Decarbonizing Cement and Concrete: Are Their Emissions Set in Stone?

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 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

• Cement is the key ingredient in concrete and is responsible for more than 80% of concrete’s emissions. Cement’s GHG emissions are the primary technical challenge in decarbonizing an industry that accounts for over 8% of annual global greenhouse gas emissions. 
• The global market for low-carbon concrete is constrained by the slow deployment of breakthrough technologies, yet demand from major buyers such as hyperscalers, developers, and infrastructure investors is accelerating. This mismatch between demand and supply is creating a new market mechanism: environmental attribute certificates (EACs) for building materials. 
• EACs represent the climate benefits of low-carbon materials and can be traded separately from the physical product. These certificates, when backed by robust technical diligence, offer a near-term funding mechanism to accelerate decarbonization across the cement and concrete supply chain.

The AI Boom Meets an Industrial Reality

As the market for AI infrastructure expands, data center construction is accelerating—and with it, demand for concrete, one of the most carbon-intensive materials in the built environment. For both builders and material suppliers, the embodied carbon of cement and concrete is under a microscope due to its significant climate impact. Hyperscalers, like Microsoft and Meta, have 2030 targets that far outpace the concrete industry’s readiness to provide near-term low-emissions materials. 

This piece explores why cement and concrete decarbonization is so challenging and how credible, high-quality EACs can help bridge the ambition gap. 

Cement and Concrete: An Important Distinction 

These two terms are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same—and the distinction matters for decarbonization strategy. Cement is the reactive ingredient in concrete, acting like an egg in a cake batter. Concrete itself is a blend of cement, aggregates (like sand and gravel), and water (the batter overall). While concrete is widely used and often seen as the emissions culprit, it is actually cement—just 15% of the mix by volume—that is responsible for more than 80% of concrete’s lifecycle carbon emissions. 

Why Is Concrete so Hard to Decarbonize?

Concrete is the second most-used material on Earth after water. Despite emitting only ~0.13 kg of CO₂ per kilogram, its sheer scale gives it an outsized climate impact—contributing around 8% of global CO₂ emissions. Yet decarbonization has been slow, held back by technical, structural, and accounting challenges across a complex supply chain. 

The Supply Chain Behind Concrete’s Carbon Footprint

To understand why decarbonizing concrete is so difficult, it’s essential to understand how it’s made and what drives its emissions. Three factors explain much of the difficulty: 

• Cement is made in an emissions-intensive process. Cement is produced by heating limestone to extreme temperatures (~1450 °C) to create clinker, a reactive material that binds sand and aggregates into concrete. This energy and carbon-intensive process is where the majority of the emissions occur. 
• Concrete is made to order. Concrete is a blend of cement, aggregate, and water. It is made to order at local batch plants and poured on-site or used in precast molds, with mix designs tailored to specific compressive strength and durability requirements. 
• The supply chain is decentralized and performance-driven. Because concrete mixtures must meet application-specific performance requirements, low-carbon innovations are limited to those that do not decrease product quality and performance at any point in the value chain. 

This layered supply chain, from kiln to batch plant to job site, means decarbonization strategies must be compatible with local infrastructure, material availability, and performance needs. There is no single lever to pull. 

Clinker Is the Main Emissions Driver

Clinker production alone accounts for the majority of cement’s emissions, due to the chemical process (calcination) that converts limestone into lime and releases CO₂. Not only does calcination directly produce CO₂, but the combustion of fossil fuels used to heat the kiln adds to the emissions of the overall process. 

Low-Carbon Concrete Technology: Invented, Not Yet Deployed

Six promising technologies are in development to address cement and concrete emissions, including: 

1. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS): CCS can be retrofitted to capture the fuel and process emissions from clinker production, delivering nearly complete decarbonization of the cement manufacturing process. CCS can be combined with electrification or fuel switching to deliver deeper decarbonization
2. Supplementary cementitous materials (SCMs): SCMs offer two key benefits: they can partially replace conventional cement in concrete mixtures, and certain SCMs react with CO₂ from industrial or atmospheric sources to enable durable carbon storage.
3. Electrification: Electrifying kiln heating systems can reduce emissions from fossil fuel combustion during clinker production. When powered by low-carbon electricity, this approach lowers the carbon intensity of cement manufacturing while maintaining the high temperatures required for clinker formation.
4. Fuel Switching: Natural gas, biomass, and renewable natural gas are low carbon-intensity fuels that can replace the higher-emitting coal and refuse derived fuel that usually drive the clinker production process. Unlike electrification, some alternative fuels can be used as 'drop-in' replacements in existing equipment. 
5. Synthetic and recycled aggregates: Alternatives to traditional gravel and crushed stone, made from waste materials or industrial byproducts, which can lower emissions and reduce resource extraction.
6. CO₂ curing: A process where concrete is cured with captured CO₂ instead of air, helping lock carbon into the material and partially offsetting upstream process emissions.

Each solution faces deployment challenges, from raw material availability and geographic constraints to cost, performance certification, and integration with legacy infrastructure. 

Few decarbonization strategies have reached industrial scale today, but these strategies are being piloted and demonstrated, and given targeted support, some have the potential to significantly decarbonize the future of the industry. 

The Gap Between Targets and Real Market Capacity

Hyperscalers, utilities, real estate developers, and other large organizations with ambitious scope 3 targets are looking to significantly reduce the embodied carbon throughout their supply chain. However, the current supply of deeply decarbonized cement and concrete is insufficient to support these targets through direct procurement alone; the low-carbon material simply does not exist at the required volume or in the right geographies. In some cases, pilot plants produce too little material to meet large-scale demand, while projects capable of larger volumes may not yet be located in regions where interested buyers are concentrated.

In this context, EACs offer a flexible mechanism to fund innovation and bridge the gap. By unbundling climate attributes from physical materials, near-term obstacles, such as geographic availability, can be overcome while channeling capital toward scalable and catalytic solutions. 

When backed by rigorous life cycle assessments and high-quality, transparent traceability standards, EACs can provide the financial bridge for truly innovative suppliers to invest in the capital solutions required to decarbonize cement and concrete. EACs can serve a catalytic role to support scalable strategies and help ensure that first-of-a-kind facilities are built, and direct procurement of low-carbon concrete is increasingly feasible in the years to come.

How Environmental Attribute Certificates Work in Cement and Concrete Markets

EACs translate emissions reductions from low-carbon cement and concrete production into climate attributes that can be purchased separately from the physical material. Instead of requiring buyers to procure low-carbon concrete directly from a specific supplier site, EACs allow the climate benefit associated with that production to be transacted independently through a book and claim model.

In practice, a producer implements a verified emissions reduction intervention, such as reducing clinker content through supplementary cementitious materials, installing carbon capture at a kiln, or deploying alternative cement chemistries. The resulting emissions reductions are quantified through life cycle assessment and product-level disclosures such as Environmental Product Declarations. Verified reductions can then be converted into certificates representing the climate benefit of that lower-emissions production.

Buyers can purchase these certificates to support the deployment of low-carbon cement and concrete technologies while making progress toward embodied carbon reduction targets. In this way, EACs provide an early demand signal and a revenue stream that can help producers finance capital-intensive decarbonization investments across the cement and concrete supply chain.

What This Means for Suppliers and Buyers

Whether you are procuring concrete or producing it, EACs are only one part of a broader decarbonization strategy. Navigating this space requires decisions at the intersection of technical feasibility, GHG accounting, and capital strategy. Key considerations include: 

• GHG accounting and reportability: Life cycle assessments, Environmental Product Declarations, and other product-level attributes must be tracked and transacted with high integrity. Buyers should report their EAC activities responsibly, especially in the current absence of formal standards and guidance.
• Procurement alignment: EAC buyers must ensure purchased certificates reflect equivalent performance grade materials to what was directly procured for structural applications.
• Monetization pathways: Book-and-claim EAC models offer producers a way to fund capital-intensive decarbonization upgrades while giving buyers a credible way to meet interim scope 3 goals. EAC transactions can take many forms and should be designed thoughtfully to minimize risks such as double counting.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is low-carbon cement, and how does it work?‍

Low-carbon cement reduces emissions by replacing traditional clinker with supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs), switching to cleaner fuels, electrifying kilns, or capturing CO₂ at the point of production. Because cement is responsible for more than 80% of concrete's lifecycle emissions, interventions targeting clinker production deliver the greatest climate impact. Most approaches are technically proven at smaller scales but have not yet reached the industrial volumes needed to meet mainstream demand.

How do EACs for cement and concrete compare to direct procurement of low-carbon materials?‍

Direct procurement means physically buying low-carbon concrete from a supplier, which requires that product to exist at conditions that often can not be met today. EACs decouple the climate benefit from the physical material, allowing buyers to fund verified emissions reductions across the supply chain even when direct sourcing isn't feasible. Both approaches can count toward scope 3 targets, but EACs offer more flexibility in the near term while the low-carbon materials market matures.‍

Is low-carbon concrete proven and available at scale today?‍

The core technologies for decarbonizing cement and concrete are technically demonstrated, but most have not reached commercial scale. Supply is geographically concentrated and insufficient to meet the volume demands of large buyers like hyperscalers, utilities, and real estate developers. This gap between technical readiness and market availability is precisely what makes EACs a valuable bridging mechanism right now.

What should a company look for when evaluating EACs for cement and concrete?‍

‍High-quality EACs should be backed by rigorous life cycle assessments and transparent traceability standards that tie the certificate to a specific, verifiable emissions reduction intervention. Buyers should also confirm that the certificates represent materials with equivalent performance grades to what they are directly procuring for structural applications, and that accounting practices minimize risks like double counting. Working with a technically credible advisor to evaluate EAC quality is essential, since the market currently lacks formal standards and guidance.

How Relae Can Help Decarbonize Cement and Concrete 

Decarbonizing cement and concrete is both a technical and a strategic challenge. Relae brings integrated expertise across geochemistry, life cycle assessment, carbon accounting, and industrial decarbonization strategy to help buyers and producers navigate the complex path to decarbonization. Relae works directly with producers developing low-carbon cement and concrete technologies and with global buyers seeking credible pathways to address embodied emissions in construction. Our team combines industrial decarbonization engineering, geochemical expertise, and carbon accounting to evaluate emerging EAC frameworks and ensure they deliver real climate impact.

• EAC advisory for buyers: Relae helps buyers procure high-quality EACs through criteria development and in-depth technical diligence of EAC offerings across a range of low-carbon commodities, supporting purchased certificates that reflect genuine, verifiable climate impact. 
• EAC advisory for suppliers: Relae helps producers design high-quality EAC interventions and assess potential EAC claims throughout the supply chain, informed by technical assessment, book-and-claim systems, and market landscaping.
• For both: Relae’s levelized cost of carbon abatement tooling provides custom modeling to assess trade-offs across cement and concrete decarbonization pathways, helping ensure that every dollar of climate spend goes further.

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.

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

• Carbon credits are one of several instruments for decarbonizing cement, alongside environmental attribute certificates (EACs) and direct procurement of lower-carbon products. Each serves a different purpose, and buyers and developers should understand how they interact before engaging. 
• Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement is becoming a reference point for public and private carbon credit procurement, so the quality of its methodologies now holds significant weight. 
• Proposed methodology A6.4-PMM010 - Partial substitution of fossil fuels by MSW in cement manufacture largely aligns with Relae and Microsoft’s Criteria for High-Quality EACs in the Concrete and Steel Sectors. However, Relae identified opportunities to strengthen provisions addressing interactions between carbon credits and environmental product declaration (EDP), where credited reductions are deducted from the product's EPD, with the aim of reducing the risk of the same mitigation being claimed more than once.

Article 6.4 Joins the Cement Decarbonization Toolkit 

Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement is expanding the financing options for decarbonizing cement and concrete. Environmental attribute certificates (EACs) let buyers pay for lower-carbon production without taking physical delivery of the product, while carbon credit methodologies reward manufacturers for storing captured CO₂ in their products. 

Relae is actively shaping this market: conducting technical diligence for buyers of cement EACs, providing project assurance and go-to-market support for industrial decarbonization projects, and leading market development through the publication of the Criteria for High-Quality EACs in the Concrete and Steel Sectors, in collaboration with Microsoft. 

To build on these efforts, Relae (as Carbon Direct) recently participated in the public consultation for a proposed carbon credit methodology under the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM). Methodology A6.4-PMM010 would credit emissions reductions from replacing fossil fuels with municipal solid waste (MSW) in the production of cement clinker. The approach was proposed by the Inter-American Cement Federation (FICEM), which in 2026 partnered with the UN Industrial Development Organization to work to decarbonize the sector across Latin America. 

The PACM, established under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, could underpin national climate strategies and voluntary offsetting demand for years to come. One potential avenue of influence is the SBTi Corporate Net Zero Standard V2.0, which has introduced formal recognition of market-based instruments. As both public and private entities weigh their carbon credit procurement options, this is a critical juncture for getting the methodologies right. 

Two Key Options for Decarbonizing Cement: Carbon Credits and EACs

Concrete and steel are indispensable to modern construction and together account for approximately 13% of global CO₂ emissions. With demand for infrastructure continuing to rise, including via data centers, decarbonizing these sectors is essential for new construction to remain consistent with climate commitments. 

Carbon credits are one route to financing that work. A credit is issued for each tonne of emissions reduced below a baseline, meaning the emissions that would have occurred without the intervention. For a cement plant, credits might be issued for switching to low-carbon fuels or installing new equipment that reduces emissions. Companies buy credits to offset emissions outside their own value chains, and in doing so channel finance to projects that would not otherwise proceed. 

EACs are a second route, and one that Relae is helping to shape. An EAC assigns a measured environmental characteristic to a unit of product (e.g., tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of cement), usually established through an attributional life cycle assessment. The buyer pays for the lower-carbon attribute of a product and reports it against its own value chain emissions, which makes EACs a tool for scope 3 decarbonization rather than for offsetting. 

While methodology A6.4-PMM010 is for carbon credits, we use the Relae EAC criteria as our reference point, as both instruments depend on the same foundations. An intervention must be traceable to a specific facility, the carbon impact must be quantifiable with a defensible method, and the project must be assessed for its social and environmental harms and benefits. The criteria set out in depth how Relae tests those foundations for an EAC claim, and the same tests apply with little adjustment to a crediting methodology.

Regardless of the preferred market instrument, replacing fossil fuels in cement production should be read as a partial solution. Kiln fuel combustion accounts for roughly 35% of the CO₂ emitted in clinker production, while the remaining 65% arises from process emissions inherent to calcination: when the heated limestone breaks down into lime and releases CO₂ as a byproduct. As such, Relae considers this as part of a multi-step decarbonization strategy that should ultimately address calcination emissions through carbon capture, novel binders, or substitution of the clinker itself. 

Why the PACM Matters for Carbon Credit Buyers

While there is a lack of supply today, PACM credits have the potential to underpin carbon credit demand. Corporate buyers looking to make recognized offsetting claims have reason to favor units issued under a government-endorsed UNFCCC mechanism. The European Climate Law references Article 6.4 quality standards, and the EU is expected to tie the eligibility of procured international credits to its methodologies. The German federal government has used UN-recognized credits to offset its business travel emissions since 2014, and UK government agencies have also sought PACM credits to fulfill their offsetting needs. 

A strength of the PACM is its centralized structure. The 12-person Supervisory Body (SB) makes all final approvals, following methodology recommendations from the Methodological Expert Panel (MEP). All methodologies draw on the same Article 6.4 standards and tools. For example, A6.4-PMM010 relies heavily on the Standard on Baselines and the Tool on Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal Sites. Together, these can be used to calculate the counterfactual emissions from waste diverted from landfill, and dictate how to monitor waste conditions over the crediting period.

The potential for the PACM to scale is conditional. As the market matures, voluntary buyers can choose from a widening range of high-quality carbon credits. Moreover, the European Commission has shown, via its criticism of CORSIA, that the EU will make robust efforts to prohibit procurement from projects it considers flawed. As such, the PACM will only succeed if it provides compelling methodologies to accompany solid governance. That is the standard against which Relae reviewed the fossil fuel substitution methodology.

Relae’s Response to the Cement Methodology A6.4-PMM010 

Alignment With Our High-Quality Criteria

We found methodology A6.4-PMM010 for carbon credits to largely align with our high-quality criteria. Certain gaps in the methodology are addressed by the Article 6.4 standards and tools it references, and the combination provides additional safeguards intended to support robust integrity. 

In both the methodology and our criteria, additionality must be shown on regulatory, financial, and common practice grounds. Crediting is limited to the capacity installed at validation, so carbon finance improves existing production rather than funding new clinker capacity, which aligns with our catalytic impact criterion. The methodology also credits both displaced fossil fuel and avoided landfill methane, a dual benefit that strengthens the case for these projects, especially where landfill sites are poorly managed (e.g., do not flare methane). 

We proposed only two major refinements: updating the landfill methane baseline at each verification, and closing the double-counting gap with environmental product declarations (EPDs). 

Landfill Methane Baseline

Under Article 6.4, an independent verifier checks a project’s reported results for each monitoring period before new credits are issued. Relae proposed that the landfill methane baseline be re-established at each of these verifications: from site measurements where available, and by re-selecting the default value to match current conditions where they are not. 

The baseline rests on two factors that can shift as a waste disposal site is capped, compacted, or drained: the oxidation factor (the share of methane absorbed by landfill cover before release), and the methane correction factor (how much of the waste decomposes without oxygen). 

The Article 6.4 Tool on Emissions from Solid Waste Disposal Sites offers measured and default routes for setting these values, but the methodology does not specify which applies. A project developer could apply default values from the tool and leave them static for the whole crediting period. Re-selecting those values at each verification, rather than locking them in at the outset, keeps the baseline tied to how the site is actually performing throughout its crediting period.

Double-Counting Concerns

The Article 6.4 Activity Standard rightly requires that issued credits do not overlap with other emissions mitigation crediting schemes. However, the A6.4-PMM010 does not explicitly say how that applies to EPDs, which report a cement product's carbon intensity. Relae proposed closing that gap directly: the EPD should report the new, lower carbon intensity achieved after the intervention without subtracting the avoided emissions again. The methodology should also require an annual declaration confirming that the credit and the EPD aren’t claiming the same reduction twice. 

An EPD reports a cement product’s carbon intensity, so a lower-carbon cement can earn value in two places at once: through the carbon credit, and through the EPD itself, which is exactly where the double-counting risk sits. EPD standards already keep the avoided emissions out of a product’s carbon intensity, reporting them separately from the product’s life-cycle stages, but A6.4-PMM010 never references that separation. 

Explicitly addressing this distinction in the methodology, and pairing it with Relae’s proposed annual declaration, could strengthen transparency and reduce the risk of overlapping claims associated with the same emissions reductions, where the same emissions reduction can’t be claimed once through the credit and again through the product’s own carbon footprint.

How Relae Can Help

A6.4-PMM010 is a well-designed methodology, but market-based mechanisms for enabling cement decarbonization are evolving faster than practical guidance on how to use them credibly. Relae works with buyers and cement producers navigating this landscape. For buyers, we conduct technical due diligence, advise on procurement strategy, and guide robust claims. For producers and project developers, we assess which market-based mechanism suits a given plant and provide the analytical, market intelligence, and go-to-market support needed to monetize the chosen mechanisms credibly.

Frequently Asked Questions 

What is the difference between a carbon credit and an Environmental Attribute Certificate (EAC)?

A carbon credit represents one tonne of emissions reduced below a baseline, and a buyer uses it to offset emissions outside their value chain. An EAC attaches a measured carbon attribute to a unit of product, such as cement, which the buyer reports against its own scope 3 emissions rather than for offsetting.

What is the relationship between Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement and the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM)?

Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement establishes the PACM, which refers to the registry itself along with the methodologies, standards, and tools that govern the credits listed on it. Article 6.4 is the treaty provision, and PACM is the mechanism built under it, so people often use the two terms interchangeably.

How do PACM credits differ from other credits available on the voluntary carbon market (VCM)?

PACM methodologies and standards are developed through a transparent UNFCCC process, which sets them apart from most VCM credits. This does not make PACM credits inherently higher quality, but some buyers, especially governments, prefer to tie procurement to PACM standards. Another key difference is that 7% of PACM credits are deducted at issuance–5% are transferred to the UN Adaptation Fund, and 2% are cancelled for overall mitigation.