Low-Carbon Fuels Under RED: Why Quality Can Differ and How Buyers Can Look Beyond the Certificate

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

• The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol’s Actions and Market Instruments (AMI) proposal would formally recognize market-based instruments across emissions scopes for the first time, within Statement 2.
• The proposal substantially expands opportunities for companies to report lower emissions from purchasing market-based instruments for low-carbon fuels (LCF), such as book-and-claim environmental attribute certificates (EACs) for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and renewable natural gas (RNG).
• Companies purchasing or already holding market-based instruments for SAF, RNG, and other low-carbon fuels should begin mapping those instruments to the AMI’s proposed reporting structure now, before the standard is finalized.

The Current Reporting Problem With Low-Carbon Fuels

A low-carbon fuel is defined as a fuel whose lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are lower than those of a relevant, use-case-specific fossil fuel baseline. Most LCFs used today are created from biogenic sources like agricultural residues, used cooking oil, or landfill gas, and their use often results in reduced GHG emissions due to the fact that the CO₂ they release during use is biogenic and not fossil.

Consumers of LCFs face a reportability problem. Many buyers track LCF purchases through market-based instruments such as book-and-claim and mass balance EACs. These instruments unbundle environmental claims from physical molecules to facilitate investment in LCFs when direct provision of the molecule is infeasible. However, the current GHG Protocol only permits the use of market-based tools for electricity-based emissions. 

Currently, companies cannot recognize the emissions benefit of an LCF purchase unless they physically receive and combust the fuel. Given that sustainable aviation fuel, renewable natural gas, and other LCFs typically flow into shared pipeline and distribution infrastructure rather than being delivered to buyers as distinct physical molecules, direct delivery is often not achievable in practice. This limitation constrains demand growth in the voluntary market.

The value of LCFs to voluntary buyers is the sustainability claim attached to the molecule, not the molecule itself. Without a credible reporting framework for market-based instruments, buyers struggle to justify LCF procurement. Producers, in turn, may face a market where buyer reluctance limits commercial opportunities for scale-up. Non-reportability inhibits one of the few available levers to incentivize voluntary investment in climate solutions.

[cta]

How Does the AMI Proposal Address Non-Reportability?

The Actions and Market Instruments (AMI) proposal introduces a four-statement reporting framework, with all four statements relevant to elements of LCFs. Together, these statements give organizations across the LCF value chain a standardized way to account for LCF procurements in their sustainability reports, whether those procurements are physical or through market-based instruments.

• Statement 1 covers the physical GHG inventory and is the traditional GHG Protocol inventory as it exists today. Companies that physically receive and combust LCFs recognize the lower GHG emissions here.
• Statement 2 proposes a market-based GHG inventory for all emissions scopes. For the first time, this will allow companies to report the carbon intensities of book-and-claim and mass balance EACs for LCFs within a GHG Protocol-aligned inventory. This is a shift from the current framework, which relegates market-based instruments for LCFs and other products, along with carbon credits, to a supplemental section outside of the core emissions inventory. By bringing these purchases into the inventory itself, Statement 2 puts market-based LCF claims on a more equal footing with the emissions companies already report.
• Statement 3 covers beyond value chain interventions as well as GHG emissions reductions/avoidance reported relative to a baseline counterfactual (e.g., the domain of carbon credits). Avoided methane emissions upstream from RNG use is one LCF-relevant example that might live here. 
• Statement 4 captures non-GHG indicators and could include things such as the quantity of an LCF procured or produced. This rounds out the story an organization tells about how LCFs fit within their operations and value chain.

How the AMI Proposal Applies to Specific Fuel Types

Two important LCFs are impacted by the current GHG Protocol guidance and offer an example of the significance of the AMI proposal. 

1. SAF is a biobased or synthetic drop-in substitute for conventional jet fuel. 
2. RNG, generally produced from organic wastes, is a drop-in substitute for conventional natural gas. 

Both are typically delivered through existing infrastructure. SAF is typically blended into a common fuel supply. RNG is often injected into the broader gas network. The buyer typically does not have a direct physical link to the molecule’s consumption, but rather an indirect claim on molecules injected into a common system.

Current GHG Protocol guidance disallows using and reporting market-based LCF emissions factors within corporate scope inventories. If finalized as proposed, the AMI proposal’s Statement 2 would open the aperture for companies to report the lower emissions from purchasing SAF or RNG market-based instruments. Here’s how that might work.

SAF: Reporting Across the Value Chain

When an airline physically receives and burns SAF in its aircraft, the lower combustion emissions are reflected in its Statement 1, scope 1 emissions inventory. This is reported the same way as conventional jet fuel.

The picture changes when airlines use market-based instruments. Many airlines purchase scope 1 SAF certificates that are decoupled from the physical fuel and tracked via book-and-claim or mass balance EACs. Under the AMI proposal, the lower emissions factors of these instrument purchases would be reflected in an airline’s Statement 2, scope 1 emissions inventory.

Corporate buyers face a parallel situation. Companies that purchase scope 3 EACs from SAF suppliers or through airline programs to address employee travel would reflect these lower emissions factors in their Statement 2, scope 3, category 6 emissions. Legitimate Statement 2 claims provide additional incentive for corporate climate action to address travel emissions.

RNG: Reporting Across the Value Chain

As with SAF, an organization that physically receives and combusts RNG can reflect the lower emissions in its Statement 1, scope 1 emissions inventory. 

More often, RNG is injected into the shared gas network and claimed by users through book-and-claim or mass balance certificates rather than physical delivery. Statement 2 introduces a reporting opportunity for RNG EAC purchasers to report lower scope 1 emissions. Lower emissions from RNG consumption could also be passed through as reduced scope 3 emissions for consumers of products associated with RNG consumption.

RNG carries an additional nuance. Some RNG projects may also claim to have avoided methane emissions (e.g., dairy manure methane emissions avoided by way of diversion to RNG). This type of methane avoidance attribute, typically tracked in the realm of carbon credits, would have a home within Statement 3, subject to additional disclosure requirements. Companies evaluating RNG certificates should understand which claims belong in which statement.

Application to Other LCFs and Market-Based Instruments

While SAF and RNG are two of the more prominent examples, the AMI proposal is relevant to all LCFs including renewable diesel and marine fuels. The emissions associated with market-based instrument purchases for these fuels would belong in Statement 2.

The proposed framework may also cover market-based instruments aimed at lower emissions conventional fuels, e.g., natural gas production that has taken measures to reduce fugitive methane emissions far below industry averages. Companies purchasing certificates of this type would theoretically report the reduced upstream natural gas emissions rates in Statement 2, scope 3, category 3.

Three Steps Companies Can Take Now to Prepare 

The AMI proposal is still in development. A public request for information on the initial white paper recently closed. A draft standard is in development, with a formal public consultation planned in Q3 2027. Companies that act early will be better positioned when the standard takes effect. Steps will vary depending on where in the fuels value chain an organization sits, but could include:

1. Map exposure. Identify where the organization sits in the LCFs value chain and what fuels it is currently procuring and consuming. This will help to better understand where the largest fuels-related emissions hot spots are in the current GHG inventory.
2. Record current instruments and assess quality. Catalog the instruments the company is currently producing or procuring. Understand where these instruments may sit within the AMI’s proposed four-statement framework and assess their quality against emerging eligibility criteria.
3. Engage with the process. The GHG Protocol is still defining eligibility and quality criteria for LCF instruments. Organizations can monitor interim developments from the AMI Technical Working Group. Companies with active programs have a real stake in how those criteria are written.

Frequently Asked Questions

How would the AMI proposal change the way low-carbon fuels get reported?

The core shift is the introduction of Statement 2, a new market-based GHG inventory. For the first time, companies would be able to report the lower emissions from purchasing market-based LCF instruments, including book-and-claim and mass balance EACs, within a GHG Protocol-aligned inventory. This applies to all LCFs, including SAF and RNG, and can be reflected in scope 1 or scope 3 inventories depending on where the organization sits in the LCF value chain.

Is the AMI proposal finalized, and what should companies do now?

No, the proposal is still in development. A public request for information on the initial white paper recently closed. A draft standard is in development, with a formal public consultation planned in Q3 2027. In the meantime, companies holding SAF, RNG, or other LCF instruments should map their exposure across the value chain, catalog existing instruments against the proposed four-statement framework, assess quality against emerging eligibility criteria, and monitor GHG Protocol AMI updates.

‍What should a company look for when evaluating a SAF or RNG certificate?

Buyers should confirm which claim a certificate actually conveys and where it would sit in the AMI’s proposed framework. For example, a lower-emissions carbon intensity claim belongs in Statement 2 whereas an avoided-methane claim falls under Statement 3. Buyers should also assess the instrument against the AMI's emerging eligibility and quality criteria to reduce the risk that a purchase won't qualify under the final standard. Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) has published a comprehensive set of criteria for high-quality low-carbon fuels that buyers can use as a starting point, until AMI’s eligibility and quality criteria are finalized.

Key Takeaways

1. The decision to fund a project is determined by a holistic review of project development maturity. This applies across capital-intensive projects, including low-carbon power generation, carbon capture and storage (CCS) solutions, sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), and broader transition infrastructure build-out. Both technical and commercial workstreams must be developed in parallel to avoid project failure. 
2. Early scope decisions, such as site selection, core technology selection, and nameplate capacity, are cheap to make but become exponentially disruptive and costly to reverse. 
3. Independent challenge and verification is tangible evidence of a disciplined, well-managed capital development process. 

Bridging the Gap from Announcement to Delivery

Among project developers, a perception often persists: seeking external review signals a project in distress. In capital budgeting discussions, subjecting engineering scope and commercial assumptions to third-party interrogation can be misconstrued as a vote of no confidence in the primary delivery team.

In reality, the reverse is true. Across complex infrastructure, independent challenge is the disciplined stage-gate practice that protects capital by reconciling technical reality with commercial terms before designs are locked.

Independent Challenge Is a Sign of Strength, Not Doubt 

Across capital projects, and in particular within emerging low-carbon industrial infrastructure, the gap between announced projects and delivered assets remains stark. Data from the Mission Possible Partnership’s Global Project Tracker reveals that fewer than 17% of announced commercial-scale clean industrial facilities worldwide have reached Final Investment Decision (FID) or commercial operations, leaving more than 800 major decarbonization projects stalled in front-end development.

The causes of developmental paralysis are multifaceted. While macroeconomic interest rate shifts and global supply chain disruptions sit largely outside a developer's control, project definition and developmental discipline remain entirely manageable. Even amid external volatility, a project designed with resilience will have a far greater likelihood of success.

Independent review and assurance directly strengthen a project’s chance of success and overall value. Large global project delivery organizations have applied this discipline for decades by deploying independent teams to evaluate project readiness at every stage gate. For teams lacking a dedicated internal oversight organization, or those deploying first-of-a-kind facilities, third-party independent review provides the necessary rigor to facilitate project success.

Relae’s (formerly Carbon Direct) work with Stockholm Exergi is a clear example: independent assurance helped build funder and regulator confidence in a first-of-a-kind carbon removal facility with no direct precedent to benchmark against.

Why Projects Stall Between Announcement and FID 

Low-carbon infrastructure and net-zero industrial projects carry unique risks compared to the repeat delivery of established designs. Exciting new developments run a higher risk of falling victim to optimism bias or compressing development timelines to meet public announcement milestones.

It is a natural human tendency for project champions to focus on the upside during early development. However, early momentum must be balanced with processes that reintroduce industrial lessons, supply-chain realities, and operational resilience.

Front-End Loading (FEL) is a well-evidenced approach for improving capital project outcomes. Decades of benchmarking by Independent Project Analysis (IPA) show that approximately two-thirds of industrial megaprojects suffer capital cost overruns or schedule slippage of 25% or more, or encounter severe operational problems lasting more than two years post-startup. This pattern is repeating in low-carbon infrastructure: IPA’s analysis of 12 completed low-carbon projects found average cost escalation of 31% and schedule slip of almost 50%. Rigorous front-end definition remains the single strongest predictor of whether a project will achieve its cost and schedule targets. 

As highlighted in the CDR 2.0: Five Pillars of Successful Project Deployment and Delivery report published by Relae, projects falter when developers push ahead without stress-testing the full delivery framework. Stage gate reviews are the mechanisms that evaluate the total project concept and underlying business case. They are most effective when executed as independent cold-eye evaluations prior to each funding gate, identifying and mitigating vulnerabilities long before final investment decisions are reached. 

What Funders Need to See at Each Gate 

Different stages of project development rely on distinct capital sources, each requiring specific proof points before deploying funds.

Before FEED Funding: Justifying the Engineering Spend

Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) is a major financial commitment, typically costing between 2% and 4% of total project capital cost. The funders backing this stage are usually the developer’s own balance sheet equity, strategic partners, or public grant programs. Before allocating millions of dollars to detailed engineering, these funders need confidence on the fundamentals:

• A technically sound process concept, confirmed utility balances, and an energy integration scheme that fits the site.
• Secured site control, clear zoning pathways, and no environmental fatal flaws that could derail permitting.
• Documented availability of required feedstocks, water and power, paired with demonstrable interest from target off-takers.

Before FID: Proving Bankability and Commercial Closure

As a project approaches FID, the funding audience shifts to conservative commercial lenders, infrastructure funds, and binding offtake counterparties. These capital providers are not underwriting strategic vision; they are underwriting long-term operational cash flows and debt service. Depending on the project and financing structure, capital providers may require:

• A high-confidence capital cost estimate (AACE Class 2 or Class 3) backed by frozen Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs), firm equipment quotes, and a realistic execution schedule with clear critical paths.
• Bankable engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) structures that clearly allocate risk, include performance guarantees and enforceable liquidated damages.
• Fully executed, binding offtake and feedstock agreements, along with non-appealable permits and completed utility interconnection agreements, with remaining conditions clearly understood.
• An objective, third-party challenge review that assesses operational viability and distinguishes an executable engineering plan from an aspirational concept.

Commercial and Technical Co-Development: The Stage-Gate Method in Practice

A project rarely fails because of an isolated mechanical issue or a purely commercial misstep; failure happens when technical decisions and commercial terms are negotiated in silos and decisions are made without understanding of the wider implications. 

We see this disconnect play out in several ways, including: 

• Sizing capacity before testing market demand: An engineering team may size a facility to maximize thermodynamic efficiency and economies of scale, only for the commercial team to discover buyers will only commit to half that volume. The developer is left with an oversized, unbankable design requiring fundamental rework. 
• Setting product specifications before negotiating offtake: Process engineers frequently design systems around standard vendor packages. However, when downstream transport, processing, or storage networks enforce strict purity standards, the facility faces costly equipment redesigns. This issue has materialized directly within European CCS networks. Open-access offshore storage operators, such as Norway's Northern Lights project, established strict cross-border CO₂ specifications requiring tighter moisture and impurity thresholds than originally designed for. 
• Locking Electrical Loads Prior to Interconnection Verification: As detailed in Relae’s analysis of physical infrastructure bottlenecks, scale is rarely constrained by capital availability; it is dictated by electrical transmission queues, substation headroom, and 24/7 firm power availability. Freezing electrical demand before verifying utility interconnection timelines risks stranding engineering work on an asset that cannot connect to the grid. 

How Relae Stress Tests Projects at Each Gate 

Independent reviews at each stage-gate improve success rates by stress-testing assumptions before presenting to lenders, infrastructure investors, or corporate buyers. Relae reviews projects across five categories using the TECOP framework:

• Technical: Verifying technology readiness levels (TRL), mass and energy balances, plot plan constructability, and operational availability under real-world conditions.
• Economic: Capex benchmarking, operating contingency adequacy, utility tariff sensitivities, and financial model cash-flow resilience.
• Commercial: Offtake agreement structures, feedstock contracts, contracting boundaries, EPC contract structures, and counterparty creditworthiness.
• Organizational: Owner's team capabilities, internal stage-gate governance, contractor oversight mechanisms, and execution capabilities. 
• Political: Statutory permitting status, regulatory durability, carbon market policy exposure, and local community social license.

The TECOP framework is relevant for evaluating delivery risk across all project types, see more in Relae’s Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal, Delivery Risk Appendix.

What makes this approach effective is sitting on both sides of the table. Having completed over 250 deep-dive technology reviews, 900+ project evaluations, and advised on more than $6 billion in industrial project finance, Relae has extensive experience evaluating the considerations important to institutional funders and buyers.

The Value of Early Independent Project AssuranceIncorporating independent review should be standard practice for modern infrastructure delivery. Because funders will perform their own rigorous diligence regardless, conducting an independent evaluation early enables developers to address vulnerabilities proactively and present a more resilient business case.

Commissioning an independent team for a cold-eye review during early project formation can be a  cost-effective way to identify potential risks before they become expensive to address. Catching an unworkable process assumption, an oversized capacity plan, or a misaligned commercial interface during pre-FEED costs a tiny fraction of what it takes to fix those issues during construction

Ultimately, independent challenge is not an admission of doubt, but the disciplined stage-gate practice that protects capital by reconciling technical reality with commercial terms before designs are locked, signaling to partners, and your future funders that your project is built to deliver. 

To dive deeper into the frameworks that support successful projects, read Relae's white paper: CDR 2.0: Five Pillars of Successful Project Deployment and Delivery and take a look at project assurance in action through our Stockholm Exergi Case Study.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is independent project assurance?

Independent project assurance is a structured review of a capital project by a team that sits outside the project’s delivery organization. Reviewers test the engineering scope, cost estimate, schedule, commercial agreements and permitting position against what funders will require at the next stage gate. The developer receives a clear list of gaps, risks and proposed mitigations prior to presenting the project to lenders, investors or buyers.

When should a developer commission an independent project review?

Periodically throughout the project development process - at a minimum before each major funding gate, but smaller reviews are also beneficial at earlier stages when key concept and technology decisions are being made. A review before Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) tests whether the process concept, site and supply of feedstock, water and power justify the engineering spend. A review before Final Investment Decision (FID) tests whether the cost estimate, EPC structure and binding agreements will satisfy lenders. Site, technology and capacity decisions are cheap to change in pre-FEED and expensive to reverse once detailed engineering starts.

What does an independent project review assess?

Relae structures its reviews around the TECOP framework, which covers five risk areas: technical (technology readiness, mass and energy balances, constructability), economic (capex benchmarking, contingency, financial model resilience), commercial (offtake, feedstock and EPC contracts), organizational (owner’s team capability and stage-gate governance) and political (permitting, regulatory durability and social license). Reviewers also check that technical and commercial decisions are aligned, because projects often fail where the two are developed in silos.

How does an independent project review differ from lender due diligence?

An independent project review applies a holistic approach identifying not only gaps, but also opportunities to add value and strengthen the business case. Lender and investor due diligence is often purely looking at risks and gaps, prior to committing capital. Lender diligence protects the funder and reports its findings at a point when changes are costly and can delay financial close. A developer-commissioned review takes place earlier, so the project team can fix weaknesses in scope, cost or contracts before funders see them.

Key Takeaways

• High-quality carbon dioxide removal (CDR) projects require robust project management and oversight to deliver credits on time and at the promised volume; delivery risk is a distinct concern that quality standards alone don't catch.
• The sixth edition of the Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal is the first to provide an approach to evaluating both credit quality and delivery risk, adding a new delivery risk appendix built around the TECOP framework: technical, economic, commercial, organizational, and political risk.
• The 2026 Criteria provides a framework for developers, investors, and buyers to evaluate both project quality and delivery risk.
• This year's update draws on 170 new diligence reports from 2025 and the input of more than 60 subject matter experts, building on a foundation of six years of lessons from professional diligence across hundreds of real-world CDR projects.

The Criteria Create a Shared Standard for Credit Quality

Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) first launched the Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal (the Criteria) in collaboration with Microsoft in 2021 to help rapidly and justly scale the development of high-quality carbon dioxide removal (CDR) credits. The market didn't yet have a shared definition of what "high-quality" meant, so we laid out transparent, science-based benchmarks that gave developers, investors, and buyers a common foundation to work from. Every year since, we have gone back and sharpened those benchmarks so that they keep pace with the quickly evolving industry.

But a shared definition of quality doesn't guarantee the delivery of credits as planned. The 2026 edition is the first to tackle that gap directly, pairing the Criteria's quality benchmarks with a new framework for evaluating delivery risk.

The Six Principles of High-Quality Carbon Removal

The Criteria defines six science-based principles that apply across engineered, hybrid, and nature-based CDR approaches:

• Social harms, benefits, and environmental justice: The extent to which the project prevents new social harms to people and communities, reduces existing harms, and provides meaningful benefits distribution.
• Environmental harms and benefits: The extent to which the project minimizes and mitigates environmental harms, as well as provides environmental benefits.
• Additionality and baselines: The evidence that the project’s carbon removal would not have occurred without carbon finance.
• Measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification (MMRV): The ability to accurately quantify carbon removal in a repeatable and verifiable way, and to develop a plan for long-term monitoring of the project.
• Durability: The likelihood that removed carbon remains stored over time, with mechanisms in place to mitigate reversal risk.
• Leakage: The extent to which project activities cause increased emissions elsewhere.

These principles provide a consistent foundation for carbon removal procurement, evaluation, and project benchmarking.

[cta]

Supporting the Delivery of High-Quality CDR Credits

"Projects must work better operationally and be more commercial. Quality and delivery risk shape a project's risk profile at every point in its life, and this edition of the Criteria is the first to give buyers a way to judge both at once." Dr. Julio Friedmann, Chief Scientist, Relae

Designing projects to meet high-quality CDR criteria is only part of the challenge. Effective project planning, management, and execution are also essential to ensure that high-quality CDR tonnes successfully reach the market as planned. As discussed in CDR 2.0: Five Pillars of Successful Project Deployment and Delivery, managing delivery risk requires developers, investors, and buyers to understand the risks that can affect project success and align on how these risks are assessed and mitigated.

To support this alignment, the 2026 Criteria introduced a new Delivery Risk Appendix, which establishes a common framework and language for identifying and evaluating key delivery risks for the first time. Drawing on our broader observations of the carbon removal market and established approaches to project risk management, the appendix highlights common delivery risks across two broad CDR project types: open systems and closed systems. It organizes these risks into five categories: technical, economic, commercial, organizational, and political factors, also known as the TECOP framework. 

The TECOP Framework for CDR Delivery Risk

• Technical delivery risks are associated with the technical feasibility of the project design, implementation, and long-term operation of the project
• Economic delivery risks are associated with the project’s financing structure, financial modeling assumptions, and expenditure profile
• Commercial delivery risk reflects the extent to which a project's purchase agreements, supply arrangements, and key contractual relationships are secured or well-advanced. 
• Organizational delivery risks center on the project developer's capacity and capability to successfully plan, execute, and manage a project of the appropriate size and complexity.  
• Political delivery risks are associated with governance, policies, and potential changes in regulatory environments, as well as the local communities’ perception of and willingness to participate in projects.

New Additions to the 2026 Criteria

Since publishing the 2025 Criteria, Relae has conducted an additional 170 diligence reports across established and emerging CDR pathways, ranging from reforestation and enhanced rock weathering (ERW) to direct air capture (DAC). To date, less than 10% of all 900+ projects the team has reviewed have met the bar for high-quality. These diligence efforts, together with insights from market analysis and ongoing synthesis of the latest scientific and technical literature, have deepened our understanding of how CDR project quality has evolved over the past year. 

The 2026 Criteria leverage these insights and the expertise of more than 60 subject matter experts to reflect advances across the CDR industry and address key weaknesses that remain in the market across all pathways. 

A few of the most significant updates to the Criteria include:

Addition of Direct Counterparty Considerations: Direct counterparties are the organizations that developers partner with, and are structurally dependent on, to generate credits. This can include: 

• Primary feedstock providers (e.g., mines, biomass providers, tree nurseries)
• Major implementing partners (e.g., local implementation partners, base facilities, transportation and storage providers, major product offtakers)
• Land owners that make up a significant proportion of project land 

To reflect the key role that direct counterparties play in high-quality credit generation, developers must conduct diligence and disclose on their direct counterparties to demonstrate that they are not causing social or environmental harm.

Increased Rigor for Enhanced Rock Weathering Projects: Over the past year, ERW’s presence in the CDR market has grown substantially, and so too has the market’s understanding of the corresponding scientific and technical rigor required to deliver high-quality tonnes. The 2026 Criteria raised the bar for how ERW projects:

• Measure and prove their carbon removal claims
• Mitigate risks related to potentially toxic elements (PTEs)
• Incorporate more sophisticated farmer protections and benefits 

Projects now have to back up their numbers with multiple physical field measurements, not just computer models; and they must now track and account for every significant loss pathway, from plants taking up minerals to carbon escaping from rivers and oceans.

Use of Dynamic Baselines for ARR Projects: ARR projects are increasingly using dynamic baselines to provide a more accurate reflection of the counterfactual scenario (e.g., what would have happened in the absence of the project). This is reflected in the 2026 Criteria with a requirement that ARR projects, with the exception of agroforestry projects, use dynamic baselines with statistically matched controls.

What’s Next?

The 2026 Criteria create a clear, science-driven framework for both designing and delivering measurable, just, and durable carbon removal. However, the Criteria cannot ensure high-quality tonnes reach the market on its own; good criteria do not replace robust diligence. To put these criteria into practice, we encourage developers, standard-setting bodies, buyers, investors, and policymakers to consider how the Criteria can be used to inform their role in enabling the carbon market to deliver high-quality tonnes and to engage in deep diligence and ongoing monitoring over the life of a project.

This edition of the Criteria reflects what we have learned over the past year, but our work is not done. We will continue to update it so that it remains a living document that evolves with the science and the market. To do so effectively, it must be a collaborative effort; we welcome input from carbon market actors, academia, and communities.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who publishes the Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal, and how often is it updated?

Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) first published the Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal with Microsoft in 2021 and have updated it every year since. The 2026 edition reflects six years of lessons from real-world project diligence and advances in climate science.

What are the six principles of the Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal?

The Criteria define six science-based principles that apply across all CDR pathways: social harms, benefits, and environmental justice; environmental harms and benefits; additionality and baselines; measurement, monitoring, reporting, and verification (MMRV); durability; and leakage.

What CDR pathways does the Criteria cover?

The Criteria include pathway-specific criteria across nine CDR pathways: afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation (ARR); mangrove forestation; improved forest management (IFM); soil carbon; enhanced rock weathering (ERW) in croplands; biomass carbon removal and storage (BiCRS); abiotic marine CDR; carbon mineralization; and direct air capture (DAC).

What is delivery risk in carbon removal?

Delivery risk is the likelihood that a project generates credits on the timeline and at the quantity committed to buyers. It's a distinct concern from credit quality: even a high-quality project can fail to deliver as planned because of technical, economic, commercial, organizational, or political risk, the five categories the Criteria's TECOP framework evaluates. The 2026 Criteria's new Delivery Risk Appendix gives developers, investors, and buyers a shared benchmark for identifying and managing these risks before they derail a project.

What's the relationship between carbon removal credit quality and delivery risk?

Credit quality and delivery risk are distinct but interrelated. A project that fails to deliver credits as planned reduces the availability of high-quality CDR tonnes in the market, and weaknesses in credit quality can themselves increase delivery risk by creating buyer uncertainty or limiting access to project financing. The 2026 Criteria provides a framework for evaluating both quality and delivery risk.

Key Takeaways

• The Nasdaq Carbon Issuance Calendar, a new data platform, provides carbon removal buyers and suppliers with standardized information on future offtake availability, indicative pricing, and project maturity. The platform was developed in collaboration with Relae, formerly Carbon Direct.
• The Carbon Issuance Calendar addresses the fragmentation and transparency problems of the voluntary carbon market by centralizing standardized project data and embedding our scientific diligence framework, built over 900 project reviews, giving buyers delivery-risk insight that no registry or marketplace offers today.
• The Carbon Issuance Calendar is an important early step, not the whole journey: it shows buyers what durable tonnes exist and allows them to compare projects with apples-to-apples data. 
• Buyers can move from the Carbon Issuance Calendar into technical diligence, contracting, and project assurance with Relae’s advisory team. Suppliers can register to connect with buyers who are ready to engage.

Carbon Removal Project Data Has a Visibility Problem

If you're sourcing durable carbon removal credits, you may run into a familiar wall: project data scattered across dozens of developer websites, presented in inconsistent formats, with no easy way to compare one project against another. If you're a project developer, you face the mirror image of that problem: fielding individual requests for proposals, with no central place to showcase your available tonnes.

Get this wrong, and buyers may end up counting on carbon removal that never shows up - the delivery risk bugbear.

Between 2022 and 2024, high-durability engineered carbon removal made up just 2 percent of all carbon credit issuances. They remain in short supply, particularly the high-quality supply corporate buyers need. The gap is set to widen: our 2026 State of the Voluntary Carbon Market report found that more than 80% of the 2030 high-durability carbon removal projects are at risk of stalling and failing without additional offtake and financing commitments.

The Nasdaq Carbon Issuance Calendar, developed by Nasdaq in collaboration with Relae, offers an important first step toward addressing this information gap.

What Is the Nasdaq Carbon Issuance Calendar?

The Carbon Issuance Calendar is a centralized, accessible dashboard where carbon removal buyers and suppliers view standardized project data: future credit availability, indicative pricing, and project delivery status, all in one place. 

The Nasdaq Carbon Issuance Calendar combines structured, developer-provided project data with project maturity assessment informed by Relae’s assessment framework and technical diligence. This helps users understand future CDR availability, indicative pricing, and potential project delivery risk through a single platform.

This expertise didn't appear overnight. It comes from sitting across the table with developers, stress-testing their science, mapping their delivery timelines against reality, and helping them show up to buyers as credible partners. The result is a track record that gives the framework embedded in the Carbon Issuance Calendar its depth. It's a starting point, built for buyers and suppliers to find each other on the basis of consistent, comparable information, using international class financial and information infrastructure.

How Buyers Should Use the Nasdaq Carbon Issuance Calendar

Today, if you're trying to procure durable carbon removal credits, you have no single place to start. You have to visit individual developer sites, request information through scattered channels, and compare projects that present data in entirely different formats before diligence has even begun. In many cases, you are comparing apples to oranges - different kinds of CDR projects with different durabilities, risks, and overall quality. 

The Carbon Issuance Calendar provides a central starting point. You can view future credit availability, compare indicative pricing across projects, and begin assessing options without contacting each supplier one by one.

More importantly, the Carbon Issuance Calendar frames the data. Our scientists developed a delivery-oriented lens, built from reviewing over 900 carbon removal projects, drawing on the same rigor behind our Criteria for High-Quality Carbon Dioxide Removal, which we develop annually with Microsoft.

How Suppliers Reach Buyers Through the Carbon Issuance Calendar

If you're a project developer, the Nasdaq Carbon Issuance Calendar tackles visibility, one of the most persistent barriers to market access. You can list available tonnes, display indicative pricing, and reach a global audience of corporate and financial buyers at no cost.

The timing matters. Many first-of-a-kind engineered carbon removal projects are preparing to break ground and need bankable offtake agreements to secure financing before they can do so (a key aspect of CDR 2.0). Our analysis of approximately 140 high-durability carbon removal project developers found scale-up plans for 30 million tonnes of supply per year. Reaching that potential will take real demand: committed forward offtake, increased project equity investment, and access to lending. 

Register now: you'll be positioned to connect to buyers actively looking to engage.

How Does the Carbon Issuance Calendar Differ From a Carbon Credit Registry or Carbon Removal Marketplace?

The Carbon Issuance Calendar solves a distinct, early-stage problem. It gives buyers and suppliers a centralized place to find each other and compare options against standardized information, something neither a registry nor a marketplace is built to do.

For a closer look at how registries differ and what you should weigh when navigating them, read our Navigating Carbon Credit Registries report.

Scientific Diligence Turns Visibility Into Confidence

Standardized data tells you what exists. Scientific diligence tells you what's worth pursuing. 

Relae’s scientists do that work every day. Our experts apply rigorous pathway-specific criteria to live projects, evaluating delivery risk and status, and identifying where questions remain is the core of what we bring to the carbon removal market.

The Carbon Issuance Calendar puts an accessible version of that expertise at the top of the procurement funnel. It’s for everyone in the market - you don't need to be a carbon removal scientist to use it. This snapshot allows you to compare projects against each other, giving you a meaningful starting point before deeper diligence begins. 

Want to go deeper on a specific project? Relae’s technical diligence team picks up right where the Carbon Issuance Calendar leaves off.

What Carbon Removal Projects Are on the Carbon Issuance Calendar Today?

The Carbon Issuance Calendar currently features engineered and hybrid carbon removal projects: direct air capture, biochar, enhanced rock weathering, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage. These high-durability pathways offer permanence on the order of hundreds to thousands of years.

Many of these projects are at an inflection point: they’re ready to scale but dependent on committed offtake to unlock financing. The Calendar serves their needs, and the buyer’s needs, together.

Nature-based carbon removals have their own criteria and market dynamics. They may appear in a separate segment of the Carbon Issuance Calendar down the line.

From the Carbon Issuance Calendar to Completed Carbon Removal Procurement

If you're building or refining a carbon removal procurement strategy, the Carbon Issuance Calendar is the right place to start. 

From there, you can choose to work with the Relae advisory team to support every later stage: technical diligence on specific projects, contracting and negotiation support, ongoing project assurance, and access to curated carbon credit sourcing. The Carbon Issuance Calendar surfaces the market; we help you navigate it, connecting you with the right developers, on the right terms, with the scientific confidence to move forward.

Moving from commitment to delivery takes structural change across the market, too—our CDR 2.0 white paper lays out the five pillars we see as essential to getting engineered and hybrid carbon removal projects built and delivering.

Key Takeaways

• Buyers have been navigating the low-carbon fuels (LCF) market without a map.  The LCF market is expanding rapidly, but standards, definitions, and quality claims vary widely across regions, certification schemes, and regulatory systems, leaving voluntary buyers without a holistic framework for evaluating what they procure.
• Certifications cover some of the picture, not all of it. Existing certification schemes provide valuable assurance but vary in scope and rigor, and few, if any, were designed specifically with voluntary market buyers in mind. 
• The 2026 criteria give buyers a legible quality framework. The 2026 Criteria for High-Quality Low Carbon Fuels bring together key sustainability considerations across six principles, including social and environmental integrity, carbon accounting, additionality, feedstock sourcing, and leakage, giving buyers and producers a legible, living framework to navigate procurement decisions with confidence.

Verifying Quality Is Challenging in the Current Low-Carbon Fuels Market

For airlines, logistics companies, and large corporations with hard-to-abate transportation emissions, low-carbon fuels (LCFs) have become an important part of the decarbonization toolkit. Yet it remains difficult for procurement teams to answer a fundamental question: what does high-quality procurement actually look like? 

Standards, definitions, and sustainability claims vary widely across regions, certification bodies, and regulatory programs. The result is a market where quality is difficult to verify, certifications are difficult to compare, and the gap between a fuel's claims and its actual sustainability profile can be hard to close. Sustainable production will be especially critical as the market scales, because low-carbon fuel systems are deeply embedded in land, agriculture, forestry, and communities. 

The 2026 Criteria for High-Quality Low Carbon Fuels are designed to close this gap, giving voluntary buyers a consistent framework to evaluate the quality of what they procure and identify where additional diligence is still needed.

What Is a Low-Carbon Fuel?

For the purposes of the criteria, a low-carbon fuel, or LCF, is defined as a fuel or energy source whose lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are lower than those of a relevant, use-case-specific fossil fuel alternative. In this case, we are referring to the physical biofuel and its associated environmental attributes. 

While LCFs may be produced through biological, synthetic, or other non-fossil pathways, the 2026 edition focuses on biofuels for transportation, which currently represent the majority of LCF production and use. 

Understanding the Complex LCF Regulatory and Certification Landscape

The LCF market sits at the intersection of multiple regulatory and voluntary markets. In the US, this includes compliance programs such as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and state-level Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS). Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, and many other nations host comparable programs, often with specialized regulatory regimes for various transport sectors, e.g., aviation or maritime. 

These regulatory markets coincide with and often intersect voluntary markets, which contain a multitude of standards and certifications. For producers, this creates a complex landscape of market options. For buyers, it creates a signal problem: a fuel may carry one or more certifications, comply with one or more regulatory programs, and still leave meaningful sustainability questions unaddressed.

Several organizations, including the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) and the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC), have developed widely used standards for LCFs. These certifications assess supply chains from feedstock to end use and provide important baseline assurance. 

However, they were developed with different primary audiences in mind and can vary in scope and rigor. Few existing schemes were designed to serve as a comprehensive sustainability reference for voluntary market buyers evaluating what a given fuel's certification covers and where gaps may still exist.

Simplifying High-Quality Procurement for Voluntary Buyers 

The 2026 Criteria for High-Quality Low Carbon Fuels are not designed to replace or compete with existing certification schemes. Rather, they consolidate key sustainability considerations from across the landscape of existing frameworks into a single, legible reference built specifically for voluntary market decision-makers.

The criteria apply across the full LCF supply chain, covering not only fuel producers but also fuel blenders, aggregators, and certificate traders. This LCF systems view encompasses the full set of production, certification, and procurement arrangements through which LCFs are generated and claimed. This reflects the reality that sustainability outcomes in this market are shaped by many actors, not just at the point of production.

The criteria distinguish between requirements that must be met (minimum thresholds for quality and integrity) and considerations that should be addressed, reflecting best practices and aspirational standards. This distinction is intentional: the criteria set a floor while leaving room for market participants to demonstrate quality in ways appropriate to their specific context. 

The criteria are organized around six core principles that together define what high-quality LCF production and procurement looks like. 

Six Principles for Procuring High-Quality Low-Carbon Fuels

1. Social harms, benefits, and environmental justice: preventing new harms to communities, reducing existing ones, and ensuring equitable distribution of benefits
2. Environmental harms and benefits: minimizing impacts on air, soil, water, and biodiversity
3. Carbon accounting: accurately quantifying lifecycle GHG emissions using credible methodologies and tracking environmental attributes to prevent double-counting
4. Additionality: demonstrating that voluntary market support enables outcomes that would not otherwise occur
5. Feedstock sourcing: ensuring responsible and equitable sourcing practices and requiring end-to-end chain-of-custody documentation traceable to the point of generation
6. Leakage: assessing and mitigating activity-shifting and market leakage associated with the LCF system

Where a fuel's existing certification or regulatory program adherence already addresses one or more of these core principles, that coverage should be disclosed to the buyer by the producer. Buyers can then use the criteria to identify where certification coverage aligns with quality expectations, and where supplemental diligence is needed.

A Living Framework for a Market in Motion  

The LCF market will continue to evolve as policy frameworks are shifting, certification systems are maturing, and new production pathways are emerging. The 2026 edition reflects the current state of the LCF market and is intended as a living resource, with future updates possible as the market develops and new science emerges. Future editions may expand to cover synthetic LCF pathways, renewable natural gas, and sector-specific considerations such as maritime fuels.

For buyers navigating voluntary LCF procurement, the criteria offer a practical starting point: a framework to evaluate what existing certifications cover, identify where additional diligence is needed, and build procurement decisions on a consistent quality foundation. For producers, they provide clear guidance on what a sustainability demonstration looks like for voluntary market buyers.

Read the 2026 Criteria for High-Quality Low Carbon Fuels to learn more about how the criteria apply to your procurement strategy or production system.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a low-carbon fuel?
A low-carbon fuel is a fuel whose lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are lower than a comparable fossil fuel alternative for the same use case. The 2026 LCF Criteria focus specifically on biofuels for transportation, which currently make up most LCF production and use.

What do the 2026 Criteria for High-Quality Low Carbon Fuels cover?
The criteria are organized around six principles: social harms, benefits, and environmental justice; environmental harms and benefits; carbon accounting; additionality; feedstock sourcing; and leakage. Together they give buyers and producers a consistent way to evaluate what high-quality LCF production and procurement looks like.

Do the LCF criteria replace existing certifications like RSB or ISCC?
No. The criteria aren't designed to replace or compete with existing certification schemes such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB) or the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC). Instead, they consolidate key sustainability considerations from across those frameworks into a single reference so buyers can see what their certification already covers and where supplemental diligence may be needed.

Who do the LCF criteria apply to across the supply chain?
The criteria apply across the full LCF supply chain, not just producers, but also feedstock suppliers, fuel blenders, aggregators, and certificate traders, reflecting that sustainability outcomes are shaped by many actors, not only the producer.

What's the difference between the "must" and "should" requirements in the LCF criteria?
"Must" requirements set minimum thresholds for quality and integrity that need to be met, while "should" considerations reflect best practices and aspirational standards market participants can work toward. This sets a floor while leaving room for participants to demonstrate quality in ways suited to their specific context.