones will because the rule does not require you to retroactively go back to the end users and recollect information; it’s only applicable for new ones.
A good example is that assuming your project or your VPA sells 100,000 units, but you only have 10,000 full end user details building verification and El calculation, you can only make a claim for the 10,000; you would lose the remaining 90,000 because you do not have the end user details.