The minute
- The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) approved Verra’s VCS methodology VM0049 for carbon capture and storage under its Core Carbon Principles (CCPs).
- VM0049 covers CCS through four approved modules: direct air capture (VMD0056), CO2 transport (VMD0057), CO2 storage (VMD0058) and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, BECCS (VMD0059). The methodology has been active since June 2024.
- The methodology was developed by the CCS+ Initiative, South Pole Carbon Asset Management and Perspectives Climate Group, with support from Verra, and requires that projects using renewable electricity source it from newly developed facilities dedicated to the CCS project.
Why it matters: CCS, DAC and BECCS are among the most capital-intensive carbon removal technologies, and the absence of a credibility benchmark has been a persistent barrier for buyers. The ICVCM approval does not validate individual projects, but it gives the methodology itself an independent integrity stamp, which reduces one layer of due-diligence cost for companies building carbon removal portfolios. As more CCS projects move from demonstration to commercial scale, a common accounting framework for capture, transport and storage becomes a prerequisite for market liquidity.
What is still undecided, and what needs to happen next
The approval covers the methodology, not the projects that will use it. Each CCS or DAC project still needs to pass Verra’s own VCS verification process, including site-specific monitoring, energy accounting and proof of permanent storage. That means the hardest questions remain open at the project level: what counts as adequate long-term monitoring, how to handle potential CO2 leakage from geological storage sites over decades, and how to treat emissions from shared transport infrastructure when multiple projects use the same pipeline. The ICVCM has not published guidance on how frequently it will reassess approved methodologies as new data on storage permanence accumulates.
There is also the question of demand. Technology-based carbon removal credits typically trade at prices far above nature-based credits such as reforestation or avoided deforestation. Companies that need these credits for net-zero claims will have to accept higher unit costs or wait for economies of scale. Whether VM0049 approval accelerates project development enough to bring costs down depends on how quickly developers can secure financing, permits and storage sites.
Who gains and who loses
The clearest winners are CCS project developers who were already building under VM0049. The ICVCM label gives their future credits a quality signal that can justify premium pricing. Companies like South Pole, which helped develop the methodology, are positioned to advise or manage early projects. Buyers with strict procurement policies that require CCP-labeled credits now have a technology-based removal option where previously they had few.
On the other side, developers of CCS methodologies outside the VCS system face a competitive disadvantage. If buyers default to ICVCM-approved frameworks, alternative standards may struggle to attract projects. Nature-based credit suppliers could also feel indirect pressure: as more technology-based removal credits enter the market with high-integrity labels, buyers with net-zero targets may shift a portion of their portfolios away from avoidance and reduction credits toward removal credits, changing the demand mix.
The energy requirement that most buyers will overlook
VM0049 includes a provision that deserves more attention than it typically receives. Projects using renewable electricity must demonstrate that the power comes from newly developed sources dedicated to the CCS operation. They cannot claim existing grid renewables. This is a stricter standard than many corporate renewable energy procurement practices, where companies often buy unbundled renewable energy certificates without requiring additionality. The rule exists because a DAC plant consuming large amounts of electricity from the existing grid could displace clean power from other users, resulting in no net emissions benefit. For project developers, this means building or contracting dedicated renewable capacity, which adds capital cost and development time. For buyers evaluating credits, the energy source is one of the most important variables in determining whether a CCS credit represents a genuine atmospheric benefit or an accounting exercise.
There is no newsletter yet. Leave your email and you will hear first on the day there is one.