Reduced emissions from cooking and heating (RECH) (formerly TPDDTEC)

Modified on Mon, 29 Jun at 2:50 PM

These FAQs refer to the Gold Standard methodology Reduced emissions from cooking and heating (RECH) (formerly TPDDTEC)

Quick Links:
- Tool 7 – Digital Stove Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Tool (D-Smart)

SECTIONS

Transition from TPDDTEC to RECH (PAA Alignment)
Scope & Applicability
Baseline Scenario & Baseline Determination
Leakage Emissions
Monitoring, Sampling & Surveys
Measurement Technologies & Sensors
Hawthorne Effect

Transition from TPDDTEC to RECH (PAA Alignment)

Under RECH V5.0, what are the most important changes that existing TPDDTEC projects must address when transitioning to the PAA version, especially regarding baseline determination, monitoring approach, and eligibility of 2026 credit vintages?

For 2026+ vintages, existing projects must undergo a gap validation (Pathway A) or full validation at renewal (Pathway B) to apply the new Paris Agreement Alignment (PAA) rules. Existing projects need to address the PAA overlays: Downward Adjustment Factor (DAF), caps, updated leakage treatment, Wood-to-charcoal factor defaults, updated fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB), lock-in risk, 90/10 uncertainty treatment where applicable, observer-bias adjustments for manual Kitchen Performance Tests (KPTs) and stronger QA/QC and reporting requirements. For 2026+ vintages, the activity cannot simply carry forward the old calculation without the PAA safeguards.

For projects that were previously validated under TPDDTEC Version 04, if the annual ERs are reduced to below 10,000 due to updated fNRB values, DAF, and other parameter revisions, can these projects still apply the RECH method, or is it mandatory to transition to SMEC?

Projects can still apply RECH – there is no mandatory transition to SMEC for microscale activities.

If a project previously established the baseline using B-KPT (30 samples) under TPDDTEC ver 4.0 and achieved the required 90/10 confidence and precision, will this approach be grandfathered for GAP validation or they are required to conduct additional baseline KPTs, considering 50 minimum sample requirement under RECH ver 5.0?

Legacy 90/30 baseline data is grandfathered for Mid-CP transitions. If historical stats (Standard Dection/Mean) are unavailable to prove legacy precision, Conservative Defaults (Lower Bounds) shall be applied. Under Full validation new testing shall strictly meet 90/10 precision or the lower/upper bound is applied.

See: https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/standards/120_V1.0_PAA-VVS100-01-PAA-Validation-And-Verification-Requirements-for-Methodologies-update.pdf

If a project wants to move from TPDDTEC to an alternative methodology (e.g. SMEC), can this be processed during the PAA alignment gap validation / design change?

Please refer to the following Gold Standard Paris Agreement Alignment documents for clarification on methodology changes during gap validation:

For RECH: if recent KPT campaign met v4.0 requirements (90/30, N=30) but not v5.0 (90/10, N=50), is there an exemption for PAA transition ? or a new/partial KPT campaign needs to be conducted again?

The project should initiate biennial re-testing (P-KPT) immediately if >2 years since last test. The testing shall capture total fuel use (stove stacking) and comply with 90/10 rules.

Please see: https://globalgoals.goldstandard.org/standards/120_V1.0_PAA-VVS100-01-PAA-Validation-And-Verification-Requirements-for-Methodologies-update.pdf

Scope & Applicability

Can an electric cookstove use RECH?

No, as per the eligibility conditions in RECH, electric cookstoves should apply the Metered & measured energy cooking devices (MECD) Methodology.

If a country is classed as an LDC at the start of the monitoring period but 'graduates' during the same monitoring period, will any analyses need to be re-conducted (e.g., positive list, wood to charcoal conversion factor)?

If the country was an LDC at first submission, graduation would not automatically trigger re-performance of the positive list assessment within that monitoring period. The positive list itself is valid for five years from the publication date of RECH v5.0. After that period, the Secretariat will review the criteria and underlying scientific literature to ensure the positive list remains empirically relevant.

For Wood to Charcoal Conversion Factor (WCCF) , no project-specific re-assessment is required. RECH applies standardized methodology defaults.

Why was the wood-to-charcoal ratio not set at 4:1 by default?

The updated approach uses regional defaults to reflect differences in charcoal production efficiency. A 6:1 ratio is used for Sub-Saharan Africa and LDC contexts to reflect lower-efficiency traditional kilns. A 4:1 ratio applies elsewhere and can be voluntarily used where it is more conservative. The intent is to avoid project-specific cherry-picking while still reflecting regional production realities.

Baseline Scenario & Baseline Determination

Regarding the per capita cap for baseline fuel use: Is per capita defined as "average number of person (simple headcount of person in the household)" or "average number of adult equivalant in the household“? And which source should household size be determined from?

The per capita cap is the simple headcount of persons in the household, known as the average baseline household size (HNb). The source for the household size parameter (HNb) is the Baseline Scenario Survey (or official census data matching the target demographic).

Section 7.4.2.5 (Baseline Consumption Cap) is the project developer required to use the adult-equivalent household size from the baseline KPT when converting the per-capita cap to a daily household equivalent, or should the simple average household size from the baseline survey conducted prior to project implementation (ex-ante) be used?

Parameter is HNb, defined as the average number of individuals per household in the baseline scenario. Therefore, the project developer should use the average baseline household size determined for the baseline scenario, consistent with the baseline survey and/or B-KPT data used to establish the baseline.

The methodology refers to “individuals” and “persons” for this parameter. It does not require conversion to adult-equivalent household size for the RECH baseline cap calculation unless this is specifically required by the applicable KPT protocol or approved monitoring approach.

How is ‘material discrepancy’ defined in section 7.3.2.2 – What would trigger resolutions a or b?

Material discrepancy occurs where the actual activity household population has a cleaner or lower-emitting profile than the ex-ante baseline assumptions. This occurs where the actual proportion of cooking events using the primary high-emitting fuel is lower than assumed, resulting in inflated ex-ante baseline emissions, and/or where the actual average household size is smaller than the baseline scenario estimate.

If the deviation is >20%, the grandfathered baseline is statistically invalid for that specific new cohort and the VVB must issue a CAR requiring a new B-KPT for that segment. If the deviation is ≤20, the baseline remains valid but must be adjusted downward by the exact percentage deviation to avoid over-crediting.

The default values for Option B for baseline scenarios are not described. Do the default values of Option C apply?

Yes, the base default values are identical for both options: 0.50 tonnes per capita per year for wood, and 0.13 tonnes per capita per year for charcoal. The difference is how they are calculated. When applied under Option B, these values are utilized directly without adjustment, whereas Option C requires a mandatory 5% downward conservativeness discount.

Is switch from one type of biomass to another one considered as fuel switch?

Yes, switching from one type of biomass (e.g., traditional firewood) to another type of biomass (e.g., pellets, briquettes, or charcoal) is classified as a Type C Fuel Switch. Because different biomass fuels have completely different energy values (NCV) and production emissions (like charcoal kilns or pelletizing), they are treated as "different fuels" and require a Baseline KPT

Leakage Emissions

Do embodied emissions need to be deducted for units that were distributed / for which credits have been issued prior to 1 Jan 2026?

No retrospective embodied emissions deduction should be required for units distributed before 1 January 2026 where the credits relate to vintages up to 31 December 2025.

Monitoring, Sampling & Surveys

How has the updated methodology incorporated the consultation outcome permitting cross-sectional usage surveys based on a single statistically representative sample across varied device ages, rather than separate surveys for each age cohort??

The updated methodology allows the usage survey to be conducted as one monitoring exercise across the activity population, but it still requires the sample to be representative of the age cohorts being credited. The final usage parameter is calculated using age-cohort specific results, weighted by the share of each operational age cohort in the activity population. The methodology does not allow a single pooled usage result that ignores device age. Device age remains relevant because the methodology requires ex-post sampling for usage surveys and P-KPTs to be structurally stratified by device age cohort, with final values calculated as weighted averages across operational age cohorts.

Could you clarify whether the updated methodology still requires annual usage surveys, and whether project developers must include all device age groups they intend to credit within a monitoring period? Additionally, how long do usage survey results remain valid??

Yes. The updated methodology still requires annual usage monitoring, unless the activity applies an eligible continuous monitoring approach. Stove stacking monitoring is also annual and integrated with the usage survey. Usage survey results are valid for the monitoring period to which the survey applies. The survey should be conducted within a reasonable timeframe, for example within six months before the end of the monitoring period, and the sample must be drawn from the finalized activity database representing that specific monitoring period.

It is understood that a stacking discount based on usage survey analysis is no longer recommended. However, are projects prohibited from including this discount? (e.g., is it now disallowed or just not recommended)?

Yes. Where the P-KPT measures total fuel consumption, including fuel used in any stacked baseline devices, the usage survey stacking fraction shall not be applied as an additional discount in the emission reduction calculation. This is because the effect of stove stacking is already captured directly through the P-KPT. Applying a separate stacking discount would double count the same effect.

The usage survey should still collect information on the presence and use of baseline or other non-activity devices, but that information is used to understand usage patterns and leakage risks, not to apply a second mathematical discount where the P-KPT already captures the fuel use.

Measurement Technologies & Sensors

Section 14.2.1 (ICS 1 – thermal efficiency): according to the methodology, a standardised laboratory report can be used to showcase the thermal efficiency of the project stove. Can the efficiency of the baseline stove also be determined directly by the project developer through carrying out Water Boiling Tests?

The efficiency of the baseline stove may be determined using an accepted testing approach, including ISO 19867-1, an equivalent national standard, or the Water Boiling Test protocol where applicable. However, the test must be carried out in line with the relevant protocol and must provide reliable, verifiable evidence for validation and verification.

A project developer-conducted Water Boiling Test (WBT) would not be sufficient if it is not carried out under a recognized protocol, with appropriate QA/QC and documentation, and in a manner that can be independently verified by the VVB. Where standardized laboratory testing or testing by an independent authorized body is available, that is the preferred evidence source.

Hawthorne Effect

Section 10.1.2.3 (Determination of Hawthorne Effect) states that projects using Continuous Stove Monitors (SUMs) or robust dMRV can be exempt from the Hawthorne Effect penalty, provided monitoring overlaps directly with the P-KPT measurement period. Would this exemption still apply if a portion of sensors operated during the P-KPTs, but additional sensors were installed after the P-KPT was conducted to meet sample size requirements?

No, not for the full exemption. The exemption applies only where the continuous monitoring covers a statistically representative sample, meets the 90/10 rule, and is deployed contiguous to and directly overlapping with the physical P-KPT measurement period, unless the activity relies entirely on continuous monitoring for crediting. See section 10.1.2.3 – option 3.

Sensors installed after the P-KPT cannot be used to demonstrate user behaviour during the P-KPT observation period. Therefore, they cannot be used to meet the overlapping sample requirement for the Hawthorne Effect exemption for that P-KPT.

If the overlapping sensor sample does not meet the required representativeness and precision requirements, the activity must apply the default Hawthorne Effect adjustment, or apply a SUMs-based adjustment only where the required protocol and 90/10 precision can be demonstrated for the relevant overlapping monitoring period.

To claim that the Hawthorne effect is not applicable, continuous monitoring with SUMs is required. Is the definition of ‘continuous monitoring’ the same as for usage rate (ICS 22)?

Please refer to paragraph 14.5.5 of the methodology - If SUMs deployment is reflective of a statistically representative sample, (meeting the 90/10 rule), the telemetery data can supersede the requirement to conduct annual usage surveys. The 90-day minimum rule applies to calculating your Usage Rate. However, just running sensors for 90 days does not grant the Hawthorne Effect exemption. To get the exemption (HEind=1.0), your continuous sensors must meet the 90/10 statistical rule AND be placed on the exact same households, running at the exact same time, as your physical P-KPT.

See Parameter ICS 22 (Usage Rate) and Section 10.1.2.3(c) (Option 3: Digital MRV).

For any remaining questions, please contact us at help@goldstandard.org.