PCS TR 009 Efficiency Lighting & Appliances_v1.0
Document Control
Document identification
Document code: PCS-TR-009
Title: Efficient Lighting & Appliances Methodology
Scope: Defines eligibility conditions, boundary and baseline determination rules, additionality requirements, monitoring requirements, leakage treatment, and calculation procedures for PCS projects that reduce electricity consumption through deployment of high-efficiency lighting and appliances, resulting in measurable and verifiable emission reductions from reduced electricity generation relative to a baseline.
Version history and change log
Table DC-1. Revision history
v1.0
TBD
Draft
Release for public consultation
PCS
TBD
Superseded versions
No superseded versions for v1.0.
Governance note on versioning and archiving
Only the latest approved version of this Methodology shall be used. Superseded versions shall be archived and retained for traceability and audit purposes. Printed or downloaded copies are uncontrolled; stakeholders must refer to the PCS-published version as the authoritative current version.
Chapter 1 - Purpose
1.1 Purpose
This methodology establishes activity-specific requirements for quantifying emission reductions from projects that deploy high-efficiency lighting and appliances under the Planetary Carbon Standard (PCS). It defines conditions for eligibility, baseline determination requirements, monitoring requirements, and conservative calculation rules for projects that reduce electricity consumption for defined lighting and appliance services relative to a baseline scenario.
1.2 Intended use
This methodology shall be applied to projects that implement distribution, installation, or replacement of lighting products and appliances with more efficient alternatives that deliver equivalent or improved service while reducing electricity consumption.
The project proponent shall quantify emission reductions using monitored and verifiable data. Where direct metering of all units is not feasible, conservative sampling and deemed savings approaches may be applied only where allowed under this methodology and where environmental integrity is protected through conservative assumptions and verification controls.
1.3 Relationship to other PCS documents
This methodology shall be applied together with applicable PCS standards, any PCS methodological tools referenced by this methodology, and the approved PCS templates and forms used for project submission and monitoring/reporting. In the event of inconsistency, higher-order PCS documents prevail.
1.4 Binding nature
Requirements expressed using “shall” are mandatory. Where this methodology references a methodological tool, that tool shall be applied as specified. PCS templates and forms required for submissions shall be used without substitution unless an explicit exception is granted through the PCS deviation process.
1.5 Version control and applicability
This methodology is subject to controlled versioning. The applicable version is the version in force at the time of project submission unless transition provisions specify otherwise. Revisions do not apply until they enter into force under PCS governance procedures.
Chapter 2 - Scope and Applicability
2.1 Scope
This methodology applies to projects that reduce electricity consumption by replacing or deploying efficient lighting products and appliances that provide defined services, including residential, commercial, institutional, or industrial end-use applications where electricity savings can be credibly established and monitored.
The methodology covers projects that distribute units to end-users, retrofit existing installations, or support market transformation activities where unit deployment and continued use can be evidenced and where baseline determination is credible.
2.2 Eligible technologies
Eligible technologies may include efficient lighting such as LED lamps and fixtures, high-efficiency refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, fans, washing machines, and other appliances where efficiency performance can be evidenced through product specifications, certification, and verifiable installation and use.
Products shall meet minimum performance and quality requirements, including where applicable compliance with recognised efficiency standards or certification schemes. The project proponent shall demonstrate that deployed units are new, functional, and installed for the intended service.
2.3 Delivery models and applicability
The methodology applies to projects implemented through direct installation by the project proponent or partners, voucher or rebate programs, bulk procurement and distribution, or other delivery models, provided that unit traceability and continued service can be verified.
Where units are distributed without installation verification, the project proponent shall implement conservative controls for confirmation of distribution and use, including traceable distribution records and verification sampling.
2.4 Exclusions and non-applicable cases
This methodology shall not be applied where baseline service cannot be credibly defined, where unit deployment and continued use cannot be evidenced, where claims rely on unsupported assumptions about usage, or where the project would materially increase electricity consumption elsewhere in a manner that cannot be accounted for conservatively.
Projects that involve fuel switching or that primarily affect non-electric energy sources are not covered by this methodology unless explicitly included through PCS provisions.
2.5 Applicability conditions
A project shall be applicable under this methodology only where it can define the service and baseline technology being replaced, can establish baseline electricity consumption using credible data and conservative assumptions, can track unit deployment and continued use through auditable records, and can apply monitoring and sampling procedures sufficient to quantify savings conservatively.
Chapter 3 - Conditions for Eligibility
3.1 General eligibility requirement
A project shall be eligible under this methodology only where it is demonstrably within scope, meets all applicability conditions, and can be validated and verified using auditable records. A project shall not proceed to registration where the methodology is not fully applicable or where required evidence cannot be produced in a verifiable form.
3.2 Project activity eligibility
The project activity shall consist of deployment of efficient lighting and/or appliances that provide equivalent or improved service while reducing electricity consumption relative to the baseline technology and baseline usage.
The project shall define the target end-use service, the baseline technology being replaced or displaced, the efficient technology deployed, and the delivery model. The project shall define whether the activity is direct replacement of existing devices, installation in new premises where baseline service would otherwise be provided by less efficient devices, or a program that accelerates adoption relative to business-as-usual.
The project shall ensure that the efficient units deployed meet defined performance criteria and quality requirements. Where product claims are based on certification labels or test reports, the project shall retain evidence of compliance for each product type.
3.3 Target population and geographic scope
The project shall define the geographic area of implementation and the target population or market segment. The project shall demonstrate that baseline conditions and usage assumptions are representative of the target context and that the project does not combine materially different contexts in a manner that inflates savings.
Where the project spans multiple grids or electricity systems with different emission factors, the project shall account for such differences conservatively and shall not apply a single emission factor where doing so would overstate emission reductions.
3.4 Legal compliance and consumer protection
The project shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations, including product safety regulations, electrical installation codes, import and customs rules where applicable, consumer protection requirements, and waste handling rules for replaced devices.
Where the project involves collection and disposal of replaced lighting or appliances, the project shall demonstrate compliance with relevant waste and hazardous substance regulations and shall document the handling approach.
3.5 Right to claim emission reductions and avoidance of double counting
The project proponent shall demonstrate legal authority and contractual rights to claim the emission reductions resulting from the project activity. The project shall not claim emission reductions that are already claimed or used under another program, instrument, or mechanism unless an explicit and verifiable non-overlap arrangement exists and is consistent with PCS requirements on double counting.
Where utilities, governments, retailers, manufacturers, or donors claim energy savings or environmental attributes for the same units deployed, the project proponent shall demonstrate that claims do not overlap and that PCS crediting remains valid.
3.6 Start date and prior consideration
The project shall define a clear project start date. The project proponent shall identify the date on which the first eligible unit was distributed or installed and shall maintain records that support the start date.
Where required by PCS rules, the project proponent shall demonstrate prior consideration of carbon finance through contemporaneous evidence. Absence of credible contemporaneous evidence, where required, shall render the project ineligible.
3.7 Baseline eligibility and service equivalence
The project shall identify a credible baseline scenario consistent with this methodology. The baseline scenario shall represent the electricity consumption that would have occurred to deliver the same service in the absence of the project.
Service equivalence shall be addressed. The project shall demonstrate that the efficient units provide the same or improved service level as the baseline units. Where service levels differ, the project shall adjust calculations conservatively so that emission reductions are not overstated.
The project shall not claim reductions that arise from reduced service, such as reduced lighting levels or reduced appliance use caused by lower capacity or performance, unless such service reduction is explicitly quantified and treated conservatively and is consistent with PCS requirements.
3.8 Additionality eligibility
The project shall demonstrate additionality in accordance with PCS requirements and this methodology. The project shall not be eligible where the deployment is legally required, mandated by regulation, or otherwise non-additional under PCS rules.
Where rebates, subsidies, minimum efficiency standards, appliance bans, or regulated phase-outs apply, the project proponent shall demonstrate that the credited reductions exceed what would occur under those policies and that the project’s contribution is additional.
3.9 End-of-life and non-reuse requirement for replaced units
Where the project claims emission reductions from replacement of existing devices, the project shall address the fate of replaced units to prevent leakage and double counting.
The project shall ensure that replaced inefficient units are not resold, transferred, or otherwise reintroduced into service in a manner that would offset electricity savings. The project shall implement a disposal, destruction, or permanent decommissioning approach that is auditable, proportionate to program scale, and consistent with local waste regulations.
Where full physical destruction is not feasible, the project shall implement conservative controls sufficient to demonstrate that reuse is prevented. If reuse cannot be credibly prevented or quantified, the project shall apply conservative deductions or deem the affected units ineligible.
3.10 Monitoring system eligibility and unit traceability
Eligibility under this methodology is conditional on auditable unit traceability and monitoring.
The project shall maintain unit distribution and installation records that support traceability from procurement to end-user deployment. Records shall support verification of unit quantity, unit type, efficiency rating, installation location, and installation date.
Where the delivery model does not include direct installation verification for all units, the project shall apply a conservative verification sampling approach sufficient to confirm deployment and continued use. Sampling shall be designed to detect over-reporting and shall not be structured to selectively confirm only high-performing locations.
If unit deployment and continued use cannot be evidenced credibly, the project shall not be eligible for issuance for the affected period.
3.11 Treatment of material changes
The project proponent shall disclose any material change that may affect applicability, baseline, additionality, monitoring, or quantification. Material changes include changes to product types, suppliers, performance ratings, delivery model, target population, geographic scope, disposal approach, sampling plan, or data management systems.
Where a material change occurs, the project proponent shall follow PCS post-registration change procedures and shall obtain approval where required prior to claiming credits for the affected period.
3.12 Specific exclusion triggers
A project shall be deemed not eligible under this methodology where any of the following apply. Baseline technology or baseline usage cannot be credibly established. Service equivalence cannot be demonstrated or conservatively adjusted. Unit deployment cannot be traced or verified. Replaced units are likely to be reused and this risk is not controlled or deducted conservatively. The project relies on unsupported usage assumptions and cannot support them with monitoring or conservative sampling. Double counting risk exists due to overlapping claims.
3.13 Eligibility evidence requirements
Eligibility shall be supported by documentary evidence sufficient for validation and verification. Evidence shall be traceable, dated where relevant, and auditable.
Table 3-1. Minimum eligibility evidence (non-exhaustive)
Product eligibility and performance
Product specifications, certification/labels, test reports, procurement records
Delivery model and deployment
Distribution registers, installation records, photographs where used, GPS/location evidence where applicable
Target population and scope
Program design documents, geographic mapping, segmentation rationale
Baseline technology and usage
Baseline surveys, market studies, baseline assumptions and justification
Service equivalence
Technical comparison, lumen/output equivalence for lighting, performance equivalence for appliances
End-of-life and non-reuse
Disposal plan, destruction records, chain-of-custody records, waste compliance evidence
Additionality
Regulatory analysis, incentive participation disclosures, investment/barrier evidence
Monitoring and sampling
Monitoring plan, sampling design, QA/QC procedures, data management procedures
Right to claim / non-overlap
Contracts, declarations, attribute ownership clauses, non-overlap statements
Chapter 4 - Project Boundary
4.1 Boundary principle
The project boundary shall include all sources and flows necessary to quantify, in a complete and conservative manner, the net emission reductions attributable to the deployment of efficient lighting and appliances. The boundary shall be defined such that baseline and project scenarios are comparable and exclusions do not result in over-crediting.
The boundary for this methodology is defined around electricity consumption associated with the delivery of the specified lighting and appliance services by the baseline devices and the deployed project devices.
4.2 Boundary components
The project boundary shall include the electricity consumption of project devices during operation and the electricity consumption of baseline devices that would have been used to deliver the same service in the absence of the project.
Where the project involves replacement of existing devices, the boundary shall cover the electricity consumption that is displaced during the operating life of the deployed units, subject to the non-reuse and disposal requirements in Chapter 3. Where the project involves first-time access or new installations, the boundary shall cover the baseline device type that would most plausibly have been used to deliver the same service absent the project.
Where the project includes multiple device categories, the boundary shall be defined for each category and aggregated only where double counting is prevented and assumptions are consistent.
4.3 Greenhouse gases included
Emissions are quantified as CO₂e associated with electricity generation. Baseline and project emissions shall be quantified using an applicable electricity emission factor and the quantified electricity consumption in baseline and project scenarios.
This methodology does not quantify direct non-CO₂ emissions from devices, refrigerants, or upstream lifecycle emissions. Refrigerant-related emissions are excluded unless PCS provides explicit requirements for such emissions under a separate methodology or tool.
4.4 Electricity system boundary treatment
The project shall identify the electricity system supplying the devices during operation. Where the project spans multiple electricity systems with different emission factors, the project shall disaggregate calculations by electricity system or apply conservative treatment that does not overstate emission reductions.
Where the electricity supply mix differs materially within the project area, the project proponent shall justify the emission factor selection and demonstrate that it is applicable to the monitored operating locations.
4.5 Device usage boundary treatment
The boundary shall include the electricity consumption attributable to actual device usage. Where direct continuous metering of all units is not feasible, device usage shall be determined using conservative sampling, surveys, or other auditable methods allowed under this methodology.
The project shall define the usage parameterization used for calculations, including operating hours, duty cycle, utilisation rates, or other relevant usage drivers. The method shall be designed to avoid systematic overestimation of usage savings.
4.6 Treatment of service levels and equivalence
The boundary definition shall ensure that baseline and project scenarios represent the same service level. The project shall define the relevant service metric for the device category, such as light output for lighting, cooling capacity and operating conditions for air conditioning, or storage volume and temperature performance for refrigeration.
Where service levels differ materially, the project shall apply conservative adjustments such that the quantified electricity consumption difference does not reflect reduced service or under-performance.
4.7 Boundary exclusions
Upstream lifecycle emissions from manufacturing, transportation, installation, and disposal are excluded from quantification under this methodology. Indirect market effects and policy impacts are excluded.
Emissions from disposal operations are excluded unless disposal involves fuel combustion that is material and directly attributable and PCS requires inclusion. The boundary shall not exclude any element where exclusion would increase credited reductions through unaccounted reuse or service reduction.
4.8 Boundary table
Table 4-1. Boundary sources and inclusion status (efficient lighting and appliances)
Electricity use of baseline devices
Yes
No
Represents displaced baseline electricity consumption.
Electricity use of project devices
No
Yes
Represents project electricity consumption for service delivery.
Electricity emission factor
Yes
Yes
Converts electricity consumption to CO₂e.
Device usage parameters
Yes
Yes
Determines electricity consumption under each scenario.
Service level parameters
Yes
Yes
Ensures like-for-like comparison and prevents crediting reduced service.
Refrigerant emissions
No
No
Excluded under this methodology.
Upstream lifecycle emissions
No
No
Excluded under this methodology.
4.9 Documentation requirements
The project proponent shall provide documentation sufficient for validation and verification. Documentation shall include device category definitions, baseline device definitions, project device definitions, unit deployment records, the applicable electricity system(s) and emission factor selection basis, service level and equivalence assumptions, usage determination approach and sampling design where applicable, and evidence that boundary definition is consistent across baseline and project scenarios.
Failure to demonstrate an unambiguous and conservative boundary definition and auditable determination of electricity consumption and usage parameters shall render the project ineligible for issuance for the affected periods.
Chapter 5 - Baseline Scenario and Baseline Emissions
5.1 Baseline principle
The baseline scenario shall represent the electricity consumption that would occur in the absence of the project activity to deliver the same lighting or appliance service provided by the deployed project devices. The baseline shall be defined in a transparent, conservative, and verifiable manner and shall not be selected or structured to inflate emission reductions.
Baseline and project scenarios shall be comparable in terms of service level. Where service levels differ, the project shall apply conservative adjustments such that emission reductions are not overstated.
5.2 Identification of the baseline scenario
The baseline scenario shall be identified for each device category and shall reflect the most plausible device type and performance that would have provided the service absent the project.
Where the project replaces existing devices, the baseline scenario shall be the continued use of the replaced device type or the market-dominant inefficient device type that the replaced device represents, subject to the non-reuse requirement. Where the project provides first-time access or installs devices where no device previously existed, the baseline scenario shall be the device type that would most plausibly have been used absent the project, supported by market evidence and conservative assumptions.
Baseline identification shall be supported by evidence appropriate to the context, including baseline surveys, sales/market data, appliance saturation studies, policy context, and historical procurement patterns.
5.3 Baseline device performance determination
Baseline device performance shall be defined using rated power and performance characteristics for the baseline device type. For lighting, baseline power shall be linked to equivalent light output requirements. For appliances, baseline power shall be linked to equivalent service levels such as cooling capacity, volume, and operating conditions.
Where baseline device characteristics vary across the target population, the project shall determine baseline characteristics using conservative sampling or conservative default values supported by evidence.
Baseline power ratings shall not be chosen from the upper tail of inefficient devices in a manner that inflates savings. Where multiple plausible baseline categories exist, the project shall select the baseline that is most representative and does not increase credited reductions due to methodological choice.
5.4 Baseline usage determination
Baseline usage shall represent the operating pattern that would have occurred absent the project. Baseline usage may be determined using one of the following approaches, applied conservatively and evidenced for the target context.
Baseline usage may be determined using measured data from representative samples where metering is feasible. Baseline usage may be determined using surveys and statistically valid sampling where direct measurement is not feasible, provided that survey design and implementation are auditable and conservative. Baseline usage may be determined using conservative deemed usage values approved under this methodology where available and applicable.
Where baseline usage is determined through surveys or deemed values, the project proponent shall implement verification controls to prevent overstatement of operating hours and shall apply conservative values where uncertainty exists.
Baseline usage shall not be assumed to increase due to the project activity unless the project explicitly quantifies and deducts any increase that would reduce net emission reductions.
5.5 Baseline electricity consumption
Baseline electricity consumption for monitoring period shall be calculated for each device category as the product of the baseline device power and baseline usage, adjusted for service equivalence where applicable, and aggregated across eligible units.
Where baseline energy consumption depends on duty cycle or load factors, such parameters shall be defined conservatively and supported by evidence.
5.6 Baseline emissions calculation
Baseline emissions shall be calculated by multiplying baseline electricity consumption by the applicable electricity emission factor for the device operating locations and monitoring period.
Table 5-1. Baseline emissions equations
Baseline electricity consumption
Baseline emissions
Where:
is baseline electricity consumption in monitoring period 
(MWh).
is the number of eligible operating units of category 
in period .
is baseline device power for category (kW).
is baseline usage for category in period (hours or equivalent usage metric).
is the electricity emission factor for the relevant electricity system in period (tCO₂e/MWh).
Where multiple electricity systems apply, baseline emissions shall be calculated separately per system or treated conservatively.
5.7 Baseline validity, updating, and policy interactions
Baseline parameters shall remain valid only where they continue to represent the most plausible baseline conditions. Where minimum energy performance standards, bans, or market shifts materially change baseline device availability during the crediting period, the project shall update baseline assumptions in accordance with PCS requirements and in a manner that avoids over-crediting.
Where the baseline is affected by a legally binding phase-out of inefficient technologies, the project shall not credit reductions that would occur due to the phase-out absent the project, and shall apply conservative baseline updates reflecting the policy timeline.
Electricity emission factors shall be updated where required by PCS rules or where official sources update them for the monitoring period.
5.8 Documentation requirements
The project proponent shall document baseline scenario identification, baseline device performance determination, baseline usage determination, service equivalence treatment, emission factor selection, and any updates applied.
Documentation shall include baseline surveys or market evidence, device specification evidence, sampling plans and results where applicable, and calculation files sufficient for independent replication.
Chapter 6 - Additionality
6.1 Requirement
The project activity shall be additional. The project proponent shall demonstrate that, in the absence of carbon credit revenues, the deployment of efficient lighting and appliances would not have occurred at the same scale and timing, would not have reached the same target population, or would not have achieved the same measured electricity savings.
Additionality shall be assessed at validation. Where PCS requires reassessment at renewal or where material changes occur that affect the additionality basis, additionality shall be reassessed in accordance with PCS procedures.
6.2 Regulatory surplus test
The project shall not be eligible where the deployment is required by law, regulation, enforceable program obligation, or legally binding minimum energy performance standards that mandate the specific efficient technology or performance level for the relevant market segment during the crediting period.
Where minimum energy performance standards apply but do not require the specific deployed performance level, the project proponent shall demonstrate that the achieved performance level exceeds mandatory requirements and that credited reductions are not merely compliance.
Where inefficient technologies are banned or phased out on a legally binding timeline, the baseline shall be adjusted and the project shall not claim emission reductions that would occur due to the ban or phase-out absent the project. If policy-driven baseline changes materially reduce the additionality case, the project shall not be eligible for issuance for the affected periods unless additionality can still be demonstrated.
6.3 Investment analysis or barrier analysis
The project proponent shall demonstrate additionality using either an investment analysis or a barrier analysis, applied in a manner appropriate to the delivery model.
For distribution programs funded by grants, donors, utilities, or public finance, additionality may be demonstrated by showing that the program is not mandated, that funding is not secured as a business-as-usual obligation, and that carbon finance is a decisive contributor to program scale, coverage, or continuation. Evidence shall relate to decision-making at the time the program scale and design were set.
For commercial programs, additionality may be demonstrated through investment analysis showing that the program is not financially attractive without carbon revenues or that carbon revenues are decisive to expand beyond business-as-usual sales. The analysis shall include all material revenues and support mechanisms, including subsidies, rebates, tax incentives, utility efficiency payments, and manufacturer contributions.
Barrier analysis may be used where credible barriers exist that prevent adoption by the target population or delivery partners, including affordability barriers, access constraints, information barriers, supply chain barriers, behavioural barriers, and risk barriers. Barrier claims shall be supported by evidence specific to the context and delivery model and shall not rely on generic statements.
6.4 Common practice assessment
The project proponent shall assess whether the deployed efficient devices and delivery model are common practice in the applicable context, considering the relevant geography, market segment, and device category.
If similar devices at comparable performance levels are already widely adopted in the target population without the project, the project shall not be eligible unless the project proponent demonstrates that the project reaches a materially different segment, achieves materially higher performance, or removes constraints that make the activity non-business-as-usual.
6.5 Incentives, subsidies, and overlapping programs
The project proponent shall disclose all incentives, subsidies, rebates, and overlapping programs that affect the economics or adoption of the devices. The project shall not claim reductions that are already claimed under another program, and shall demonstrate that carbon finance is not merely stacking on top of an existing mandated or fully funded program.
Where the project leverages an existing subsidy, the project proponent shall demonstrate that the project’s incremental effect remains additional and shall apply conservative treatment where attribution between instruments is uncertain.
6.6 Timing integrity and prior consideration
Where required by PCS rules, the project proponent shall demonstrate prior consideration of carbon finance through contemporaneous evidence. Absence of credible contemporaneous evidence, where required, shall render the project ineligible.
Where units are deployed prior to entering PCS, the project proponent shall demonstrate eligibility under PCS rules applicable to start date and prior consideration and shall not claim reductions for units that do not meet PCS timing requirements.
6.7 Additionality failure conditions
A project shall be deemed not additional where the deployment is legally mandated, where the program is already fully funded and obligated without carbon revenues and carbon revenues are not decisive, where claimed barriers are not supported by evidence, where the technology adoption is common practice in the applicable context without credible differentiation, or where timing and prior consideration requirements are not met.
6.8 Documentation requirements
The project proponent shall provide documentation sufficient for validation. Documentation shall include the regulatory analysis, the selected additionality demonstration method and supporting evidence, common practice evidence and analysis, disclosure of subsidies and overlapping programs, and any prior consideration evidence required by PCS rules. Documentation shall be traceable, dated where relevant, and auditable.
Chapter 7 - Project Emissions and/or Removals
7.1 Principle
Project emissions shall include all GHG emissions within the project boundary that are attributable to the project scenario and that are relevant to the quantification of net emission reductions under this methodology.
For this methodology, project emissions primarily arise from the electricity consumed by the deployed efficient devices while delivering the defined service. Where the project causes increased electricity consumption elsewhere that is attributable and material, such effects shall be included as project emissions within the boundary or treated as leakage where they occur outside the boundary.
This methodology does not quantify removals. No removals shall be claimed under PCS-TR-009.
7.2 Project electricity consumption determination
Project electricity consumption for monitoring period shall be calculated for each device category as the product of the project device power and project usage, adjusted for service equivalence where applicable, and aggregated across eligible operating units.
Where direct metering of all devices is not feasible, project usage shall be determined using monitored data from representative samples, conservative surveys, or other auditable methods allowed under this methodology. The approach shall be consistent with the approach used to determine baseline usage and shall not selectively bias savings upward.
Project electricity consumption shall reflect actual use of deployed units. Where units are distributed but not installed or not used, such units shall not be counted as operating units for the period.
7.3 Project emissions calculation
Project emissions shall be calculated by multiplying project electricity consumption by the applicable electricity emission factor for the device operating locations and monitoring period.
Table 7-1. Project emissions equations
Project electricity consumption
Project emissions
Where:
is project electricity consumption in monitoring period (MWh).
is the number of eligible operating units of category in period .
is project device power for category (kW).
is project usage for category in period (hours or equivalent usage metric).
is the electricity emission factor for the relevant electricity system in period (tCO₂e/MWh).
Where multiple electricity systems apply, project emissions shall be calculated separately per system or treated conservatively.
7.4 Treatment of rebound and behavioural effects
Where the efficient devices cause an increase in service consumption that increases electricity use, such increased electricity use shall be reflected in the monitored project usage and therefore in project electricity consumption.
The project shall not claim emission reductions based on fixed usage assumptions that ignore observed changes in usage. Usage determination shall be periodically verified in accordance with the monitoring requirements and conservative treatment shall be applied where uncertainty exists.
7.5 Treatment of failures, replacements, and device attrition
Where deployed units fail, are removed, or cease to be used, they shall not be counted as operating units for the affected period unless the project proponent demonstrates that an eligible replacement unit is installed and operational and that double counting is prevented.
Where replacement units are deployed, unit tracking records shall link replacements to the original units and shall demonstrate continued eligibility and service delivery.
7.6 Excluded project emissions
Upstream lifecycle emissions from manufacturing, transportation, installation, and disposal are excluded from quantification under this methodology.
7.7 Documentation requirements
The project proponent shall document the determination of project device power, usage, operating unit counts, emission factor selection, and calculation procedures. Documentation shall include unit deployment and operating evidence, sampling and survey methods where used, QA/QC procedures, and calculation files sufficient for independent replication.
Chapter 8 - Leakage
8.1 Principle
Leakage is an increase in GHG emissions that occurs outside the project boundary and is attributable to the implementation of the project activity. Leakage shall be assessed and included in the net emission reduction calculation where it is measurable, attributable, and material.
For efficient lighting and appliance replacement projects, the principal leakage risk is the continued operation of baseline inefficient devices through reuse, resale, transfer, or reinstallation, which can offset the electricity savings claimed by the project.
8.2 Leakage assessment and applicability
The project proponent shall assess leakage based on the delivery model and the device category. Leakage assessment is mandatory for replacement projects. For first-time access or new installations, leakage is generally limited but shall still be assessed where plausible.
Where the project includes collection and disposal or decommissioning of replaced devices, the project shall assess whether the approach is sufficient to prevent re-entry into service. Where prevention is not credible, leakage shall be quantified conservatively or the affected units shall be deemed ineligible.
8.3 Reuse and reinstallation leakage
Where baseline devices are replaced, the project proponent shall treat the risk of reuse or reinstallation as a leakage source.
Where the project implements physical destruction, verified decommissioning, or a controlled take-back system with chain-of-custody evidence, reuse leakage may be treated as prevented for the covered devices, provided that evidence is sufficient for verification.
Where full prevention cannot be demonstrated, the project shall quantify leakage through a conservative leakage factor applied to the replaced devices, reflecting the fraction of baseline devices that are likely to remain in service outside the project boundary. The leakage factor shall be evidence-based where feasible and conservative where uncertainty exists.
Leakage quantification shall not be avoided by relying on unverified declarations from end-users or intermediaries.
8.4 Market displacement and shifting effects
Where the project distributes subsidized efficient devices, leakage may occur if the project displaces sales that would otherwise have occurred and the displaced efficient sales are replaced by less efficient devices elsewhere. Such market effects are generally difficult to quantify and shall not be included unless a PCS-approved approach exists.
The project shall not claim reductions arising from asserted market transformation effects unless PCS provides explicit quantification rules.
8.5 Quantification of leakage
Where leakage is quantified, leakage emissions for monitoring period shall be calculated conservatively and deducted from emission reductions.
Table 8-1. Leakage emission calculation (reuse leakage)
Leakage emissions
Where:
is the leakage fraction for monitoring period , representing the fraction of baseline devices that continue operating outside the boundary due to reuse or transfer.
is the portion of baseline emissions attributable to the replaced baseline devices for monitoring period , calculated using the baseline electricity consumption and emission factor.
Where the project demonstrates credible prevention for a defined set of devices, leakage for those devices may be treated as zero, subject to verification evidence.
Where leakage cannot be quantified credibly and the risk is material, the project shall apply conservative deductions up to and including deeming affected units ineligible for the monitoring period.
8.6 Documentation requirements
The project proponent shall document leakage assessment, reuse prevention measures, chain-of-custody records where applicable, disposal and destruction evidence, any leakage factor applied, and calculations performed. Evidence shall be sufficient to allow validation and verification of leakage conclusions.
Chapter 9 - Net GHG Impact and Crediting
9.1 Principle
Emission reductions credited under this methodology shall be calculated for each monitoring period as the net difference between baseline emissions and the sum of project emissions and leakage emissions. Crediting shall be based on monitored and verifiable data. No crediting shall be issued for reductions that are not supported by auditable records.
Emission reductions shall represent electricity savings that deliver equivalent or improved service and shall not be claimed for reductions that arise from reduced service or non-operational units.
9.2 Net emission reductions
Net emission reductions for monitoring period shall be calculated as follows.
Table 9-1. Net emission reduction equation
Net emission reductions
Where:
is emission reductions in monitoring period (tCO₂e).
is baseline emissions in monitoring period (tCO₂e), determined in Chapter 5.
is project emissions in monitoring period (tCO₂e), determined in Chapter 7.
is leakage emissions in monitoring period (tCO₂e), determined in Chapter 8.
Emission reductions shall not be claimed for periods in which 
. Where is negative, it shall be reported and shall not be carried forward to offset positive emission reductions in other monitoring periods.
9.3 Creditable emission reductions and issuance
Creditable emission reductions shall equal verified emission reductions after application of any PCS-required adjustments, conservativeness provisions, or other deductions applicable to the project, including those arising from uncertainty treatment, monitoring non-conformities, attrition treatment, sampling non-compliance, or approved deviations.
Issuance shall occur only after successful verification and PCS review in accordance with PCS procedures. The project proponent shall ensure that all parameters and calculations used for the monitoring period are traceable to source records and can be independently reproduced.
9.4 Treatment of operating unit counts and attrition
Emission reductions shall be calculated only for units that are eligible and operational during the monitoring period. The project proponent shall apply an auditable method to determine the number of operating units for each device category.
Where unit attrition occurs due to failure, removal, or non-use, the project proponent shall reflect attrition conservatively in operating unit counts. Units with uncertain operational status shall be treated as non-operational unless credible evidence supports operation.
Where replacement units are deployed, the project proponent shall demonstrate that replacements are eligible, installed, and operational and that double counting is prevented.
9.5 Treatment of multiple electricity systems
Where units operate across multiple electricity systems, emission reductions shall be calculated separately per system where different emission factors apply, and then summed. The project shall not apply a single emission factor where doing so would overstate emission reductions.
9.6 Rounding and units
Electricity quantities shall be expressed in MWh. Emissions and emission reductions shall be expressed in tCO₂e.
Rounding shall be applied conservatively. Where rounding is required, values shall be rounded down to the nearest whole unit at the stage of credit issuance. Intermediate calculations shall retain sufficient decimal precision to avoid systematic inflation of results.
9.7 Crediting period and renewal
The crediting period length, renewal rules, and any limits on total crediting duration shall be applied in accordance with PCS requirements. The project proponent shall apply baseline update and additionality reassessment requirements applicable at renewal, including policy-driven baseline changes.
9.8 Documentation requirements
For each monitoring period, the project proponent shall provide a complete calculation record that includes baseline electricity consumption and emissions, project electricity consumption and emissions, leakage assessment and deductions, operating unit counts and attrition treatment, applicable emission factor(s), and net emission reductions. Records shall be sufficient to support validation and verification.
Chapter 10 - Monitoring Requirements
10.1 Objective
The objective of monitoring under this methodology is to produce complete, accurate, and auditable data sufficient to quantify baseline emissions, project emissions, leakage where applicable, and net emission reductions for each monitoring period. Monitoring shall enable independent verification of unit deployment, continued operation, service equivalence, device performance, and usage assumptions applied in calculations.
Monitoring shall be implemented as a system. The system shall include unit traceability procedures, data collection and storage procedures, QA/QC controls, sampling and verification arrangements, change control, and record retention practices.
10.2 Monitoring period
The project proponent shall define monitoring periods in accordance with PCS requirements. For each monitoring period, the project shall compile monitored data and supporting evidence that cover the full period without gaps. Where monitoring relies on sampling, sampling shall be conducted at frequencies sufficient to support the monitoring period calculations and to detect non-operation and over-reporting.
10.3 Parameters to be monitored
The project proponent shall monitor the parameters in Table 10-1, as applicable to the device categories and delivery model. Where a parameter is not applicable, the project proponent shall justify non-applicability and demonstrate that exclusion does not result in over-crediting.
Table 10-1. Monitoring parameters (minimum)
Unit registry
Unique record of each deployed unit
N/A
All projects
Continuous updates
Digital registry with unique IDs
Completeness checks; tamper controls
(N_{k,t})
Operating units per category (k) in period (t)
Count
All projects
Per monitoring period
Verification surveys, installation checks, evidence sampling
Conservative treatment of unknowns
(P^{PJ}_{k})
Project device power
kW
All projects
At procurement; confirm at verification
Specifications, test reports, labels
Consistency checks; type verification
(P^{BL}_{k})
Baseline device power
kW
All projects
At baseline establishment; update if required
Baseline surveys, market evidence
Conservative selection controls
(U^{PJ}_{k,t})
Project usage parameter
Hours/metric
All projects
At least per period; more frequent where volatile
Metering sample, surveys, loggers
Statistical validity; bias checks
(U^{BL}_{k,t})
Baseline usage parameter
Hours/metric
All projects
At baseline establishment; update if required
Baseline surveys, market evidence
Conservative selection controls
Service equivalence parameters
Lumen/output, capacity, performance
Various
All projects
At baseline and procurement; verify sample
Specs, tests, field checks
Equivalence validation
Electricity system ID
Grid/system for operating location
Text
Multi-system projects
Per deployment and verification
Location records, utility mapping
Consistency checks
(EF^{ELEC}_{t})
Electricity emission factor
tCO₂e/MWh
All projects
Per monitoring period
Official dataset(s)
Version control; applicability
Disposal/non-reuse evidence
Evidence of baseline device non-reuse
N/A
Replacement projects
Continuous; compiled per period
Chain-of-custody, destruction records, audits
Traceability; completeness
Attrition and replacement log
Failures, removals, replacements
N/A
All projects
Continuous
Service records, follow-up surveys
Reconciliation to registry
10.4 Unit traceability and registry requirements
The project shall maintain a unit registry that supports traceability from procurement to end-user deployment and monitoring. The registry shall record unit identification, device category, model/specification, efficiency certification where applicable, distribution and installation dates, installation location, end-user identifier where permitted, and the electricity system relevant to the operating location.
The project shall implement controls to prevent double counting, including unique identifiers and procedures for handling returns, replacements, and redeployments.
10.5 Installation and operation verification
The project shall verify that units counted as operating are installed and in use. Verification may be achieved through direct installation records, photographic evidence where appropriate, follow-up visits, phone verification with auditable logs, smart device telemetry where available, or statistically valid sampling.
Where sampling is used, the sampling plan shall be designed to confirm both installation and continued operation, detect non-use and removal, and detect misreporting. Sampling shall be representative of the deployed population and shall not be designed to over-represent high-usage segments.
Units with uncertain installation or operational status shall be treated conservatively as non-operational unless credible evidence supports operation.
10.6 Usage monitoring and sampling requirements
Usage is a primary driver of quantified savings. The project shall determine project usage and baseline usage using methods that are auditable and conservative.
Where direct metering is feasible, the project shall use metered data for a representative sample. Where surveys are used, survey instruments and implementation shall be auditable and designed to avoid upward bias in reported usage. Where usage loggers are used, procedures for installation, retrieval, data handling, and data integrity shall be documented.
Sampling shall be statistically valid and sufficient to support the precision required by PCS. Where sampling uncertainty is high, conservative adjustments shall be applied.
10.7 Treatment of device attrition and replacements
The project shall track device failures, removals, and replacements. Operating unit counts shall reflect attrition conservatively.
Where replacements are provided, the project shall update the registry and demonstrate that replacement units are eligible, installed, and operational and that no double counting occurs between original and replacement units.
10.8 Leakage monitoring for replacement projects
For replacement projects, the project shall implement monitoring sufficient to support leakage prevention claims. Where a take-back or destruction approach is used, chain-of-custody records shall be maintained and shall link collected baseline devices to project deployments where feasible.
Where leakage is quantified via a leakage factor, the project shall document the basis for the factor and shall implement verification checks to confirm that reuse is not higher than assumed.
10.9 Data quality and QA/QC
Monitoring data shall be subject to QA/QC controls sufficient to ensure accuracy and integrity. The project shall implement documented procedures for data collection, processing, review, and change control, including an auditable trail from raw records to reported totals.
The project shall perform internal consistency checks, including reconciliation of procured units, distributed units, installed units, operating units, and replaced units collected or destroyed where applicable.
10.10 Data gaps and conservative treatment
Where monitored data are missing, corrupted, or otherwise unavailable, the project proponent shall apply a conservative approach to gap-filling that does not increase credited reductions.
Where unit operation cannot be confirmed, units shall be treated as non-operational for the affected period. Where usage data are missing or insufficient, conservative usage values shall be applied that reduce claimed savings.
Where leakage prevention evidence is incomplete for replacement projects, conservative leakage treatment shall be applied up to and including deeming affected units ineligible for the monitoring period.
All data gaps and treatments shall be documented with the period affected and the impact on results.
10.11 Record retention and accessibility
The project proponent shall retain monitoring records and supporting evidence for a period consistent with PCS requirements and sufficient to allow validation and verification across the crediting period and subsequent audits.
Records shall be stored to prevent loss and unauthorised modification and shall be made available to the VVB and PCS upon request.
10.12 Monitoring report content
For each monitoring period, the project proponent shall prepare a monitoring report that includes the monitoring period definition, device categories and quantities deployed, registry summary, installation and operation verification results, usage determination method and results, service equivalence evidence, attrition and replacement treatment, leakage prevention or leakage quantification where applicable, applied electricity emission factor(s), data QA/QC and data gaps, and the full calculation of net emission reductions.
Chapter 11 - Uncertainty and Conservativeness
11.1 Principle
Uncertainty shall be managed to protect environmental integrity. Where uncertainty affects the quantification of emission reductions, the project proponent shall apply conservative approaches that avoid over-crediting.
Uncertainty treatment shall be transparent, documented, and verifiable. Weak data shall not be compensated by favourable assumptions.
11.2 Identification of uncertainty sources
The project proponent shall identify and document the sources of uncertainty that may materially affect baseline emissions, project emissions, leakage, and net emission reductions.
For efficient lighting and appliance projects, uncertainty commonly arises from misreporting or overstatement of deployed unit counts, inability to confirm installation and continued operation, sampling error and sampling bias, self-reported usage inflation, device power misclassification, service equivalence assumptions, attrition under-reporting, leakage due to reuse of baseline devices, electricity system misclassification for operating locations, and emission factor applicability.
Only uncertainty sources that affect the quantified difference between baseline and project electricity consumption for the defined service shall be considered for conservative treatment under this methodology.
11.3 Unit count, installation, and operation uncertainty
Unit counts used for quantification shall reflect units that are installed and operational during the monitoring period. Where installation or operation cannot be confirmed, the project shall apply conservative treatment and shall not credit the unit for the affected period.
Where verification evidence is partial, inconsistent, or not auditable, the project shall apply conservative deductions to operating unit counts. Units with uncertain status shall be treated as non-operational unless credible evidence supports operation.
Where registry controls are weak or double counting risk exists, the project shall apply conservative outcomes up to and including deeming affected units ineligible for issuance for the monitoring period.
11.4 Usage uncertainty and treatment of self-reported data
Usage is a primary driver of savings and is a major integrity risk. Where usage is determined through surveys or self-reported data, the project shall implement controls designed to avoid upward bias and shall apply conservative adjustments where uncertainty exists.
Where metered usage data are available for representative samples, metered data shall take precedence over self-reported claims. Where metered data are not available, the project shall use conservative usage values supported by auditable evidence.
Where usage cannot be credibly determined for the monitoring period, the project shall apply conservative deductions up to and including zero issuance for the affected device category where integrity cannot be established.
11.5 Sampling uncertainty
Where sampling is used to determine installation rates, operating rates, usage parameters, or leakage factors, sampling design shall be statistically valid, representative, and auditable. Sampling shall not be structured to over-represent high-usage or high-compliance segments.
Where sampling uncertainty is high or sampling implementation is weak, the project shall apply conservative adjustments that reduce credited reductions. Conservative adjustments may include using lower-bound estimates for savings, applying deductions to operating unit counts, or applying conservative usage values.
11.6 Device performance and service equivalence uncertainty
Where device power ratings or performance characteristics are uncertain, the project shall apply conservative values that reduce claimed savings. Where service equivalence between baseline and project devices cannot be demonstrated, the project shall apply conservative adjustments to prevent crediting reductions that arise from reduced service.
For lighting, equivalence shall be demonstrated in terms of light output and application. For appliances, equivalence shall be demonstrated in terms of capacity, operating conditions, and performance level relevant to energy consumption.
11.7 Leakage uncertainty for replacement projects
Where baseline devices are replaced, uncertainty in reuse prevention is a primary leakage risk. Where destruction or controlled take-back evidence is incomplete or not auditable, the project shall apply conservative leakage treatment that does not understate reuse.
Where a leakage factor is used, the factor shall be conservative and supported by evidence where feasible. Where credible leakage quantification cannot be demonstrated and reuse risk is material, affected units shall be deemed ineligible or conservative deductions shall be applied up to and including zero issuance for the affected period.
11.8 Emission factor and electricity system uncertainty
Electricity emission factors shall be applied consistently and updated when required. The project shall not select emission factor sources, temporal windows, or factor variants to increase credited reductions.
Where electricity system classification for operating locations is uncertain, the project shall apply conservative treatment, including applying a lower baseline emission factor where doing so reduces claimed reductions or disaggregating only where location evidence supports it.
11.9 Data gaps and estimation
Data gaps increase uncertainty. Gap-filling shall not increase credited reductions.
Where data gaps affect unit operation confirmation, affected units shall be treated as non-operational. Where data gaps affect usage determination, conservative usage values shall be applied that reduce claimed savings. Where data gaps affect leakage prevention evidence, conservative leakage treatment shall be applied.
Any estimation method that materially increases emission reductions shall require explicit justification and may be rejected at verification.
11.10 Documentation requirements
The project proponent shall maintain documentation sufficient for validation and verification. Documentation shall include registry controls and audit trails, sampling plans and raw survey datasets, metering data where used, device specification evidence, attrition and replacement records, leakage prevention and disposal evidence where applicable, electricity system classification evidence, emission factor sources and update records, and records of conservative deductions applied.
Chapter 12 - Validation and Verification Guidance
12.1 Objective
This chapter defines the minimum validation and verification checks that shall be applied by the Validation and Verification Body (VVB) to determine whether the project is eligible, correctly applies this methodology, and has quantified emission reductions in a complete and conservative manner.
Where the VVB identifies non-conformities that materially affect eligibility, baseline integrity, service equivalence, unit traceability, sampling integrity, usage determination, leakage prevention, emission factor applicability, or quantification results, the VVB shall not issue a positive opinion for registration or issuance unless the non-conformities are corrected and corrective evidence is provided.
12.2 Validation scope
At validation, the VVB shall confirm that the project meets eligibility and applicability conditions and that the project design and monitoring system can implement this methodology as written. The VVB shall assess whether the baseline scenario is credible and conservative, whether service equivalence is addressed, whether the unit registry and controls can prevent double counting, whether installation and operation verification is feasible, and whether the proposed sampling and usage determination approach is statistically valid and conservative.
The VVB shall assess whether the project’s delivery model and any partners’ roles create risks of over-reporting and whether controls are sufficient to manage those risks.
12.3 Validation checks on eligibility and applicability
The VVB shall confirm that the project is within scope and that exclusion triggers do not apply. The VVB shall verify legal compliance, product safety compliance, and any required approvals relevant to the device categories deployed.
The VVB shall verify the project start date and assess prior consideration requirements where applicable. The VVB shall assess the project proponent’s right to claim emission reductions and evaluate overlap risks with utilities, government programs, manufacturer claims, donor programs, and other mechanisms.
For replacement projects, the VVB shall assess the non-reuse and disposal approach and whether it is auditable and proportionate to program scale.
12.4 Validation checks on baseline determination and service equivalence
The VVB shall assess baseline scenario identification, including baseline device type, baseline power assumptions, and baseline usage assumptions. The VVB shall confirm that baseline assumptions are supported by credible evidence and are not selected to inflate savings.
The VVB shall assess service equivalence for each device category. For lighting, the VVB shall confirm that baseline and project devices provide comparable light output for the relevant application and that any adjustments for differing service levels are conservative. For appliances, the VVB shall confirm capacity and performance equivalence and confirm that calculations do not credit reductions arising from reduced service.
The VVB shall assess baseline update provisions in relation to minimum energy performance standards, bans, or market shifts that affect baseline conditions.
12.5 Validation checks on monitoring, unit registry, and sampling plan
The VVB shall assess the unit registry design, unique identification approach, and controls that prevent double counting. The VVB shall evaluate procedures for procurement, distribution, installation verification, operation confirmation, attrition tracking, and replacement handling.
Where sampling is proposed for installation verification, operation verification, or usage determination, the VVB shall assess sampling design, representativeness, sample size rationale, field implementation procedures, and bias controls. The VVB shall confirm that the sampling approach is capable of producing conservative parameter estimates and that units with uncertain status will be treated conservatively.
12.6 Validation checks on additionality
The VVB shall assess the additionality demonstration for completeness and credibility. The VVB shall confirm that the activity is not legally mandated and assess policy interactions, including subsidies and minimum efficiency standards, and their implications for baseline and additionality.
The VVB shall assess the common practice assessment and confirm that the applicable context is appropriate and that conclusions are supported by evidence.
12.7 Verification scope
At verification, the VVB shall confirm that monitoring data and calculations for each monitoring period are complete, accurate, and traceable, and that the project remains eligible under this methodology.
The VVB shall verify that device categories, performance specifications, delivery model, registry controls, sampling plan, and disposal approach have not changed in a manner that affects eligibility, baseline integrity, or quantification without appropriate PCS approval.
12.8 Verification checks on unit deployment, installation, and operation
The VVB shall reconcile procured, distributed, installed, and operating units using auditable records. The VVB shall verify that units counted as operating during the monitoring period are installed and in use, and shall assess attrition and replacement handling.
Where sampling is used, the VVB shall verify sampling implementation, check raw survey datasets and field records, assess bias risks, and confirm that conservative rules for uncertain units are applied.
The VVB shall verify that unit registry controls prevent double counting and that unique identifiers and status tracking are consistent.
12.9 Verification checks on usage determination
The VVB shall verify the method used to determine project usage and baseline usage and confirm that usage values applied are supported by auditable evidence and conservative treatment.
Where self-reported usage is used, the VVB shall assess survey design, enumerator procedures, and bias controls. Where metered data are used, the VVB shall verify logger deployment procedures, dataset integrity, and representativeness.
Where usage determination is weak or not auditable, the VVB shall require conservative deductions, including applying lower-bound usage values or deeming affected categories ineligible for issuance for the monitoring period where integrity cannot be established.
12.10 Verification checks on leakage prevention for replacement projects
For replacement projects, the VVB shall verify non-reuse and disposal evidence, including chain-of-custody records, destruction records, audits, and reconciliation of collected baseline devices to deployed project units where applicable.
Where a leakage factor is applied, the VVB shall verify the basis for the factor and confirm that the factor is conservative relative to observed evidence. Where reuse risk is higher than assumed, the VVB shall require corrective leakage deductions.
Where leakage prevention evidence is incomplete and leakage is material, the VVB shall apply conservative outcomes up to and including zero issuance for the affected units or categories.
12.11 Verification checks on emission factors and calculations
The VVB shall confirm that the electricity emission factor applied is applicable to the operating locations and monitoring period and that any required updates have been applied. Where multiple electricity systems apply, the VVB shall verify disaggregation or conservative treatment.
The VVB shall reproduce emission reduction calculations using verified inputs and shall confirm correct equations, units, aggregation, and deductions. The VVB shall confirm that emission reductions are not claimed for non-operational units and that rounding is conservative.
12.12 Non-conformities and corrective actions
The VVB shall classify non-conformities based on materiality. Material non-conformities shall be corrected before a positive validation opinion or verification statement is issued.
Where corrections require changes to baseline assumptions, service equivalence treatment, registry records, sampling procedures, usage values, leakage deductions, or calculation methods, the VVB shall verify revised materials and confirm that revisions do not introduce over-crediting.
12.13 Common failure conditions under this methodology
A project shall be treated as having a material integrity failure where the VVB determines that unit deployment cannot be verified, where installation and operation cannot be confirmed, where sampling is not representative or is not auditable, where usage is overstated and cannot be corrected conservatively, where non-reuse controls fail and leakage is material, or where baseline assumptions are not credible.
Where integrity cannot be established for a monitoring period, the VVB shall apply conservative outcomes up to and including zero issuance for the affected period.
12.14 Documentation requirements
The project proponent shall provide the VVB and PCS with all documents and datasets necessary to perform the checks in this chapter. Evidence shall be organised, traceable, and sufficient to support replication of results and independent assessment.
Chapter 13 - References
13.1 General requirement
The project proponent shall use credible, publicly available, and verifiable sources for all default values, emission factors, technical assumptions, product performance claims, and sampling/statistical methods applied under this methodology. References shall be sufficiently specific to allow independent replication, including the title, issuing entity, version number or publication date, and the relevant sections or datasets.
Where multiple credible sources exist for a parameter, the project proponent shall justify the selection and shall apply conservative choices where uncertainty exists.
13.2 Minimum reference categories
This methodology relies on minimum reference categories where applicable. PCS documents apply, including the relevant PCS standards, this methodology, any referenced PCS methodological tools, and applicable PCS templates and forms. Host country laws and regulations apply where they affect product safety, electrical installation, consumer protection, import rules, and waste management for replaced devices. Official electricity emission factor publications or officially recognised electricity system emissions datasets apply for baseline and project emissions. Recognised device performance standards and test methods apply for lighting and appliance efficiency and service equivalence determination, including applicable national or international standards used for certification and labeling. Statistical sampling and survey method references apply where sampling is used for installation verification, usage determination, and leakage assessment.
13.3 Citation and recordkeeping requirements
All sources used shall be cited in the project documentation and retained as part of the project record. Where a data source is updated periodically, the project proponent shall retain the specific version used for each monitoring period and demonstrate consistency with emission factor update requirements. Product evidence shall include model identifiers and the specific certification documents or test reports relevant to the devices deployed.
Annex A - Parameters and Default Values
A.1 General
This annex specifies the minimum parameters required to implement this methodology. Project proponents shall use measured data where required. Default values may be used only where explicitly allowed and shall be justified as applicable and conservative.
Table A-1. Parameters (minimum)
(N_{k,t})
Eligible operating units of category (k) in period (t)
Count
All projects
Registry + installation/operation verification
Per period
No
(P^{PJ}_{k})
Project device power for category (k)
kW
All projects
Product specs, labels, test reports
At procurement; verify sample per period
No
(P^{BL}_{k})
Baseline device power for category (k)
kW
All projects
Baseline surveys, market data, device inventories
At baseline establishment; update if required
Limited; only if PCS default tables exist
(U^{PJ}_{k,t})
Project usage for category (k) in period (t)
Hours/metric
All projects
Metered sampling, surveys, loggers
Per period
Limited; conservative deemed values only if allowed
(U^{BL}_{k,t})
Baseline usage for category (k) in period (t)
Hours/metric
All projects
Baseline surveys, market evidence
At baseline establishment; update if required
Limited; conservative deemed values only if allowed
(EF^{ELEC}_{t})
Electricity emission factor for operating location/system in period (t)
tCO₂e/MWh
All projects
Official dataset(s)
Per period
Yes, where PCS recognises the source as default
(L_{t})
Leakage fraction due to reuse of baseline devices
Fraction
Replacement projects
Evidence-based estimate or conservative default
Per period or at verification
Limited; only with conservative justification
Service equivalence parameter(s)
Lumen/output, capacity, performance
Various
All projects
Specs, certification, field checks
At baseline and procurement; verify sample
No
Annex B - Worked Example
B.1 Example purpose and limitations
This worked example is illustrative and demonstrates calculation logic. Project proponents shall use project-specific monitored data, conservative operating unit counts, credible usage determination, leakage deductions where applicable, and applicable electricity emission factors.
B.2 Example scenario and inputs
Assume a project distributes LED lamps to households to replace incandescent lamps. The monitoring period is one year. The project confirms operation through sampling and applies conservative operating unit counts. Leakage is treated as prevented through verified take-back and destruction, so leakage is zero for the example.
Table B-1. Example inputs for monitoring period
Operating units 
100,000 lamps
Eligible and operating
Baseline power 
0.060 kW
Incandescent 60 W
Project power 
0.009 kW
LED 9 W
Usage 
1,200 hours/year
Conservatively determined
Electricity emission factor 
0.650 tCO₂e/MWh
Example only
Leakage 
0 tCO₂e
Destruction verified
B.3 Baseline electricity consumption and emissions
B.4 Project electricity consumption and emissions
B.5 Net emission reductions
No credits are issued for any period in which the result is zero or negative.
Annex C - Monitoring Data Sheet
C.1 Monitoring log requirements
The project proponent shall maintain a monitoring log that allows independent reproduction of monitoring period totals and linkage to raw records. The monitoring log shall be maintained for each monitoring period and retained with supporting evidence.
Table C-1. Monitoring data sheet (minimum fields)
Monitoring period ID
Unique identifier
Text
Yes
Period start date/time
Start of monitoring period
YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm
Yes
Period end date/time
End of monitoring period
YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm
Yes
Device category 
Lighting/appliance category
Text
Yes
Model / specification
Model ID and key specs
Text
Yes
Registry extract reference
Link/ref to unit registry
Text
Yes
Units procured
Total procured
Count
Yes
Units distributed
Total distributed
Count
Yes
Units installed (verified)
Verified installed
Count
Yes
Operating units 
Eligible operating units
Count
Yes
Baseline device type
Baseline device definition
Text
Yes
Baseline power
kW
Yes
Project power
kW
Yes
Usage method
Metered/survey/deemed
Text
Yes
Baseline usage
Hours/metric
Conditional
Project usage
Hours/metric
Conditional
Service equivalence evidence ref
Evidence reference
Text
Yes
Electricity system ID
Grid/system
Text
Yes
source/version
Dataset name, version/date
Text
Yes
Baseline consumption 
MWh
MWh
Yes
Project consumption 
MWh
MWh
Yes
Baseline emissions 
tCO₂e
tCO₂e
Yes
Project emissions
tCO₂e
tCO₂e
Yes
Replacement project
Yes/No
Text
Conditional
Disposal/non-reuse evidence ref
Evidence reference
Text
Conditional
Leakage method
Prevented / factor
Text
Conditional
Leakage fraction 
Fraction
Conditional
Leakage emissions
tCO₂e
Conditional
Net reductions 
tCO₂e
Yes
Sampling plan ref
Sampling design reference
Text
Conditional
Sampling results summary
Key results
Text
Conditional
Data gaps present
Yes/No
Text
Yes
Gap treatment description
Conservative treatment
Text
Conditional
Prepared by / date
Responsible person and date
Text / YYYY-MM-DD
Yes
Internal review by / date
Reviewer and date
Text / YYYY-MM-DD
Yes
Definitions and Acronyms
D.1 Definitions
For the purposes of this methodology, the following definitions apply.
Additionality means the demonstration that the project activity results in emission reductions that would not have occurred in the absence of the project and the incentive from carbon crediting.
Appliance means an electrical end-use device that provides a defined service such as cooling, refrigeration, ventilation, washing, or other household or commercial functions, and that consumes electricity during operation.
Attrition means the reduction in the number of deployed devices that remain installed and operational over time due to failure, removal, non-use, theft, or other causes.
Baseline device means the lighting product or appliance that would have been used to provide the same service in the absence of the project, including an existing replaced device or a plausible alternative determined under the baseline scenario.
Baseline emissions (BE_t) means the GHG emissions that would occur in monitoring period t in the absence of the project activity, associated with electricity consumption of baseline devices needed to deliver the same service.
Baseline usage means the operating pattern that would have occurred absent the project, expressed in hours or an equivalent usage metric appropriate to the device category.
Device category (k) means a grouping of devices with similar service, performance characteristics, power ratings, and usage patterns for the purposes of quantification and monitoring.
Deemed savings means electricity savings estimated using approved default values for parameters such as baseline power and usage, where direct measurement is not feasible and where the approach is permitted and conservative.
Electricity emission factor (EF^{ELEC}_t) means the emission intensity of electricity generation for the defined electricity system applicable to monitoring period t, expressed in tCO₂e per MWh.
Eligible operating unit (N_{k,t}) means a deployed device that meets eligibility requirements and is verified as installed and operational for at least the minimum period required to be counted in monitoring period t.
Installation verification means the process of confirming that a deployed device is physically installed at the intended location and is capable of providing the defined service.
Leakage (LE_t) means an increase in GHG emissions occurring outside the project boundary that is attributable to the project activity and is measurable, attributable, and material under this methodology.
Leakage fraction (L_t) means the fraction of replaced baseline devices that remain in operation outside the project boundary due to reuse, resale, or transfer, used to quantify leakage where reuse prevention cannot be credibly demonstrated.
Non-reuse means the condition that replaced baseline devices are permanently removed from service and are not reintroduced into operation in a way that would offset project savings.
Operating hours (U_{k,t}) means the number of hours a device is used during monitoring period t, or an equivalent usage metric appropriate to the device category.
Power (P) means the electrical power of a device during operation, expressed in kW and determined from rated specifications or measured evidence as applicable.
Project device means the efficient lighting product or appliance deployed by the project activity.
Service equivalence means the requirement that baseline and project devices provide equivalent or improved service so that emission reductions are not credited due to reduced service.
Unit registry means the auditable record system that tracks devices from procurement to deployment, operation status, attrition, and replacements, and supports prevention of double counting.
Validation and verification means independent assessment activities performed to confirm eligibility, methodological correctness, data integrity, and quantified emission reductions for registration and issuance under PCS.
D.2 Acronyms
Table D-1. Acronyms
BE
Baseline Emissions
EF
Emission Factor
ER
Emission Reductions
GHG
Greenhouse Gas
LED
Light Emitting Diode
LE
Leakage Emissions
MWh
Megawatt-hour
PE
Project Emissions
PCS
Planetary Carbon Standard
PCC
Planetary Carbon Credit
QA/QC
Quality Assurance / Quality Control
VVB
Validation and Verification Body
Last updated