The 2026 Criteria: Designing and Delivering High-Quality Carbon Removal

Key Takeaways

• Marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) uses ocean-based processes—primarily ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) and direct ocean removal (DOR)—to capture and durably store atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂), without the land and freshwater constraints of terrestrial methods. 
• The ocean already absorbs roughly 29% of human-caused CO₂ emissions each year, according to the 2025 Global Carbon Budget, and mCDR technologies aim to safely enhance that natural uptake without worsening ocean acidification.
• For corporate carbon buyers and project developers evaluating mCDR, the Criteria for High-Quality Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal, developed by Microsoft and Relae, outlines standards to guide responsible mCDR deployment at scale.

Reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions alone is no longer sufficient to limit global warming to 1.5°C. To effectively address climate change, scientific consensus highlights the need to remove carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere. Marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR), a form of ocean-based carbon removal, offers a scalable solution by leveraging the ocean’s natural ability to absorb and store carbon, without the land and resource limitations associated with terrestrial carbon removal methods.

This guide explores the fundamentals of marine carbon dioxide removal, including how it works, the technologies involved, and its role in global decarbonization.

What Is Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal?

Marine carbon dioxide removal uses ocean-based processes to capture and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. mCDR techniques fall into two primary categories: 

• Biotic CDR, which includes using photosynthetic fixation, microalgae cultivation, and terrestrial biomass sinking, to capture and store carbon. 
• Abiotic CDR, which influences CO₂ concentrations and carbonate chemistry in the seawater to absorb atmospheric CO₂ without increasing acidity. There are two main abiotic mCDR pathways: ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) and direct ocean removal (DOR). 

How Does Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal Work?

Marine carbon dioxide removal functions via the air-sea gas exchange—a process by which the atmosphere and surface seawater maintain equal CO₂ concentrations—meaning a shift in one leads to a corresponding change in the other. This exchange allows the ocean to absorb or release CO₂ back into the atmosphere depending on concentration levels and factors like pH. 

Once absorbed by the ocean, CO₂ exists in several forms, including dissolved CO₂, carbonates, and bicarbonates, influencing the ocean's pH levels. As atmospheric CO₂ levels rise, the oceans absorb roughly 12 GtCO₂ annually, approximately 29% of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. This increase is disrupting the natural CO₂ balance and contributing to ocean acidification. 

mCDR methods like ocean alkalinity enhancement and direct ocean removal use safe and controlled processes to increase the amount of CO₂ absorbed from the atmosphere while mitigating acidification.

Understanding Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE)

Ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) captures and stores atmospheric CO₂ as dissolved carbonates in the ocean by increasing the alkalinity of seawater using one of two primary methods:

• Adding alkaline minerals such as olivine or basalt to seawater.
• Using electrochemical methods to add alkaline compounds to seawater.

Both of these methods increase the alkalinity of seawater and, thereby, its capacity to absorb atmospheric CO₂ without acidification. 

OAE methods can also differ by location and the manner in which seawater interacts with alkaline substances and atmospheric CO₂. This interaction may occur in the open ocean or within a controlled mCDR project facility. Each approach involves trade-offs: open ocean methods tend to be less energy-intensive but present greater uncertainties and challenges in measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV).

Understanding Direct Ocean Removal (DOR)

Direct ocean removal (DOR), also called direct ocean capture (DOC), removes CO₂ dissolved in seawater using the controlled acidification of seawater in a closed system using one of two primary methods: 

• Electrochemical methods such as electrolysis of seawater or electrodialysis
• The addition of minerals like olivine and basalt. 

The acidified and CO₂ depleted seawater is neutralized to native pH and allowed to equalize with and remove atmospheric CO₂. Once removed, CO₂ can be safely stored using geologic storage with a durability of >1,000 years.

Key Benefits of Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal

Understanding how mCDR works highlights its potential to address climate challenges. Here are the key benefits that make it a critical tool in global decarbonization strategies.

• Scalable carbon removal without land constraints: Marine carbon dioxide removal does not require large land areas or significant freshwater resources, making it highly scalable.
• Harnessing the ocean’s natural carbon sink: The ocean absorbs about 25% of human-generated CO₂ annually. mCDR enhances this natural process, increasing carbon storage without accelerating ocean acidification.
• Diverse technological pathways for flexibility: Technologies like ocean alkalinity enhancement and direct ocean removal offer flexible solutions tailored to different environments and project needs.
• Global reach with a large surface area: Covering over two-thirds of the Earth’s surface, the ocean provides an expansive platform for mCDR technologies globally. 
• Potential to mitigate ocean acidification: Some mCDR methods, such as ocean alkalinity enhancement, not only remove CO₂ but also help restore ocean pH levels, supporting marine ecosystem health.

Challenges of Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal

While mCDR holds significant promise, it also presents challenges that must be addressed for responsible deployment.

• Technical scalability and efficiency: Scaling mCDR technologies to achieve meaningful carbon removal while maintaining energy efficiency remains a significant hurdle.
• Potential environmental impacts: Altering ocean chemistry may pose risks to marine ecosystems, with long-term effects still not fully understood.
• Measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) complexity: Accurately measuring CO₂ removal and ensuring its durability requires advanced monitoring systems, which are still evolving.
• Regulatory and governance gaps: Clear global policies are needed to oversee mCDR deployment, manage environmental risks, and ensure accountability.
• Public perception and ethical considerations: Concerns around geoengineering and potential unintended consequences may impact public acceptance and policy support.

Deploying Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal 

As mCDR technologies evolve, effective deployment will rely on adaptive management practices to address technical, environmental, and regulatory challenges. This includes robust MRV systems for accurate CO₂ removal tracking and continuous ecosystem monitoring to mitigate potential risks to marine life. 

Collaborative efforts between scientists, policymakers, and project developers are key to establishing clear regulatory frameworks, optimizing technologies for efficiency and scalability, and building public trust. These practices ensure mCDR can be scaled responsibly while safeguarding ocean health. 

The Future of Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal 

As technologies like ocean alkalinity enhancement and direct ocean removal advance, their potential to deliver large-scale, durable carbon removal is becoming increasingly evident. Realizing this potential requires more than technological innovation—it depends on rigorous environmental monitoring, transparent reporting, and strong collaboration among project developers, carbon buyers, and policymakers.

Establishing clear, consistent standards for high-quality mCDR is essential to ensure both climate effectiveness and environmental safety. To support this, Microsoft and Relae have partnered to develop the Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal. 

Frequently Asked Questions

What is marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR)?

mCDR uses ocean-based processes, primarily ocean alkalinity enhancement and direct ocean removal, to capture and durably store atmospheric CO₂. It works by increasing the ocean's natural capacity to absorb CO₂ without increasing acidification.

How does marine carbon dioxide removal compare to land-based methods like direct air capture or reforestation?

Unlike land-based approaches, mCDR doesn't require large land areas or freshwater, and the ocean's size gives it significant scaling potential. It's earlier-stage than more established pathways, though, with measurement and environmental monitoring standards still maturing.

Is marine carbon dioxide removal proven and scalable today, or still emerging?

mCDR technologies have shown promising results in lab testing and early deployments, but confirming safety and effectiveness at a large real-world scale requires more monitoring data. It's best described as an emerging pathway with strong near-term momentum, not yet a mature, at-scale solution.

What should a company look for when evaluating a marine carbon dioxide removal project or credits?

Buyers should look for rigorous carbon MRV paired with equally rigorous monitoring of ocean ecosystem health (eMRV), transparent reporting, and adherence to established frameworks like the Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal.

Key Takeaways

• SAF and e-SAF mandates are reshaping the aviation fuel market. The EU and UK impose steep non-compliance penalties, turning regulatory requirements into a strategic lever for those who act early.
• Non-compliance is costly. Penalties run roughly 3 times the cost of compliance in the EU and from about 2 to 13 times in the UK, making long-term planning essential to mitigate risk.
• e-SAF producers have a unique opportunity. Mandates and penalties are shifting the economics of aviation fuel, making e-SAF more attractive despite historically high production costs.

How SAF Compliance Stacks Up

Airlines and fuel suppliers operating in Europe and the UK face growing economic uncertainty due to stringent mandates requiring the adoption of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) with carve-outs for SAF produced from renewable hydrogen, also known as Power-to-Liquids (PtL) or e-SAF.¹ These mandates, aimed at reducing aviation emissions, carry steep penalties (up to 13 times the cost of compliance) for fuel suppliers who fail to meet required quotas. While this creates cost uncertainty for airlines and passengers, it opens a strategic opportunity for e-SAF producers. These producers are challenged by high production costs relative to other SAF on the market and a limited set of buyers that can afford the premium on a voluntary basis.

This piece explores the cost implications for aviation being shaped by these EU and UK SAF mandates and outlines how airlines and suppliers can respond strategically to minimize risk and maximize opportunities. By understanding these dynamics, industry stakeholders can turn regulatory compliance into a source of competitive advantage. 

Understanding SAF Mandates in the EU and UK

The EU Commission’s ReFuelEU Aviation regulation, part of the European Green Deal, sets binding targets for aviation sustainability. Beginning in 2025, ReFuelEU mandated that aviation fuel suppliers offer a minimum percentage of SAF and e-SAF at EU airports. By 2030, suppliers must blend at least 6% SAF, including 1.2% e-SAF. To discourage tankering practices (carrying excess fuel for return trips, increasing emissions), ReFuelEU Aviation requires airline operators to refuel at least 90% of their annual aviation fuel needs at a given EU airport before departure. 

In parallel, the UK Department for Transport (DfT) mandates a higher SAF blend of 10% by 2030 and places greater emphasis on reducing reliance on hydrogenated esters and fatty acids (HEFA) SAF fuels, which face eventual limitations on feedstock supply. HEFA’s allowable share will decline annually from 100% in 2025 to 42% in 2040. The UK also includes a sub-mandate specifically for PtL SAF.

The Real Cost of Falling Behind on SAF Mandates

The financial impact of these mandates is significant. Each year, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) publishes regulatory reference prices for SAF, e-SAF, and conventional jet fuel (CJF) that anchor non-compliance penalties in the EU, most recently the 2025 Aviation Fuels Reference Prices for ReFuelEU Aviation. Using these reference prices for current-year costs and projected production costs or prices for SAF, e-SAF, and CJF from 2030–2050, the following analysis compares EU and UK compliance versus non-compliance penalties, converting all figures to US$/gallon.²

The price gap between SAF and fossil jet fuels remains wide. In 2025, SAF is approximately three times the price of CJF, while e-SAF is nearly twelve times more expensive. Projections indicate this price gap narrows by 2030, but far more for SAF than for e-SAF. The projected price of SAF in 2030 is US$5.46/gallon, more than double the estimated US$2.41/gallon for CJF. The price difference is even greater for e-SAF: with no traded e-SAF market yet, projected 2030 prices span US$5.70/gallon to US$33.00/gallon, with a central estimate around US$18/gallon, or roughly seven times the price of CJF.

Estimated Jet Fuel Prices 2025-2050 (US$/Gallon)

‍

Source: European Union Aviation Safety Agency. 2025 Aviation Fuels Reference Prices for ReFuelEU Aviation. (link); UK Department for Transport. SAF Mandate: Final-stage Cost Benefit Analysis. (link); EUROCONTROL. Aviation Outlook 2050: Main Report. (link)

The mandates carry strict penalties for non-compliance. Penalties for non-compliance in the EU are set at a minimum of two times the price difference between SAF and CJF per gallon of unmet obligation. Additionally, fuel suppliers must supply any unmet fuel obligations in subsequent reporting periods, which pushes the cost of non-compliance in the EU to three times the cost of compliance.

In the UK, penalties work differently: fuel suppliers must pay a fixed buy-out price per megajoule (MJ) of unmet obligation, which translates to US$24.64/gallon of unmet SAF obligation and US$26.08/gallon of unmet e-SAF obligation.³ Because the buy-out is fixed while compliance costs vary, UK penalties range from about 2 times the cost of compliance for e-SAF to 13 times for SAF in later years. The intent is clear: regulators are serious about pushing aviation towards sustainable fuels.

Cost-Comparison of Compliance vs Non-Compliance (US$/Gallon)

‍

Note: The cost of compliance under both mandates is calculated as the price premium of SAF/e-SAF over CJF per ton, using region-specific SAF prices: the EU SAF price reflects HEFA-based supply (ReFuelEU imposes no HEFA cap), while the UK SAF price is a weighted average of HEFA and higher-cost advanced pathways based on the UK's declining HEFA cap. The e-SAF (PtL) price is the same in both regions. 

Cost-Comparison of Complicance vs Non-Compliance (US$/Gallon)

‍

e-SAF Has a Policy-Driven Market Opportunity 

These price differentials present risk and opportunity. Airlines and fuel suppliers that fall short of compliance will face steep penalties. Those who comply strategically, can mitigate those risks and benefit from financial incentives that help offset higher fuel costs.

Incentive structures support SAF and e-SAF production. For example, the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) has allocated allowances to offset SAF costs, especially for renewable fuels of non-biological origin (or e-SAF). Similarly, the UK offers tradable certificates and has now legislated a Revenue Certainty Mechanism (Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026) that will guarantee SAF producers a set strike price through contracts-for-difference-style agreements, funded by a levy on fuel suppliers, with the first allocation round expected in 2027. The UK’s ETS also provides an indirect incentive as SAF use by airlines lowers compliance costs through reducing required allowances. 

Strategic Recommendations for Airlines and Suppliers

To navigate this shifting landscape, airlines and fuel suppliers must think strategically about procurement and compliance, potentially including:

• Proactive procurement: Airlines and fuel suppliers should prioritize securing long-term contracts with SAF and e-SAF producers. Early engagement can help ensure access to limited supply and stable pricing.
• Leverage incentive programs: Actively participate in available incentive schemes, such as the EU ETS and UK tradable certificates, to minimize compliance costs.
• Invest in e-SAF production: Consider strategic investments or partnerships in e-SAF production to align sustainability goals with regulatory requirements and financial incentives.
• Plan for volatility: Develop robust risk mitigation plans, using flexible procurement strategies and financial instruments to buffer against supply chain disruptions and price swings.

Turning Mandates into Market Momentum

As 2030 approaches, the pressure on airlines and fuel suppliers to comply with SAF mandates will intensify. Those who proactively respond to and embrace the mandates can transform regulatory requirements into strategic opportunities. Rather than viewing mandates as burdens, forward-looking stakeholders can use them to drive sustainable innovation and long-term resilience.

The EU and UK mandates for SAF and e-SAF represent an emerging shift in aviation fuel markets. Stakeholders that act now, by engaging with incentives and investing in sustainable fuel solutions, will emerge as industry leaders. Now is the time for airlines, fuel suppliers, and e-SAF producers to act decisively, transforming regulatory compliance from a costly obligation into a clear competitive advantage.

Frequently Asked Questions 

What happens if an airline or fuel supplier misses its SAF mandate quota?
Fuel suppliers—the obligated parties—pay a penalty on every unmet tonne: in the EU, twice the price gap between SAF and jet fuel, plus supplying the shortfall in a later period; in the UK, a fixed buy-out price (£0.137/MJ for SAF, £0.145/MJ for e-SAF). Combined, non-compliance runs roughly 3 times the cost of complying in the EU and from about 2 to 13 times in the UK.

What is e-SAF, and how is it different from other SAF?
e-SAF, also called Power-to-Liquid (PtL) fuel, is made from renewable or low-carbon electricity, hydrogen, and captured CO₂ rather than biomass feedstocks. It costs more to produce than conventional SAF today, but both the EU (from 2030) and UK (from 2028) mandates carve out a specific, growing sub-quota for it.

What is the UK's Revenue Certainty Mechanism?
It is a UK government scheme, modeled on the Contracts for Difference structure used in the power sector, that guarantees SAF producers a set strike price for up to 10 years, funded by a levy on aviation fuel suppliers. It became law through the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Act 2026, and the first contract allocation round is expected in 2027.

Is the EU considering changes to its SAF mandate timeline?
The EU has scheduled a formal review of ReFuelEU Aviation for 2027, following calls from airline groups to delay the 2030 e-SAF sub-target. No delay has been adopted, and the European Commission has said it remains "fully committed" to both the SAF and e-SAF mandates and that the 2027 review will evaluate the regulation rather than revise it.

Can corporate buyers still claim SAF benefits from fuel used to meet these mandates?
No, mandated volumes are claimed in the compliance market, so to avoid additionality concerns, voluntary corporate scope 3 claims (typically made through SAF certificates and book-and-claim) must come from supply beyond what the mandates require. As mandate demand grows, the pool available to voluntary buyers tightens, which is why early procurement locks in both supply and price.

Key Takeaways

• Trust in carbon credits remains low. In part, this is because many mistakenly treat every credit type as interchangeable.
• Reduction, removal, and avoidance credits are verified against fundamentally different baselines, so credit quality must be judged based on type and project specifics, never with one blanket standard.
• The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market's Core Carbon Principles now give buyers an independent bar to check against, including 44 methodologies approved across 13 eligible crediting programs, as of August 2026.
• Removal credits still make up only 5–6% of the market, even as compliance-driven demand accelerates, per our 2026 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report.

Three Types of Carbon Credits: Reduction, Removal, and Avoidance

A carbon credit is a mechanism that allows one party to compensate another for their carbon mitigation activities. Based on their net emissions impact, there are three types of carbon credits: reduction, removal, and avoidance. 

1. Reduction credits reflect activities that decrease greenhouse gas emissions, compared to prior practices. 
2. Removal credits reflect activities that remove carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere and oceans and lock it away for decades, centuries, or millennia.
3. Avoidance credits reflect activities that prevent greenhouse gases from being emitted in the first place. For all three types, credits are assessed and issued by measuring or estimating how much carbon is reduced, removed, or avoided as a result of a credit purchase and its associated activities.

While credits are assessed in different ways depending on the type, one of the most important indicators of quality is a project's baseline - the emissions that would be present in a business-as-usual scenario, without action being taken to reduce, remove, or avoid them. Project developers use baselines as a means of comparison to assess the net emissions impact of a project. 

• Baselines must be accurately set and data-driven. 
• Emissions impacts of a project must be correctly calculated against its baseline. 

Reduction, removal, and avoidance projects involve very different activities and, for some types of projects, it may be more challenging to establish an accurate baseline. However, without accurate baselines, climate impacts cannot be reliably determined.

Across the voluntary carbon market, Reduction credits represent roughly 20% of the purchases. Removal credits represent roughly 5% of the purchases. The remainder, roughly 75%, are avoidance credits.

Carbon Reduction Credits

Carbon reduction must drive the majority of our push to net zero, but translating carbon reduction activities into carbon credits that can be purchased is challenging. Examples of activities represented by carbon reduction credits include reducing fossil fuel use by improving fuel efficiency, or programs that reduce the methane that is generated from farms or municipal waste processing. 

Reduction credits are measured and quantified against the baseline emissions of an existing technology or process. Some reduction credits are easy to track and measure, such as efficiency investments or destruction of fugitive methane. Other projects are more complex. For example, low-emission cookstove projects in developing regions rely on tracking patterns of cookstove use and quantifying emission factors for various fuel and stove combinations, both of which are hard to do. The result, as studies have shown, sometimes leads to overcrediting in reduction projects. 

Superpollutant Credits

One class of reduction credit, superpollutant credits, has garnered recent attention. These credits involve the reduction of non-CO2 greenhouse gases with very strong radiative forcing, such as methane, nitrous oxides, or fluorinated gases like chlorofluorocarbons. These are not a substitute for CO2 removal, but can provide rapid and profound reductions at modest cost. Many different kinds of superpollutants exist in today’s market, worth roughly $60M today. Recent purchases by tech companies and others have highlighted the potential of these reduction credits.

Another class of reduction credit, transition credits, involves the deliberate early closure of emitting assets like coal-fired power plants or heavy manufacturing facilities. Early efforts by governments, banks, and companies around the world under the Just Energy Transition Partnership agreement jump-started transition credits as a concept at COP26. The Kinetic Coalition, in partnership with many groups including Relae, has launched work to bring transition credits to market with several pilot efforts, including closing a coal plant in the Philippines 10 years early. 

Carbon Removal Credits

Projects that remove carbon come from a diverse set of solutions, from nature-based solutions like reforestation, to hybrid solutions like biochar, to engineered solutions such as direct air capture and storage. Roughly 5–6% of credits on the voluntary carbon market today are classified as removals, up from roughly 3% a few years ago.

Carbon removal baselines are determined differently depending on whether a project uses an engineered, hybrid, or nature-based solution. For engineered removals, the baseline is zero, because no carbon removal was occurring in the absence of the project. The credited removal will be the difference between the quantity of carbon removed and any emissions that occur to facilitate the removal (determined through a carbon credit life cycle assessment). Baselines for hybrid and nature-based removals can be more challenging. In natural systems, changes in carbon stocks created by removals must be measured and approximated over time, and creditable removals represent the additional carbon removed by the intervention relative to the baseline (e.g., fallow land versus a reforestation project).

Another important consideration for carbon removal credits is project durability, a measure of the likely duration of carbon storage. Stored carbon can re-enter the atmosphere either through deliberate actions (e.g., deforestation) or accidental ones (e.g., wildfires). Nature-based removals are especially vulnerable to being re-released and are usually considered less durable (i.e., stored for less than 50 years). In contrast, engineered solutions offer high durability (i.e., stored for hundreds to thousands of years), and hybrid removals also offer durability periods that are typically longer than those of nature-based removals.

While less durable, nature-based solutions are effective, cost-effective, and widely available today. They made up over 95% of all carbon removal credits issued in 2025. Engineered and hybrid solutions are more expensive and scarce but offer longer durability. Prices of engineered carbon removal are likely to fall with innovation and increased market participation, but are currently much higher than most nature-based credits. With SBTi's finalized Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0, this balance is likely to shift. Large companies must now purchase removal credits covering 1–100% of scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions between 2035 and their net-zero year, with an explicit focus on more durable CO2 removal credits.

Carbon Avoidance Credits

Examples of carbon avoidance include avoiding deforestation that would result in the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or clean energy projects that avoid the release of emissions from burning fossil fuels in possible facilities. This can be confusing, since many avoided credits are called reduction credits, as is the case with projects under the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) framework. Avoidance credits make up roughly 75% of certified credits on the voluntary carbon market today - an overwhelming majority - in part due to high availability and low price. 

Avoiding emissions is an important goal with numerous environmental, climate, community, and other benefits. Relae works with clients and customers across industries on developing and implementing strategies to avoid emissions within their value chain. However, there are significant challenges with the way that many carbon avoidance credits are created.

• Carbon avoidance credits are based on an estimate of the emissions that might have existed had a project not been funded. Because it is impossible to observe what might have happened in the absence of a project, carbon avoidance estimates are determined by considering historic data and contextual information. Statistical models can be used to create a presumed baseline that represents what would have happened in the absence of the project.

• Because the baseline is not observed in an avoided emissions project, there is uncertainty in calculating the number of carbon credits it produces. If the baseline is not set accurately, a project can overcredit. While the lack of a directly observed and measured baseline means avoidance credits will always have some degree of uncertainty, high-quality avoidance projects present compelling evidence to support their baselines, greatly reducing uncertainty. 

New datasets, statistical techniques, and methodologies are providing opportunities for developing avoidance credits with more certainty. Three REDD+ methodologies have now cleared the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) assessment for its Core Carbon Principles (CCPs), a concrete sign that credit quality standards for avoidance projects are maturing.

Defining and Standardizing Quality in the Voluntary Carbon Market

Carbon credits are intended to reduce, remove, or avoid emissions. They pay for an environmental service that must be delivered. Companies working to generate climate benefits through credit purchases must grapple with the differences and uncertainties of credit quality to ensure that the intended benefits are realized. 

While high-quality credits exist for all types of projects, a rich understanding of the differences in methodologies, geographies, physics, and ecology is required to identify high-quality projects and understand varied certainty, durability, and risk terms. Identifying high-quality carbon projects demands extensive and project-specific diligence beyond carbon market certification.

Our own diligence work reveals that high-quality projects can be hard to find. Fewer than 10% of the carbon removal projects we assessed for our 2026 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report met our quality criteria. This diligence work now has an additional, independent backstop. As of August 2026, the ICVCM has approved 44 methodologies across 13 programs, as eligible for its CCP label, including ACR, Gold Standard, and VCS. For buyers, considering projects that are CCP-eligible should be used as a first filter—not a substitute for project-level diligence, but representing a legitimate floor.

While realized emissions impacts may be difficult to prove in some cases, it is important to remember that some projects provide additional co-benefits. REDD+ projects, for example, may have a positive impact on conservation and biodiversity, and cookstove projects may offer clear human health and social welfare benefits. However, these benefits should be assessed separately from carbon reduction, removal, or avoidance benefits.

Frequently Asked Questions

What's the difference between a carbon credit and a carbon offset? 

A carbon credit represents one verified tonne of emissions reduced, removed, or avoided. A  carbon offset describes how a buyer uses that credit, typically to counterbalance emissions it has not yet accounted for. The credit itself does not change type based on how it's claimed.

Which type of carbon credit—reduction, removal, or avoidance—is highest quality? 

No single type is inherently highest quality. Each project, regardless of type, is verified against a defined baseline. Quality depends on how rigorously that specific baseline was set and how well the project meets other quality criteria. Removal credits from engineered sources have the most straightforward baseline (zero), and avoidance credits carry the most baseline uncertainty by design, but these are only one determinant of credit quality.

Do carbon removal credits automatically meet the ICVCM’s Core Carbon Principles? 

No. The ICVCM assesses methodologies and programs, not individual projects. If a project uses a methodology that is eligible for the CCP label, this can be a useful floor but is not a guarantee of high quality.

How does SBTi's near-term removal mandate change which credits I should buy now?

SBTi's finalized Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 doesn't require removal purchases until 2035, but it sets the ramp now (i.e., 1% of scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions in 2035, scaling to 100% by the net-zero year). This means the highest-durability removal supply that is scarcest and most in demand today is the same supply that many companies will need later. The SBTi guidelines are still changing, so buyers and project developers must track them closely.

Key Takeaways

• The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol’s proposed scope 2 revisions would shift many large power buyers from annual renewable energy certificate (REC) accounting to 24/7 hourly matching and reveal a larger emissions gap than most inventories currently report.
• Of all the US grid regions modeled, the emissions gap between annual and 24/7 hourly matching is widest in PJM Interconnection (PJM) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the markets where data center load is growing fastest.
• Relae's modeling quantifies the shift from annual to 24/7 hourly matching: serving a 4-gigawatt (GW) data center load at 100% hourly carbon-free energy requires 9.6 GW of additional clean capacity in ERCOT and 10.5 GW in PJM, a roughly 800-megawatt premium in PJM that translates directly into cost and siting strategy.
• Closing that gap requires investments in clean, firm generation technologies, like natural gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS), battery storage, and geothermal. The optimal mix varies by market and load profile, which means modeling current and future emissions positions under 24/7 accounting to understand the best procurement options for a specific portfolio.

Annual REC Accounting No Longer Holds at Data Center Scale

For years, large corporate energy buyers have relied on a straightforward approach: purchase renewable energy certificates (RECs) or sign virtual power purchase agreements (VPPAs) to offset market-based scope 2 emissions. Under the current GHG Protocol guidance, these instruments allow companies to claim low or zero emissions regardless of when or where clean energy is actually generated. When corporate clean energy demand was modest, this fueled new renewable project development while aggregate grid emissions were trending down.

That approach worked, until now. Energy demand from data centers and hyperscalers is surging. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reported more than 50 GW of data center capacity operating in the US at the end of 2025, much of it concentrated in regions where local clean generation cannot keep pace. When corporate clean energy demand was modest, the gap between contractual claims and physical generation was small enough that few questioned this argument. At hyperscaler levels, with load concentrated in a handful of grids, that gap is becoming too large to ignore.

From a climate perspective, well-designed renewable procurement has created real impact by channeling corporate capital into new clean generation, and reducing CO2 emissions anywhere to benefit the climate everywhere. From a grid perspective, power consumption and generation must balance in real time, and the flow of electricity is constrained by the physics of the transmission system. Some regulators, investors, and standard-setters argue that corporate clean energy claims should be grounded in this second, engineering perspective rather than the first. The GHG Protocol's proposed revisions reflect that view, and would force buyers to defend their claims against it.

Relae’s modeling of this 24/7 framework in PJM and ERCOT helps quantify its costs and emissions implications in the markets where the stakes are highest.  

What Does 24/7 Hourly Matching Mean for Scope 2 Accounting?

The biggest proposed change to the GHG Protocol’s current Scope 2 Guidance is the move from annual power reporting and matching to a 24/7 approach. Instead of calculating emissions with an annual emissions factor (EF) based on their independent system operator (ISO) or eGRID region for each megawatt-hour (MWh) consumed, companies would need to use hourly-specific EFs. 

Companies would still be able to retire RECs to reduce their market-based emissions. However, companies would need to show that these RECs came from clean energy that was generated on the same grid, in the same hour as their facilities consumed power. This makes annual, location-agnostic REC retirement, currently the dominant practice, insufficient for 24/7 market-based accounting. 

Both the time restriction (hourly matching) and the location restriction (generation on the same grid as consumption) will make it more difficult for companies to retire RECs. For example, because today's methodology is location-agnostic, a New York-based company can retire RECs from a Texas wind farm (purchased unbundled or via a VPPA) to reduce its reported market-based scope 2 value. This has allowed renewable development to follow the best resource sites rather than the load. Similarly, the time of day that the wind farm generates energy is irrelevant, as long as it is approximately in the same calendar year. 

Under the proposed revisions, retiring these RECs would no longer be acceptable for the New York company, since they would fail both location- and hourly-matching requirements. As a result, companies with large REC portfolios today may no longer be able to retire them in order to reduce their market-based scope 2 emissions, if the proposed revisions take effect. These companies may face significant unmatched consumption under 24/7 accounting, especially during evening peaks or grid stress events when fossil-based generation fills the gap. 

Annual Matching vs 24/7 Hourly Matching

‍

The figure below illustrates the gap between what a representative large buyer reports under the current annual location- and market-based methodologies, versus what an hourly 24/7 analysis reveals.

Understanding this emissions gap is the essential first step for buyers to make informed decisions about which instruments to retain, which contracts to renegotiate, and where new investment will matter most. If the proposed scope 2 revisions are enacted, companies procuring clean energy will be disincentivized from buying RECs sourced from variable renewables in distant locations, and instead will find it more favorable to invest in same-grid clean, firm generation, such as geothermal, nuclear, and renewables plus storage. RECs from these projects would qualify to be retired against market-based scope 2 emissions under the proposed revisions, where today's distant-wind or off-peak-solar RECs would not.

Where Pressure Is the Highest: ERCOT and PJM

Two markets stand out for projected hyperscaler load growth: PJM, which covers the extended mid-Atlantic region, and ERCOT in Texas. Both are on track to absorb massive increases in data center demand over the next decade, and both expose the limits of annual REC accounting in ways that will be hard to ignore under the new proposed framework.

PJM: 60% Fossil Generation Means High Marginal Emissions

PJM is one of the largest and most complex wholesale electricity markets in the world. Its generation mix still includes 60% coal and natural gas, which means hourly emissions intensity remains high, particularly during evening peaks and grid stress events when fossil generation dominates the dispatch stack. 

Buyers relying solely on annual REC retirement may show low market-based scope 2 emissions today, but a 24/7 analysis tells a different story. For PJM-based buyers, this means hourly matching gaps will be largest during evening and overnight hours, when nuclear and storage become disproportionately valuable relative to additional solar.

ERCOT: Solar and Wind Don’t Peak When Demand Does

Texas has abundant wind and solar, with solar generation growing nearly 7x since 2020, but those resources don’t always run when demand peaks. While fossil-based generation has declined since 2020, it still comprises more than half of ERCOT’s generation. Solar dominates midday, wind peaks in the evening, and natural gas fills the gaps, especially during high-demand evenings or extreme weather events. 

Buyers with large ERCOT footprints may find that VPPA portfolios, which generate most of their clean energy in off-peak hours, already satisfy the proposed location-based test but fail on hourly matching. Battery storage and demand flexibility could help bridge the gap.

Figure 3 below quantifies that gap in both markets by showcasing the carbon-free energy (CFE) score in ERCOT and PJM, as well as the additional capacity required for a 4 GW load to achieve a 100% CFE target. The CFE score is the share of grid-supplied electricity in a given hour that comes from carbon-free sources, and is the metric the proposed scope 2 revisions would use to evaluate hourly matching. A 100% CFE target means electricity consumption is matched to carbon-free generation in every hour of the year.

In the left panel, a representation¹ of each market's 2030 hours are sorted by grid (CFE) score, from the dirtiest hour on the left to the cleanest on the right. Neither grid approaches 100% carbon-free on its own, and the shaded areas represent the unmatched hours a buyer claiming 100% clean energy through annual instruments would actually carry under 24/7 accounting. The gap is the maximum unmatched hours a buyer might be exposed to, as some RECs procured through annual matching may qualify under the new rules, if satisfying the locational and hourly requirements.

The right panel translates that gap into action. The additional co-located clean generation and storage required to serve a representative 4 GW load (roughly 5% of the forecast 2030 C&I load in ERCOT and 4% in PJM) at a 100% hourly CFE target, on top of what the underlying grid already provides.

A few patterns are worth highlighting. First, the left panel confirms that PJM’s grid will still spend materially more hours below 100% carbon-free than ERCOT’s in 2030, a direct consequence of the coal- and gas-heavy generation mix described above. Notably, ERCOT's curve reaches 100% in a meaningful share of hours (windows when the grid is running entirely on carbon-free resources), while PJM's never does, meaning some fossil generation is dispatched in every hour.  

Second, the ISO a buyer operates in drives a meaningful difference in build-out: hitting 100% hourly CFE for a 4 GW load takes 9.6 GW of additional capacity in ERCOT and closer to 10.5 GW in PJM. This indicates the advantage of achieving hourly and locational matching in already clean grids, which may influence a buyer choosing where to site new workloads. 

Renewables have the largest share of the additional capacity in both markets (5-6 GW), paired with significant long-duration energy storage (~2 GW), while natural gas with CCS provides meaningful clean, firm capacity (~3 GW). ERCOT’s storage share of capacity is slightly larger, reflecting the midday-solar/evening-load mismatch, while PJM leans a bit more on natural gas with CCS, where clean, firm generation does more of the heavy lifting due to lower wind speeds and solar irradiance than Texas.

The right panel also illustrates why clean, firm technologies (natural gas with CCS, advanced nuclear, and enhanced geothermal) are likely to be included alongside renewables and batteries in any serious 24/7 portfolio. With only renewables and batteries, hitting the same target requires about double the total generation and storage capacity. In both markets, targets that look achievable today on an annual REC basis will require materially more capital and a different mix of resources, under 24/7 accounting. 

Top Questions Large Power Buyers Need to Model Before the Rules Change

The GHG Protocol revisions are not finalized, and the timing of any mandate remains uncertain, which is exactly why modeling cannot wait.

A useful self-test for any large power buyer is: can your team answer the following today with defensible numbers?

• What is your hourly CFE score across your largest load centers, and how far does it sit from your reported market-based emissions?
• Which of your existing VPPAs and REC contracts hold value under 24/7 accounting, and which become effectively stranded?
• What mix of resources delivers the incremental clean, firm capacity that closes your gap in PJM, ERCOT, or wherever your load is concentrated at the lowest cost?
• If your next gigawatt of load were sited in a different ISO, how would your emissions position change?

Clean firm projects do not appear off the shelf. Advanced nuclear, enhanced geothermal, and natural gas with CCS all carry multi-year development timelines, and corporate offtake agreements are often what get these projects financed in the first place. Buyers who engage now help shape the project pipeline that will be available in their target markets in 2030, and can lock in offtake terms before competition for the most valuable sites tightens. Buyers who wait until the methodology is final will be working with shorter lead times, fewer development partners, and less leverage to specify projects that fit their load profiles and hourly matching needs.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is 24/7 hourly matching, and how does it differ from today's REC accounting?

Today's scope 2 accounting lets companies retire renewable energy certificates (RECs) from any grid, at any time of year, to offset their emissions. The GHG Protocol's proposed 24/7 hourly matching would require RECs to come from clean generation on the same grid, in the same hour a facility consumes power, making most of today's location-agnostic RECs ineligible for market-based accounting.

Why are PJM and ERCOT under the most pressure from this shift?

Both markets are absorbing the fastest-growing data center load in the country, and both still lean on fossil generation to meet demand outside peak renewable hours. PJM's generation mix is 60% coal and gas, while ERCOT's solar and wind often don't peak when demand does, so buyers in these markets face the largest gaps between their annual REC claims and their actual hourly carbon-free energy score.

How much additional clean capacity does it take to close the gap?

Relae's modeling finds that serving a 4 GW data center load at 100% hourly carbon-free energy requires 9.6 GW of additional clean capacity in ERCOT and 10.5 GW in PJM. That capacity mix leans on renewables and long-duration storage in both markets, with natural gas with CCS playing a larger role in PJM, where wind and solar resources are weaker.

What should power buyers do before the GHG Protocol revisions are finalized?

Start modeling now. Buyers should know their hourly carbon-free energy score, understand which existing VPPAs and REC contracts hold value under 24/7 accounting, and identify the lowest-cost mix of clean, firm resources that closes their gap. Clean firm projects like advanced nuclear, enhanced geothermal, and natural gas with CCS take years to develop, so buyers who engage early have more influence over the project pipeline and better offtake terms.

Modeling the 24/7 Emissions Gap with Relae

For large power buyers assessing what the proposed GHG Protocol revisions mean for their power procurement portfolio, Relae's Advanced Power Emissions Analysis solution models the gap between current market-based reporting and what 24/7 accounting would reveal—by market, load profile, and technology stack. 

Key Takeaways

• Decarbonizing steel is key to meeting ambitious climate targets in the face of rapidly expanding AI infrastructure as well as broader infrastructure growth.
• The gap between corporate climate ambitions and near-term commercial reality is widening. Despite strong demand signals from hyperscalers and other major buyers, leading producers have recently canceled or delayed flagship green steel projects, citing high energy costs, slow hydrogen market development, and unfavorable policy environments. 
• Bridging this gap requires significant capital investment and supporting mechanisms to scale low-carbon technologies. Environmental attribute certificates offer an effective mechanism to channel capital toward transformative, low-carbon steel projects, supporting technology scale-up, as well as providing a way for buyers to meet their emissions reduction targets.  
• To protect the credibility of environmental attribute certificates as a market mechanism for decarbonization, projects should seek to meet rigorous quality criteria such as additionality, verifiability, and catalytic impact.

Forging New Climate Ambitions for Steel Production

Decarbonizing steel production is essential to meet global climate targets. Steel production accounts for approximately 7–9% of global CO₂ emissions. This is driven chiefly by coal-based primary steelmaking, which still accounts for the majority of global production. Globally, at least 1.8 billion tonnes of crude steel were produced in 2025 to serve a broad array of industries including real estate, infrastructure, automotive, and data center construction. 

As hyperscalers race to build the infrastructure underpinning the AI revolution, steel demand for data center construction, and associated energy infrastructure, is increasing. While the relative share of data center demand for steel versus global steel demand is small, the need for approximately 20,000 tonnes of steel per data center has a material impact on hyperscaler’s public climate commitments. Microsoft, Meta, and other large technology companies have set ambitious 2030 climate targets that include their scope 3 emissions. The embodied carbon of the steel used to build their data centers sits squarely in scope 3.

Hyperscaler’s climate commitments have generated sector-specific demand for decarbonized steel, presenting an opportunity to affect steel decarbonization more broadly. Despite this demand, the supply of low-carbon steel remains limited. The industry faces significant scale-up challenges due to the diffuse nature of demand and the nascent market. Catalyzing growth in decarbonized steel production will require market innovations and new production pathways designed to overcome these challenges. Credible environmental attribute certificates can help bridge the gap between today’s market and tomorrow’s low-carbon steel sector.

What is an Environmental Attribute Certificate?

An environmental attribute certificate (EAC) represents the environmental attributes of a product that can be unbundled and transacted separately from the underlying physical commodity. The most widely used EACs today are renewable energy certificates (RECs), which track the environmental attributes of renewable electricity. The same concept can also be applied to steel and iron, as well as to materials such as cement and concrete.

In a book and claim model, a steel producer can implement a verified emissions reduction intervention, quantify the resulting lowered carbon intensity per tonne of steel produced, and convert that into tradeable certificates. Buyers can then purchase those certificates to support the deployment of low-carbon steelmaking capacity in cases where direct procurement of low-carbon steel is currently impractical due to geographic, contracting, or scheduling incompatibilities.

EACs are distinct from carbon credits. They do not represent emissions reduced or avoided relative to a counterfactual; they represent the intrinsic carbon intensity of the material produced, measured through a life cycle assessment. 

Decarbonizing Steel Requires Significant Capital and Infrastructure Deployment

Steel Production Today

Steel is currently made via three main production routes. About 71% of the world’s steel is produced through the blast furnace–basic oxygen furnace (BF-BOF) route, which emits an average of 2.33 tonnes of carbon dioxide (tCO₂) per tonne of crude steel. A further 24% is produced using scrap-based electric arc furnaces (EAFs), which emit 0.68 tCO₂ per tonne on average—far lower, but still dependent on the carbon intensity of grid electricity. The remaining roughly 5% uses direct reduced iron combined with an EAF (DRI-EAF), typically using natural gas, emitting 1.37 tCO₂ per tonne on average.

While increasing scrap-based production is a critical decarbonization lever, scrap availability is limited. Primary steel production, which uses iron ore as the main feedstock rather than recycled scrap, will remain necessary at large volumes through 2050. This makes it essential to decarbonize ore-based pathways, especially ironmaking: the step where iron ore is reduced to iron and where most emissions occur.

Decarbonizing ore-based steel production requires one of three fundamental interventions: (1) replacing coal and natural gas with low-carbon fuels such as hydrogen or bio-coke, (2) electrifying ironmaking directly, or (3) capturing and storing the CO₂ generated from fossil-fuel-based processes. All three involve significant capital expenditure and dependencies on infrastructure that is not yet in place at the necessary scale. As a result, the energy and cost challenge is substantial.

Low-Carbon Steel: Emerging Pathways

A range of transformative technological pathways are currently in development to overcome these barriers, offering the potential to deliver deep decarbonization to the steel industry exceeding 90% by 2050: 

• Hydrogen-based DRI-EAF: Using green hydrogen instead of natural gas within the DRI process provides a pathway to significantly lower the carbon intensity of ironmaking. Producers such as Stegra are deploying commercial-scale facilities designed to utilize 100% green hydrogen to reduce iron ore.
• Electrifying ironmaking: 
  
  • Molten oxide electrolysis: Boston Metal is commercializing a process that uses electricity to directly convert iron ore to molten metal through electrolysis at high temperature, eliminating the need for hydrogen or carbon reductants entirely.
  • Low-temperature electrowinning: Colorado-based startup Electra uses renewable electricity to extract iron from ore via an aqueous electrochemical process that operates at near-ambient temperature. 
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS): For blast furnaces and DRI plants with long remaining lifetimes, retrofitting with CCS technology can significantly reduce emissions. With new high-emitting capacity still being built, and assets expected to operate for decades, integrating CCS will be essential to avoid long-term carbon lock-in and to decarbonize these facilities over time. To date, commercial-scale deployment remains limited. The Al Reyadah facility at Emirates Steel is the only project currently capturing CO₂ from a DRI process at scale, though a handful of other large-scale projects have entered the development pipeline.

Progress and Setbacks: A Mixed Picture

The past year sent contradictory signals about the pace of steel decarbonization. On the demand side, technology companies with ambitious climate targets are actively signaling their intent to procure near-zero steel and support its development.

In September 2025, Microsoft and Stegra announced a landmark agreement that combines a physical supply deal for low-carbon steel with a separate EAC purchase agreement. Around the same time, Meta announced an agreement with Electra to purchase EACs tied to the startup’s clean iron production, becoming one of the first buyers to use the EAC model for an entirely novel, pre-commercial ironmaking technology. Nucor, the largest US steelmaker, also entered into a physical iron purchase agreement with Electra.

Despite these demand signals, the industry has experienced significant setbacks. A series of low-carbon steel project cancellations and delays has raised questions about the pace and viability of the steel transition, especially due to the high costs associated with green hydrogen production.

At present, the green premium for most low-carbon steel remains too high for buyers. A combination of sustained policy support, long-term demand signals from buyers willing to pay more, and scaling of supporting industries, such as green hydrogen production, is necessary for the low-carbon steel industry to be successful in the long run.

How EACs Can Bridge the Funding Gap in Steel

EACs unbundle low-carbon steel attributes from the physical material, reducing the friction between buyers who are willing to pay a green premium and geographic or logistical constraints that may inhibit physical offtake. Buyers, such as hyperscalers procuring conventional steel for data center construction in locations where low-carbon steel is not yet available, can purchase these certificates to support the development of low-carbon capacity, attribute lower-carbon production to their steel use via a market-based mechanism, and advance toward their scope 3 targets.

A primary objective of the Criteria for High-Quality Environmental Attribute Certificates in the Concrete and Steel Sectors, jointly developed by Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) and Microsoft, is to establish high-integrity standards for the EAC market in these sectors. For steel EACs, that means demonstrating significant emissions reduction performance by reaching at least Progress Level 2 in the ResponsibleSteel Decarbonization Progress Levels framework, and aiming to achieve Progress Level 3 by 2030. ResponsibleSteel’s scrap-variable benchmark provides a technology-neutral mechanism to evaluate emissions reduction performance by accounting for the specific proportion of scrap used.

EACs for steel are designed to be catalytic. Rather than supporting incremental improvements that are already becoming cost-competitive, they should target transformative capital changes, such as replacing BF-BOF routes with DRI-EAF, adopting low-carbon hydrogen in DRI processes, or deploying novel ironmaking technologies. Multi-year purchase agreements are particularly powerful because they provide the investment certainty that first-of-a-kind projects need to access capital at a lower cost.

What this Means for Buyers and Suppliers of Low-Carbon Steel 

Whether you are producing or procuring steel, EACs are only one part of a broader decarbonization strategy. For buyers with significant emissions from steel, and other building materials such as cement and concrete, EACs can be a powerful tool to help advance scope 3 reduction goals where supply for physical low-carbon materials is limited. Suppliers can complement commercialization strategies for low-carbon materials by using EACs to monetize emissions reductions, generate additional revenue to support decarbonization investments, and help scale markets for low-carbon materials. Navigating the steel market requires decisions at the intersection of technical feasibility, greenhouse gas accounting, and capital strategy. Key considerations include:

• Greenhouse gas accounting and reportability: Cradle-to-gate emissions for steel production must be tracked using life cycle assessments and should strive for interoperability with environmental product declarations (EPDs). EAC transactions must be reported transparently, especially given the absence of formal market standards at this stage.
• Additionality and catalytic impact: EAC purchases must demonstrably support projects that would not proceed without financial support from the EAC market mechanism, and projects should have a credible pathway toward the near-zero (Progress Level 4) threshold on the ResponsibleSteel framework.
• Avoiding double counting: EAC buyers must verify that the environmental attributes they purchase are not also being claimed by the physical product buyer via an EPD.

FAQs

What is an environmental attribute certificate (EAC) for steel?
An EAC represents the environmental attributes of low-carbon steel, unbundled from the physical material itself, so a producer can quantify a verified reduction in carbon intensity per tonne and sell that value as a separate, tradeable certificate. Buyers can purchase EACs to support low-carbon steel production while still working toward their own emissions targets.

How is an EAC different from a carbon credit?
An EAC reflects the intrinsic carbon intensity of the material itself, measured through a life cycle assessment. That's different from a carbon credit, which represents carbon dioxide actively avoided, reduced or removed from the atmosphere relative to a baseline.

How are AI data centers impacting the demand for low-carbon steel?

Data centers use roughly 20,000 tonnes of steel each, and as hyperscalers build out AI infrastructure, that steel use counts toward their scope 3 emissions and public climate targets. That's turned data center construction into a meaningful driver of demand for low-carbon steel, even though supply remains limited.

What makes an EAC credible enough to count toward a company's emissions goals?
A credible steel EAC needs to meet criteria like additionality (the project wouldn't happen without the EAC revenue), verifiability through life cycle assessment, and catalytic impact toward transformative technology rather than incremental gains. Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) and Microsoft jointly developed criteria for high-quality EACs in the steel and concrete sectors, which set a threshold of at least Progress Level 2 on the ResponsibleSteel Decarbonization framework today, rising to Progress Level 3 by 2030.

Can a producer sell an EAC and also get credit for the physical steel elsewhere?
No. EAC producers need to confirm the environmental attributes they're selling aren't also being claimed by whoever buys the physical steel through an environmental product declaration; otherwise the same emissions reduction gets counted twice.

Key Takeaways

• What's happening: The voluntary carbon market (VCM) stalled in 2025, with carbon credit retirements falling 7% despite a 227% surge in corporate climate commitments.
• Why it matters: Over 80% of high-durability carbon removal capacity is at risk of not being realized without additional offtake.
• The implication: For corporate buyers with 2030 climate targets, early movers will define market standards and secure the supply they need, while those who wait risk volatility and constrained access to high-quality credits.

Why the Voluntary Carbon Market Needs Action Now

The voluntary carbon market stands at a crossroads. Credit retirements in 2025 fell far below the billion-tonne-scale projections from earlier in the decade. There is a widening gulf between climate ambition and market action.

The VCM transacts credits that avoid, reduce, or remove emissions. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR), the process of removing and durably storing atmospheric CO₂, remains a small but critical segment, accounting for 5% of credits retired. Limiting overshoot of 1.5°C requires a rapid scale-up of CDR.

However, most organizations with 2030 climate goals have yet to engage in CDR procurement. Without clear market signals today, CDR supply will falter. What's missing isn't capability or knowledge, but the commitment to act. Early movers will define the market in its early stages, while latecomers may face volatility and uncertain supply.

Our latest analysis reveals both troubling trends and clear pathways forward for CDR buyers ready to move from commitment to execution.

[cta]

Five Years of Stagnation: The VCM Falls Short of Projections

For five consecutive years, muted growth and persistent oversupply of poor-quality credits have defined the market. In 2025, credit retirements—a proxy for spot-market demand—reached 157 million metric tonnes (Mt), down 7% from 2024.

This incremental growth is far below what market analysts anticipated earlier in the decade, when several projections expected demand to exceed 1 billion tonnes by 2030. 

VCM Credit Trends: Concentrated in Avoidance and Reduction

The VCM has historically been concentrated in avoidance and reduction carbon projects,  largely dominated by REDD+, renewable energy,  and cookstove credits. 2025 marks the first year a new credit type has dominated, though: projects that reduce emissions of superpollutants now make up roughly 20% of all credits issued in the VCM. Superpollutant issuances increased by about 180% between 2020 and 2025, while retirements grew by roughly 150%.

CDR Remains a Small but Critical VCM Segment 

In 2025, CDR credits accounted for only 5% of 2025 retirements, but have a more active forward offtake market—where buyers commit today to purchase credits that will be delivered in the future, providing crucial early-stage financing for projects.

Within the CDR category, high-quality credits are still hard to find. Applying our Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal, we find that less than 10% of the CDR projects we review meet our high-quality threshold with minimal reservations.

Nature-Based CDR Dominates the Spot Market

Of the all CDR credits issued in the VCM in 2025, 95% originated from nature-based CDR pathways, while 5% represented high-durability CDR pathways such as biochar or bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). This distribution reflects the mature role that nature-based CDR projects continue to play in the market, alongside the early stage of durable CDR deployment.

Within nature-based credits, supply and demand dynamics differed significantly between afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation (ARR) and improved forest management (IFM). 

• For ARR credits, issuances and retirements have tracked closely at a roughly 1:1 ratio, with issuances remaining flat at around 7–8 Mt annually over the past four years, leaving little inventory available for spot purchasing. 
• IFM credits, by contrast, have grown 2.5-fold since 2023, making them one of the largest sources of growth within nature-based credits, though high-quality CDR credits from IFM are in much lower supply.

For buyers, this means ARR credits are increasingly difficult to source on the spot market, while IFM credits are more readily available—though careful diligence is needed to identify high-quality projects.

Nature-based offtakes and commitments have expanded in recent years, with more than 90 Mt of future delivery now contracted or committed. The vast majority of these commitments are concentrated in ARR projects, highlighting both the supply constraints facing ARR today and buyers' foresight in securing the supply they will need in the near future.

High-Durability CDR Is Almost Entirely Forward-Looking

The spot market for high-durability CDR credits represents only 0.3% of activity in the VCM, but important dynamics are beginning to emerge as more high-durability CDR technologies reach the market.

From 2021 to 2025, roughly 80% of high-durability issuances and retirements came from biochar and geologic storage. However, the emergence of large-scale geologic CDR projects is beginning to shift the balance, with individual projects capable of delivering hundreds of thousands of tonnes annually. Early-stage methodologies such as enhanced rock weathering (ERW) and ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) issued their first credits in 2025, totaling roughly 12,000 tonnes.

While the spot market for high-durability CDR is growing and diversifying, forward offtake agreements continue to define the landscape. The ratio of high-durability spot retirements to volumes committed through forward offtake is 1:70—meaning for every tonne retired today, 70 tonnes have been committed for future delivery.

Forward Offtake Commitments Are Rising Across CDR Pathways

To date, forward offtake agreements, advanced market commitments (AMC), and large contracted deals with intermediaries cover more than 40 Mt of high-durability CDR, in addition to over 90 Mt of nature-based CDR. These cumulative volumes highlight the increasingly central role of forward purchasing in shaping future supply, particularly for capital-intensive, high-durability pathways. 

However, the success of forward offtake strategies depends critically on careful due diligence. Without a rigorous assessment of technological readiness, project viability, and delivery risks, forward commitments risk financing projects that fail to deliver, undermining both individual investments and broader market confidence.

Market Concentration of Forward Offtake Remains High

A small group of companies continues to drive the majority of forward offtake activity. In 2025, Microsoft remained the clear market leader, accounting for roughly 60% of contracted nature-based CDR offtakes and more than 80% of high-durability offtakes with a named buyer announced to date. Other active buyers—including Google, JPMorgan Chase, Equinor, and Amazon—have expanded their commitments, but overall market concentration remains high.

This concentration reveals both opportunity and risk: while anchor buyers are proving the market model works, broader participation is needed to unlock the full scale of CDR deployment required.

Growing Gap Between Climate Ambition and Market Action

Corporate climate targets anchor most current VCM activity: All of the top-10 buyers in the market today participate based on either self-declared commitments or net-zero commitments aligned with the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).

Demand forecasts based on these future commitments project that total CDR demand could reach 46-110 Mt by 2030, a ~6-14x growth from today. Yet, how companies decide to implement their targets will ultimately affect the composition of CDR demand within the VCM.

Rather than relying solely on public commitments, we analyzed the behavior of companies that are actively purchasing CDR today. Should today's top buyers follow through on their stated CDR commitments, CDR demand could reach a minimum of 28 Mt by 2030, with 6.5 Mt of demand for high-durability CDR.

However, the discrepancy between observed demand and target-led scenarios shows a persistent gap between what companies say and what they do. SBTi reported a 227% surge in companies setting both near-term and net-zero targets in the 18 months leading up to mid-2025, while carbon credit retirements in the VCM fell 7% in 2025. 

Shifting from intention to execution will ultimately determine whether the VCM evolves into a durable, functioning marketplace or stalls short of the scale required for credible, net-zero pathways.

Rising Trends of Greenhushing and Anonymity Obscure CDR Demand

In the broader VCM, 55% of tonnes retired on the spot market over the past three years have been anonymous, and that fraction has been increasing. A similar trend is true of high-durability CDR: nearly 40% of all offtake transactions made in 2025 did not disclose the participating buyer. This buyer behaviour could reflect the often-discussed greenhushing phenomenon.

When anonymous actors dominate, it becomes harder to track demand signals, verify corporate progress, and establish clear integrity benchmarks. This opacity creates systemic risk for the entire market.

Market Growth Tipping Points on the Horizon

Several pivotal events on the horizon could mitigate risk and unlock project development, tipping buyers into action after half a decade of limited market growth:

• Voluntary demand: SBTi's  Corporate Net Zero Standard V2.0, published in June 2026, confirms credits still can’t count toward scope 1-3 targets, but introduces a voluntary recognition program starting in 2027 and mandatory removal purchasing for large companies from 2035, starting at 1% of footprint. 
• Compliance demand: The UK's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) Authority has already committed to integrating carbon removals into the UK ETS by 2028 via an auction model. This is the first confirmed large-scale compliance pathway for CDR credits, though credit-type eligibility is still being worked out.
• Regulatory support: Publication of Article 6.4 methodologies under the Paris Agreement and loosening of CORSIA credit supply bottlenecks could expand eligible supply and boost buyer confidence.

These tipping points in policies, standards, and market structures are advancing with clear timelines, creating conditions to move CDR procurement from hesitation to activation.

CDR Supply Faces Critical Challenges

While buyer inaction poses one threat to market growth, the supply side faces its own critical challenges.

30%–220% More Investment Is Needed in Nature-Based CDR Supply

Nature-based CDR would require a 30%–220% increase in finance to support current corporate targets. Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) has identified US$18 billion in publicly committed funds for nature-based CDR announced from 2018 to 2025. If deployed immediately to generate high-quality CDR, this level of funding could translate into up to 32 Mt per year by 2030 and 290 Mt cumulatively through 2040.

This is sufficient to meet the conservative 28 Mt demand floor from today's active buyers—but falls well short of what would be needed if even a fraction of companies with 2030 targets begin executing on their stated commitments.

80% of High-Durability CDR Projects Are at Risk

The situation is more acute for high-durability CDR. We estimate that over 80% of the total 2030 credit supply pipeline is at risk, due to insufficient project offtake and financing agreements.

Without increased offtake and financing support, we expect that the landscape for capital-intensive, high-durability CDR may consolidate

CDR Buyers Will Determine Which Projects Get Built

The supply-side ecosystem features a sufficient number of high-quality CDR suppliers with the potential to scale. These suppliers face purchasing behavior insufficient to meet buyers' own stated climate goals. In this environment, every CDR procurement decision matters. Companies that delay procurement risk missing their own climate targets while also ceding competitive advantage to early movers who secure the limited supply of high-quality credits. 

Five Actions to Strengthen the CDR Market

Buyers and investors can play a critical role in reducing project risk and strengthening the CDR market. Our full report details five essential actions:

1. Use purchasing power wisely
2. Prioritize project diligence
3. Construct bankable contracts
4. Support market data transparency and CDR goals
5. Undertake project assurance

Each action addresses specific market failures and, when implemented strategically, can significantly improve the likelihood that high-quality CDR projects reach operation and deliver credits as contracted.

With 2030 only four years away, the window for action is rapidly closing. Early movers will secure supply and define market standards, while those who wait risk entering a crowded market with limited access to high-quality credits and escalating prices.

[cta]

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the voluntary carbon market stall in 2025 despite rising corporate climate commitments?

Retirements fell 7% even as SBTi reported a 227% surge in companies setting near-term and net-zero targets. The gap reflects that most companies with 2030 goals haven't yet moved from setting targets to actually procuring credits.

Is carbon dioxide removal a proven market today, or still emerging?

CDR remains a small segment—about 5% of 2025 retirements—but it has an unusually active forward market, with buyers committing today to volumes delivered years from now. High-durability pathways like biochar and geologic storage are still early-stage relative to nature-based credits.

How does the new SBTi Net-Zero Standard affect corporate carbon credit strategy?

Under the new SBTi Net-Zero Standard, credits still can't be counted toward scope 1, 2, or 3 targets. But it introduces a voluntary recognition program starting in 2027, and requires large companies to begin purchasing carbon removals from 2035, starting at 1% of their footprint.

What should CDR buyers prioritize given current market conditions?

Given how concentrated forward offtake activity is today, buyers should prioritize rigorous project diligence and bankable contract structures over simply committing volume—the 2026 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report details five recommended actions in more depth.