1.0 Introduction
This module (Independent components of Isometric Certified Protocols which are transferable between and applicable to different Protocols.), establishes requirements associated withand the useframework provided in Section 2.5.2. of biomassthe feedstocksIsometric asStandard, partenables project proponents (The organization that develops and/or has overall legal ownership or control of carbona dioxideRemoval removalor Reduction Project.) to establish their GHG (CDRThose gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic (Activitieshuman-caused), that removeabsorb carbonand dioxideemit (CO₂)radiation fromat specific wavelengths within the spectrum of terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere and store it in products or geological, terrestrialitself, and oceanic Reservoirs. CDR includes the enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture (DAC) and storage, but excludes natural CO₂ uptake not directly caused by human intervention.)) projectsclouds. This includesproperty settingcauses outthe eligibilitygreenhouse criteriaeffect, forwhereby biomassheat feedstocksis trapped in relationEarth’s toatmosphere market(CDR leakagePrimer, counterfactual storage and dedicated energy feedstock considerations. This module also provides requirements for quantification of counterfactual storage to determine eligible biomass ([math: CO_{2}e_{Counterfactual}]), and market leakage to determine emissions associated with replacement of biomass ([math: CO_{2}e_{Leakage}]2022).
This module is applicable to the following biomass feedstocks:
Agricultural residueForestry thinnings or other byproducts of forestry operationIndustrial biomass residues
Every project must consider specific alternative uses of biomass that would have occurred in the absence of the project. The )baseline (A set of data describing pre-intervention or control conditions to be used as a reference scenario for comparison.) through determining what the most likely counterfactual (An assessment of what would have happened in the absence of a particular intervention – i.e., assuming the Baseline scenario.) scenarios would have been in the absence of a project (An activity or process or group of activities or processes that alter the condition of a Baseline and leads to Removals or Reductions.) for a given biomass feedstock. This module is applicable to projects utilizing the following biomass feedstocks:
- Agricultural residues
- Forestry thinnings or other byproducts of forestry operations
- Industrial biomass residues
Every project must bedetermine consideredtheir GHG baseline and consider specific alternative uses of biomass that would have occurred in the absence of the project. The GHG baseline must also consider the baseline relative to each feedstock used if the project utilizes multiple feedstock types, in line with Section 2.5.2. of the Isometric Standard.
RequirementsThis module details requirements for biomass feedstock eligibility are provided in (Section 2) and quantificationcounterfactual requirementsemission arecalculation included in (Section 3).
1.1 Future Versions
This module was developed based on the current state of the art and publicly available science regarding the land use changes that result from payments for biomass feedstock. This module is based in part on literature and models (A calculation, series of calculations or simulations that use input variables in order to generate values for variables of interest that are not directly measured.) like GREET and CCLUB for life cycle analysis developed at Argonne National LaboratoryLab, and Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) for general equilibrium economic impacts developed at Purdue University. More specific modeling for the use case of biomass residue as a feedstock for CDR (Activities that remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere and store it in products or geological, terrestrial, and oceanic Reservoirs. CDR includes the enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture (DAC) and storage, but excludes natural CO₂ uptake not directly caused by human intervention.) will be done in the future.
The current approach outlined in this module provides additional sustainable sourcing criteria that aim to minimize the risk of potential land use effects, whilst accounting for limited data availability when only a relatively small volume of feedstock is sourced.
To extend the functionality of this module, future work will be undertaken to apply the GTAP model to scenarios involving payments made for biomass residues for use in CDR and this module will be updated accordingly.
This module will be reviewed on an annual cadence in line with the Isometric Standard.
1.2 BiomassCounterfactual Feedstock ConsiderationsDefinitions
The Project Proponent must consider thecounterfactual followingscenarios factorsthat may have occurred in assessingthe howabsence aof particularthe biomass feedstock affects their net carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) removalproject. These considerationsCounterfactuals may vary based on the impacts of feedstock use in a given project.
These impactsscenarios are defined below in Table 1:
Table 1
| Impact | Counterfactual Definition |
|---|
Land MarketUse Leakage Change | By providing payment for a feedstock, a supplier may induce market
changes thatas shiftsa result of higher levels of profit. This may shift feedstock
producer behavior in a way that results in increasedchanges in the use of land
and may generate positive or negative GHG emissions.
Market leakage may lead to a change in feedstock producer behaviour that results in land use changeimpact. In this version of the
module, the land use changethis impact is assesseddealt towith beby 0default when a feedstock is
eligible for use in
Section 2.
A second form of market leakage, Replacement Emissions, occurs from any additional activities necessary to replace any
environmental or marketable services the feedstock would have otherwise provided need
to be accounted for (e.g. nutrient provision). Any emissions associated with the production and use of the replacement materials must be
accounted for in the Leakage assessment. For example, if manure that was
previously spread on land as a fertilizer is diverted for use as a
feedstock, a replacement fertilization method must be evaluated. Quantification requirements are provided in Section 3.2. |
CounterfactualForegone Storage (Describes the addition of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere to a reservoir, which serves as its ultimate destination. This is also referred to as “sequestration”.) | The counterfactual storage considers the CO2Carbon stored in the biomass or soil in a baseline scenario, which is no
longer available or stored due to removal of the feedstock that would have remained durably storedfor
utilization in the biomass in the absence of the projectProject. This is known as ineligable biomass as the CO2 would have remained stored in the biomass in the absence of the CDR project andimpact is thereforedealt notwith by default when a
feedstock is eligible tofor count towards Crediting. Quantification requirements are provideduse in
Section 2.2
|
| Energy Counterfactual Emissions | Any changes in the activities required to source the feedstock must be
accounted for. These include feedstock collection/harvest, preparation,
and transportation which would not have occurred in the baseline
scenario. Examples include corn stover harvest (vs. disking into the
field), stover bailing, and shipping. This is calculated in
Section 3.1. |
| Replacement Emissions | Emissions from any additional activities necessary to replace any
environmental services the feedstock would have otherwise provided need
to be accounted for (e.g. nutrient provision). Any emissions associated
with the production and use of the replacement materials must also be
accounted for in the counterfactual. For example, if manure that was
previously spread on land as a fertilizer is diverted for use as a
feedstock, a replacement fertilization method must be evaluated. This is
calculated in Section 3.2. |
2.0 Biomass Feedstock Eligibility
Feedstock eligibility is determined by both its potential market leakage (The increase in GHG emissions outside the geographic or temporal boundary of a project that results from that project's activities.) impact (see Section 2.1), its counterfactual CO2 storage scenario (see Section 2.2) and whether it’s a purpose-grown feedstock (see Section 2.3). To be eligible under Protocolsprotocols applicable to this module, a given feedstock must meet the requirements in all three Sections. Eligibility requires satisfying an acceptable combination (as outlined below) of EC1-EC12, satisfying one of EC13-EC14, and, if applicable, satisfying EC15.
2.1 Eligibility Criteria for Biomass Feedstocks with Potential Market Leakage Impacts
Creating a market for biomass feedstocks may generate new revenue in the source sector that alters producer behaviourbehavior in ways that result in additional GHG emissions. For example, increased profit may lead to changes in forest treatment or agronomic management activity to increase biomass yield or changes to livestock management to consolidate waste.
The framework outlined in this module sets outsourcing criteria that qualify the feedstock as eligible for use in a way that minimizes the emissions impact of possible market leakage effects. Market leakage can be classified into two types:
Indirect market leakage: when biomass feedstock procurement affects the market price of the feedstock and leads to land use change or other market shifts that affect GHG emissions.Direct market leakage: when payments to the biomass feedstock supplier directly affect that supplier's behavior in a manner that increases GHG emissions.
Project Proponents must demonstrate that both indirect and direct market leakage have been minimized or appropriately accounted foreffects. DemonstratingIf any one of EC1the throughfollowing EC4criteria satisfiesholds both requirements in full. Demonstrating any one of EC5-EC7 satisfiestrue, the indirectfeedstock marketis criteriaeligible andfor demonstratinguse anyunder onethis of EC8-E12 satisfies the direct market criteria.
Table 2module:
Eligibility Criteria satisfying direct and indirect market leakage requirements | Documentation required |
|---|
| EC1 | Project Proponent does not pay for the feedstock used | Feedstock purchase records between Project Proponent and feedstock
supplier demonstrating price paid, amount, buyer (An entity that purchases Removals or Reductions, often with the purpose of Retiring Credits to make a Removal or Reduction claim.), seller and date. |
| EC2 | Project Proponent is paid a “tipping fee” to remove the
feedstock. | Feedstock removal records between Project Proponent and feedstock
supplier demonstrating price paid, amount, buyer, seller, and date. |
| EC3 | Project Proponent paid for their feedstock but can show that the
amount they paid is lower than the total recovery and replacement cost
of new activities related to the new use of this feedstock. This cost
can be composed of, but not limited to: - Harvesting - a feedstock owner engages in additional harvesting
activities
- Collection - a feedstock owner must put in additional time and labor
to collect any harvested or existing materials
- Transport - a feedstock owner moves, or pays for the movement of,
any collected biomass to a new area due to the project needs
- Replacement - a feedstock owner incurs some cost when they attempt
to replace the use a feedstock that was previously being used for
| Feedstock removal records between the Project Proponent and feedstock
supplier demonstrating price paid, amount, buyer, seller, and date. Plus
records of the recovery and replacement of the feedstock, including: - Costs for alternative use, including, but not limited to:
- Harvesting costs of biomass, such as removal of residual corn
stover from fields or chipping and shredding of forest residues.
- Transportation costs to end user or disposal site.
- Spreading costs or similar end of delivery offloading or
application costs (i.e. manure spreading or stover burning and
char spreading).
- Above costs may be demonstrated by provision of invoices, bills of
lading, purchase records, or other similar documentation provided by
the feedstock supplier or other end users.
- Alternatively, costs may be referenced from scientific literature or
data specific to the locality or region where the feedstock
is produced (i.e. average market prices for biomass shipping in a
region). The literature used will be subject of review by a competent
Validation & Verification Body (Third-party auditing organizations that are experts in their sector and used to determine if a project conforms to the rules, regulations, and standards set out by a governing body. A VVB must be approved by Isometric prior to conducting validation and verification.) to ensure that best available scientific information
with an established body of scientific research is used.
- Calculations of total recovery and replacement of feedstock, linked
to the above source data, and compared to the price paid to the
feedstock supplier or 3rd party intermediary.
|
| EC4 | Project Proponent paid for their feedstock, but this
was paid to a 3rd party and not the entity responsible for biomass
growth or harvesting, if this 3rd party also didn’t pay the
producing/harvesting entity above total recovery and replacement cost. | A signed statement from the 3rd party and/or the feedstock supplier
indicating that the 3rd party is not providing the supplier additional
payment for the feedstock. |
Any one of the criteria in Table 3 is sufficient to demonstrate minimal indirect market leakage:
Table 3
Eligibility Criteria satisfying indirect market leakage requirement | Documentation required |
|---|
| EC5 | Feedstock is a forest residue1.
| The Project Proponent must demonstrate that the feedstock is an non-marketable wood product. For example, beetle kill, sticks and twigs, mill residues, etc.
|
EC6 | Feedstock is an agricultural crop residue or an animal waste.
| The Project Proponent must demonstrate that the feedstock is an agricultural residue or waste whose production is ancillary to the production of the primary marketable product.
|
EC7 | Feedstock is a biogenic product that is a non-marketable waste product created within an industrial production process turning forest biomass into some other marketable good.
| The Project Proponent must demonstrate that the feedstock is a waste product that would have no marketable use absent the Project. This can be evidenced by demonstrating that the material is currently being disposed of or, for new facilities, that similar materials at other sites do not market the feedstock material
|
Any one of the criteria in the following Table 4 is sufficient to demonstrate minimal direct market leakage:
Table 4
Eligibility Criteria satisfying direct market leakage requirement | Documentation required |
|---|
EC8 | Applicable to forest residues or downstream wood wastes1 only: Biomass originatesForest residues are sourced
from a regulated forest management project.
| The Project can provide a reference that the feedstock came from either: - a NEPA, or state level equivalent2, planned project or
- a government regulated forest management project
or . a state or federal funded or managed forest management activity
In each case, the project with the associated harvest plan will be subject to competent Verification & Validation Body to ensure adherence to the criteria. |
EC9EC6 | Applicable to forest residues or downstream wood wastes only:
Forest biomassresidues resultsresult from forest management activities3 in historically
stable or increasing forest carbon stocks.
| The following evidence is required to meet this criteria: - Biomass shall be certified under
oneFSC, ofPEFC-endorsed the acceptable certificationforest
management schemes listed in Appendix 3 or be obtained through a, NEPA project and/or other forest management and
chain-of-custody certification programs with demonstrably equivalent
forest management and chain-of-custody oversight and principles.4
Additionally at least one of the following types of evidence is required to meet this criteria: Independentindependent, third-party assessment of forest carbon stocks in the
Sourcing Area which is based on public inventory data. This
assessment must demonstrate that the forest carbon stock has not
decreased during the last 5 years for which data are available,
compared to the average forest carbon stock in the previous 5-year
period. Data for live, aboveground biomass (standing stocking level)
must be included., Project Proponents may elect to includeand deadwood pools, may be included if reliable
data are available.5- Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry (LULUCF) emissions from the
forestry sector in the country, or state/province, of harvest do not exceed
removals. This requirement is met if, over the last 10 years, the
average net emissions from the forestry sector are zero or negative,
as reported in national greenhouse gas emissions to the UN
Convention on Climate Change. In countries of harvest greater than
five million square kilometers, an additional evidence is required
that forest carbon stocks in the Sourcing Area are not decreasing
over the same period.6
|
EC10EC7 | Applicable to forest residues or downstream wood wastes only:
Forest biomassresidues resulting from forest management activities where Sourcingsourcing
Areaarea carbon stocks may be decreasing, but the forest management activity had
to be carried out regardless.
| - Biomass shall be certified under FSC, SFI, PEFC-endorsed forest
management schemes and/or other forest management and
chain-of-custody certification programs with demonstrably equivalent
forest management and chain-of-custody oversight and principles.7
- Documentation must be provided to demonstrate the specific nature of the disturbance, the legislative requirement, such as to promote healthy tree growth, or the ecological necessity of the wood removal8
|
EC11EC8 | Applicable to agricultural crop residues only:
The purchase contract signed between a Project Proponent and a feedstock
supplier commits the Project Proponent to not purchase feedstock from a given
acreage inat consecutivea yearscadence of more than every alternative year. Alternatively,
feedstock may be sourced from the same acreage in sequential years if evidence
is presented that the acreage has been monocropped (no crop rotation) for
at least 5 years. | Feedstock purchase contract between Project Proponent and feedstock
supplier. |
EC12EC9 | Applicable to animal waste feedstocks only: Project Proponent paid a positive amount for their feedstock, but are able to demonstrate there is a surplus of feedstock available in the region and additionally are able to: - Obtain data from the 2 years prior to the procurement date on the annual output/utilization factor of the biomass source.
- To ensure payments do not incentivize additional feedstock production, the Project Proponent must demonstrate that the total annual amount of feedstock the Project Proponent contracts for the current year for will be at or below the levels of total output 2 years earlier. By linking eligibility to past production, we ensure that increasing production for the purposes of receiving additional payments would incur losses for at least 2 years. Given the low margins in agricultural production and current costs of capital, this delay period likely makes these decisions economically infeasible.
| Feedstock purchase contract between Project Proponent and feedstock supplier.
Historical data on the output/utilization factor of the biomass source. Regional data on Sustainablesustainable Use Rate (Sustainable Usage Rate: theuse rate at which a feedstock can be removed from a location without affecting the feedstock's environmental benefits or availability for alternative uses.). |
Thus, to establish eligibility under market leakage criteria, the Project Proponent must demonstrate either:
The feedstock meets at least one of EC1 through EC4; orThe feedstock meets at least one of EC5 through EC7 and the feedstock meets at least one of EC8 through EC12.
2.1.1 Recommended sourcing principles
It is recommended that, where feasible, a Project Proponent collects farm-specific information as part of their sustainable sourcing practices. However, at this moment, this information is not currently required for the determination of eligibility.
- Historical land use: purchase feedstock only from acreages that have been used to grow corn either continuously or in rotation with another crop for the past 10 years.
- Tillage practices:
for crop residues sourced from row crop agriculture, collect evidence from the feedstock supplier onthat the intensity of cultivation practices on the acreage from which the corn stover is sourced. Project Proponents are recommended to maintain records on whether fields engage in conventional tillage, reduced tillage, or no tillage. - Sustainable feedstock harvest: collect evidence from the feedstock supplier that the rate of biomass harvest on the acreage from which the feedstock is sourced does not exceed the sustainable rate of removal.
2.2 Counterfactual Storage Eligibility
BiomassAccounting storesfor CO2counterfactual asloss organicin carbon storage, C.for Aexample quantityin soils, through the use of Ccertain feedstocks can be converteddifficult and many approaches lead to units of CO2 using the atomic mass of both elements. In this section C in biomass is described in terms of CO2, presented as CO2e in equations for consistency.
When C decomposes it can release CO2, but also potentially methane (CH4) under anaerobic conditions. Non-CO2 GHGs can be converted to CO2e values based on their global warming potential (GWP) in order to measure how much energy the emissions of 1 tonneuse of a gas will absorb over a given periodform of timetonne year accounting.
Instead of this, relativethis framework requires the feedstock to the emissions of 1 ton of CO2. The GWP for CH4 is 27.9 for GWP100. In this section CH4 is presented in terms of CO2e.
Eligibility criteria is set out for biomass feedstocks in Table 5 which determines how much ofmeet the CO2e stored as part of the Removal activity is eligible to count towards Crediting. Thisfollowing eligibility criteria is in place to ensure that the CO2 stored would not have remained stored as CO2 in the absence of the project. This ensures that Crediting is conservative and the project passes environmental additionality.
The eligibility criteria includes consideration of the counterfactual fate of the biomass. If the biomass is anticipated to have decomposed in the absence of the project, the potential for CH4 emissions are also considered. Methane has a short term global warming impact with a high GWP and as such the benefits of avoiding methane emissions are included within the eligibility criteria.
Table 5:
| Eligibility Criteria | DocumentationEvidence required |
|---|
EC13EC10 | Biomass that is expected to have decayed or where the most likely
counterfactual fate would release allthe stored biogenic Ccarbon sooner than
15 years from when a project uses it, is eligible under this Moduleprotocol
and will not incur any counterfactual storage penalty.
| IfProject Proponents must make an assessment of the amount of feedstock
that would have not decayed (not emitted) in the counterfactual fate ofscenario
at the biomass includes the stored biogenic C being emitted as GHGs with a GWP100>1, the total biomass eligible is equal to the minimum of:
(1) the CO2e (evaluated at GWP100) of counterfactually released GHGs emitted within 15 years
(2)year the total stored CO2 in the biomass minus the CO2 in biomass that would not have counterfactually been released within 50 yearspoint.
Landfilled wood is not an eligible feedstock, unless the Project Proponent can demonstrate the counterfactual fate would release all stored biogenic carbon within 15 years.
| To assess the counterfactual fate of the biomass at least one of the following pieces of
evidence should be provided by the Project Proponent: AnA affidavit or record of a contractual clause in the purchase records
confirming that the counterfactual fate of the biomass would result
in re-release of CO2e₂ within the threshold Historical evidence of the counterfactual fate of the biomass over the
last 5 years provided by the feedstock supplier A qualitative assessment that the expected fate of the biomass would
have a durability (The amount of time carbon removed from the atmosphere by an intervention – for example, a CDR project – is expected to reside in a given Reservoir, taking into account both physical risks and socioeconomic constructs (such as contracts) to protect the Reservoir in question.) lower than the threshold given the most
economically viable option in a given Sourcingsourcing Area. area
Project Proponents who cannot demonstrate that all of the stored C would have been counterfactually released within 15 years,
Biomass must make an assessment of the release of CO2e (evaluated at GWP 100) in the counterfactual scenario at 15 years:Provide an assessment of the estimated amount of stored biogenic C released and conservatively estimated quantities of GHGs that would have been emitted. These estimates can be usedcertified tounder calculateSBP theversion CO2e (evaluated at GWP 100) of all GHGs counterfactually emitted within 15 years; Provide an assessment of the estimated amount of stored biogenic C that would have remained stored after 50 years.
|
EC14 | Feedstocks that are sourced through government managed0 or funded wildfire mitigation or restoration activities will be assigned a counterfactual storage value of 0.
| Project Proponent should provide a government source demonstrating that the funding or management of the biomass collection or harvesting was requiredhigher, fundedRSB
Standard, or managed by a federalbiomass orcertification stateprogram governmentthat bodyequivalently
demonstrates andthat wasBiomass donesourcing fordoes thenot purposedirectly ofdivert wildfirewood
from mitigationlong-lived orwood post-wildfire ecosystem restorationproducts.
9 |
If allonly of the biogenic C would have been released from storage within 15 years, [math: CO_{2}e_{Counterfactual}] = 0.
Thea portion of the stored biogenic C thatfeedstock is eligibleexpected underto be stably maintained for longer than this framework isthreshold, the lesserpercentage of two values that must be demonstrated by the Project Proponent: the total CO2e (evaluated at GWP 100) emitted by the feedstock within 15 years; or the total CO2 content of the biomass feedstock minus CO2 in biomass that would not have counterfactuallydecayed beenbefore releasedthe within15 50year yearsthreshold is not eligible under this framework and the carbon content of this biomass must be subtracted from the LCA (An analysis of the balance of positive and negative emissions associated with a certain process, which includes all of the flows of CO₂ and other GHGs, along with other environmental or social impacts of concern.) (see Equation 12).
[math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualDecayCounterfactual,\ np} =
CO_2e_{Feedstock} -\times
CO_2e_δ_{EmissionsCounterfactualStorageCounterfactualDiscount}]
(Equation 1)
[math: CO_2e_{EmissionsCounterfactual} = min(CO_2e_{StorageCounterfactualEmissions15}, (1-δ_{50})\\ \times CO_2e_{Feedstock}) ]
(Equation 2)
Where:
- [math:
CO_2e_CO_{Counterfactual2}e_{DecayCounterfactual,\ np}] = the total counterfactualquantity of CO2e that is ineligible fordue Creditingto the decay rate of the feedstock as laid out in EC13EC10, for batch n, in tonnes of CO2e - [math: CO_2e_{Feedstock}] = the CO2e content of the biomass feedstock used
, calculated by converting C into CO2 units based on C content, for batch n, in tonnes CO2e - [math:
CO_2e_δ_{EmissionsCounterfactualStorageCounterfactualDiscount}] = the lesserdiscount ofapplied to the total CO2e emitted by the feedstock within 15 years; or the total CO2carbon content of the biomass feedstock. minusFor CO2 in biomass that would not have counterfactually been released within 50 yearsexample, forif batch n, in tonnes95% of CO2e [math: CO_2e_{StorageCounterfactualEmissions15}] = the CO2e counterfactually released from the biomass overwas 15shown years,to forhave batchlikely n,decayed before the threshold value in tonnesEC10 ofthen CO2e- [math: δ_{
50StorageCounterfactualDiscount}] = the share of biogenic C that would not have been counterfactually released within 50 years, for batch n0.05
This discount can arise through two different mechanisms:
- Biomass that wouldn
’'t have released stored Cdecayed until after 15the yearsthreshold time is ineligible and must be discounted; - Biomass that would have
released stored Cdecayed before the 15threshold yearstime may still belead partiallyto ineligiblea discount if a portion of the decayed biomass would have led to durable storage, such as corn stover decay leading to increases in soil organic carbon. This effect may be nonlinear and the Project Proponent may provide evidence that at the removal rates they have sourced feedstock from this effect is negligible.
2.3 Dedicated Energy Feedstock Eligibility
The intent of this criterion is to avoid situations in which the biomass could have been used for energy production instead of forcarbon CDRremoval.
The feedstock must meet the following eligibility criteria in Table 6 in order to be eligible for use under this Modulemodule:
Table 6
| Eligibility Criteria | DocumentationEvidence required |
|---|
EC15EC11 | Applicable to non-forestry feedstocks: The biomass feedstock was
not grown for the purposes of energy production and does not have a likely counterfactual energy production use. | Project Proponent must conduct an analysis of the regional use for the type of biomass they are sourcing. This analysis must show that biomass meets one of the following conditions: - The Project Proponent must demonstrate that less than 50% of the total harvested biomass, by both volume and value, is allocated for energy production in the counterfactual usage of the biomass.
910 This analysis must either demonstrate that the feedstock is not sourced from with 50 kilometers of an ethanol plant that relies
on exclusively cellulosic feedstocks or, alternatively, the Project Proponent may provide farm-level documentation that the procured feedstock supplier was not previously supplying the relevant biomass to
any cellulosic ethanol plant.1011 - The biomass has already fulfilled its energy generation uses (e.g. post anaerobic digestion manure).
|
3.0 Biomass Feedstock CalculationsCounterfactual Emission Calculation
Specific emission calculations associated with a project’s counterfactual storage scenario and market leakage(s), as required in ProtocolsSection 7.2 of protocols applicable to this module, are determined as described below.
3.1
As Calculationbiomass sourcing typically operates on a batch basis; the total counterfactual GHG emissions associated with a removal are calculated from the sum of CO2eCounterfactual,all n
Forcounterfactual a specific removal,GHG emissions must be aggregated across all feedstock production batches, [math: p], within that removal, where [math: nN] is the total number of batches:
[math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual,\ nR} = \sum_{p=1}^{nN}CO_{2}e_{Counterfactual,\ p}]
(Equation 32)
Where:
- [math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual,\
nR}] = the total quantity of counterfactual CO2GHG thatemissions, isas ineligibletotal net greenhouse gas emissions for Creditinga asremoval laid[math: out in EC13, for injection batch nR], in tonnes of CO2e, see Equation (1) - [math: CO_{2}e_{Counterfactual,\ p}] = the total
counterfactual CO2 that is ineligible for Crediting as laid out in EC13, for production batch p, in tonnesquantity of CO2e
3.2counterfactual Calculation of CO2eLeakage, p
For eligible feedstocks,GHG emissions associated with market leakage will be equal to the total emissions associated with replacement material, as othertotal formsnet ofgreenhouse marketgas leakage are assessed to be 0 for eligible feedstocks. Thus, market leakageemissions for a production batch [math: np], is given by the following equation:
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage,\ n} = CO_{2}e_{Replacement,\ n}]
(Equation 4)
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage,\ n}] = the total GHG emissions associated with market leakage for injection batch 𝑛, in tonnes of CO2e,[math: CO_{2}e_{Replacement,\ n}] = the total GHG emissions associated with Replacement for injection batch 𝑛, in tonnes of CO2e, see Equation (53)
NoteCounterfactual emissions associated with an individual production batch, [math: p], can be calculated as follows:
[math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual,\ p} = CO_2e_{Energy\ Counterfactual,\ p} + \\ CO_2e_{Replacement,\ p}+ CO_2e_{DecayCounterfactual,\ p}]
(Equation 3)
Where:
- [math: CO_2e_{
LeakageEnergy Counterfactual,p}] = the net change in GHG emissions associated with energy consumption from baseline to project for a production batch [math: p], in tonnes of CO2e, see Section 3.1 - [math: CO_2e_{Replacement,p}] = the net change in GHG emissions associated with replacing the function of the feedstock removed for a production batch [math: p], in tonnes of CO2e, see Section 3.2, Equation (4)
- [math: CO_{2}e_{Decay Counterfactual,\ p}] = the net amount of GHG storage ineligible due to the decay rate of the feedstock for a production batch [math: p], in tonnes of CO2e, see EC10 Equation (1)
3.1 Calculation of CO2eEnergy Counterfactual, p
Emissions associated with energy usage for processes including but not limited to the growth, harvest, and collection of the biomass feedstock must be accounted for by all feedstocks.
The emissions of interest are the net change in energy emissions from baseline to project, which may be calculated in one of two ways, depending on the Project Proponent preference and available data sources:
- Determination and accounting of full baseline emissions associated with energy usage for feedstock sourcing deducted from full project emissions associated with energy use for feedstock sourcing;
- Determination and accounting for energy usage only for the project activities that occur which are in addition to any sourcing activities that would occur in the counterfactual scenario (e.g., additional fuel usage for equipment used to collect biomass that would normally be left in field, electricity use for shredding and bailing equipment, fuel use for loading biomass onto a truck)
Emissions may originate from, but are not limited to, the following sources:
- Emissions from electricity usage, CO2eFeedstock Electricity for all feedstock used in each production batch [math: p]
- Emissions from fuel combustion to produce heat or thermal energy in primarily non-road mobile equipment, such as forklifts and other material handling equipment or any other fuel used in the growth, harvest, and collection process, CO2eFeedstockFuel for all feedstock used in each production batch [math: p].
Energy related emissions must be consideredmeasured, calculated and documented in theaccordance contextwith Energy Use Accounting Module.
3.2 Calculation of all cradle-to-grave project activitiesCO2eReplacement, as set out in the relevant protocol, and not only limited to biomass feedstock considerations.f
Where feedstock may be diverted from an alternate use, emissions associated with replacing the function of the feedstock removed for use in the project must be accounted for. Exemptions are listed in Section 3.2.2.
The emissions associated with the replacement material, as determined by the feedstock framework and the counterfactual definition, must include full cradle-to-grave (Considering impacts at each stage of a product's life cycle, from the time natural resources are extracted from the ground and processed through each subsequent stage of manufacturing, transportation, product use, and ultimately, disposal.) emissions accounting for the life cycle of the replacement product. For example emissions for the production, transportation and use of the material.
[math: CO_{2}e_{Replacement,\ nf}] can be calculated as follows:
[math: CO_2e_{Replacement,\ nf} = CO_ m_{2}e_{Energy\ Replacement,\ nf} +\times CO_{2}e_EF_{Embodied\ Replacement,\ n} + \\ CO_{2}e_{Transportation\ Replacement,\ nf}]
(Equation 54)
Where:
- [math:
CO_{2}e_m_{Replacement,\ nf}] = the totalmass GHGof emissionsthe associatedreplacement withproduct Replacementrequired to provide the equivalent service as the mass of the project feedstock for injectiona batch 𝑛, in tonnes of CO2efunction - [math:
CO_EF_{2}e_{EnergyEmbodied\ Replacement,\ n}] = the total GHG emissions associated with energy consumption related to Replacement activities for injection batch 𝑛, in tonnes of CO2e. See Energy Emissions Accounting Module for calculation approach details. [math: CO_{2}e_{Embodied\ Replacement,\ n}] = the total life-cycle embodied emissions (Life cycle GHG emissions associated with production of materials, transportation, and construction or other processes for goods or buildings.) associatedfactor withfor the production and use of the replacement product for injection batch 𝑛, in tonnes of CO2e. Seesee Embodied Emissions Accounting Module for calculation approach details and emission factor requirements.- [math: CO_{2}e_{Transportation\ Replacement,\
nf}] = the total CO2e equivalent emissions associated with transportation and delivery of the replacement product for a feedstockfunction for[math: injection batch 𝑛, in tonnes of CO2ef]. See Transportation Emissions Accounting Module for calculation approach details.
If the replacement product is performing an environmental service, such as fertilizing, the amount of replacement product used must account for the equivalent amount of service that the Project feedstock provided. See Section 3.2.3.1 for further calculation details.
3.2.1 Method of determining replacement emissionscounterfactual
The replacement emissionscounterfactual for the Project Proponent feedstock is assumeddetermined to be the economically highest value use of the feedstock in a given state.
The Project Proponent may be able to provide evidence leading to a different replacement feedstockcounterfactual being used. This can be done by demonstrating:
- An affidavit, or other credible records, from the feedstock supplier outlining the past use of their biomass over the last 5 years
- Evidence that the highest value use is not representative of the feedstock end uses for the source region. This can be done by presenting evidence of the historical behaviors of feedstock suppliers and justifying that these do not apply in the case of the feedstock in question. For example, it may be determined that bioenergy is the highest value alternative use for a feedstock, however, if a Project Proponent can demonstrate that feedstocks are not typically moved over a certain distance to bioenergy facilities and there are no bioenergy facilities within this radius of the feedstock source this would be satisfactory evidence that this alternative use is not applicable.
3.2.2 Exemptions to CO2eReplacement, np
Replacement emissions can be considered 0 where any of the following conditions in Table 7 are met:
Table 7
| Condition | Documentation required |
|---|
| C1 | If the feedstock currently serves no purpose, such as mill residues in a
stockpile or forest residues sitting on the forest floor, there are
deemed to be no replacement emissions. | Evidence of the historical use of the feedstock or lack thereof, such
as: - Shipments of waste to disposal sites or to application / end use
sites
- Documentation of on-site stockpiles, including size, mass, or other
relevant information (e.g. total stockpile volume (size) or stockpile mass records, such as reports provided to regulatory agencies or weigh scale tickets for inputs and outputs)
- Documentation of other feedstock uses, such as on-site energy
recovery and amounts used
Where data and supporting records are not available, at minimum: - A signed affidavit must be provided from the feedstock supplier
outlining the historical use of their specific feedstock;
- Third party verification of the feedstock prior use must also be
provided which can be done as a site-visit by a VVB
|
| C2 | For project feedstock that is replaced by a feedstock that meets
condition C1. | Records of the qualitative assessment of the local market and the
availability of suitable feedstocks that can be considered waste products and can serve as a replacement Characteristic 3 feedstocks for the
feedstock used by the Project, including: - Documentation of all assumptions used in the study or analysis.
- Documentation or listing of references and data sources for
information used.
- All documentation as required in this section to demonstrate that
the replacement feedstock meets the C1 condition.
|
| C3 | For project feedstock usage above the percentage of what is
theoretically possible to use for a given purpose (the
‘Sustainable Use Rate’) the feedstock would be considered
true waste and therefore not require calculation of replacement
emissions. | Where feedstocks do have an alternative use, either the full amount or
partial amounts, evidence should be provided to demonstrate a
Sustainable Use Rate. The Project Proponent must demonstrate that the
amount of feedstock taken from a specific location and used for the
project is lower than what has historically been used for that prior use
in a given area and therefore would not need to be replaced. The
following principles should be considered in this determination: - Conservative (Purposefully erring on the side of caution under conditions of Uncertainty by choosing input parameter values that will result in a lower net CO₂ Removal or GHG Reduction than if using the median input values. This is done to increase the likelihood that a given Removal or Reduction calculation is an underestimation rather than an overestimation.) assumptions and high quality regional data must be used
to quantify this.
- Documentation of all assumptions used in the study or analysis.
- Documentation or listing of references and data sources for
information used.
- For fertilizer: projects must calculate the total county requirement
for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK) (Nitrogen [N], Phosphurus [P], and Potassium [K] are three nutrients essential to crop growth.) content for the amount
of land that has historically been applied with manure, then ensure
sufficient manure to meet the limiting nutrient requirements is
still available after procurement.
For example: - Manure - anything in excess of the amount of manure that can
sustainably be applied to cropland in the feedlot’s
region. Preferably, this is achieved by subtracting the
sustainable application rate from the feedlot’s manure
production to obtain the maximum volume that can be procured. In
some circumstances, procurements above this level may be allowed if
there is strong evidence that the feedlot’s region has a
consistent surplus of manure.
- Corn stover - amounts in excess of the maximum possible use of corn
stover to meet nutritional needs of cattle or for animal bedding
within a specific county or radius from feedstock source.
|
3.2.3 Measurements - CO2eReplacement, p
Calculation of [math: CO_{2}e_{Replacement, p}] requires, but is not limited to, the following measurements:
- [math: m_{Replacement,\ p}] (mass of replacement material)
3.2.3.1 Mass of replacement material
For replacement of fertilizer function provided by the Project feedstock, the mass of fertilizer accounted for in emission calculations, [math: m_{Replacement,\ p}], must account for the equivalent amount of service that the Project feedstock provided.
The total fertilizer capacity previously provided by the Project feedstock must be calculated based on the feedstock(s) nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK (Nitrogen [N], Phosphurus [P], and Potassium [K] are three nutrients essential to crop growth.)) content. Feedstock NPK (Nitrogen [N], Phosphurus [P], and Potassium [K] are three nutrients essential to crop growth.) content must be determined by sampling of the feedstock(s) for each production batch [math: p], or from available scientific literature.
The amount of fertilizer replacement in the counterfactual scenario must account for replacing the same amount of NPK (Nitrogen [N], Phosphurus [P], and Potassium [K] are three nutrients essential to crop growth.) as in the project feedstock, using the most limiting factor (either N, P, K) to determine the mass of fertilizer required. This is likely to be a very conservative estimate, since not all nutrition will be able to be utilized. As better data & evidence is built, a lower estimate can be used when well evidenced with scientific literature.
3.2.4 Required Records & Documentation - CO2eReplacement, np
The Projectproject Proponentproponent must maintain the following records as evidence of [math: CO_{CO2}e_{eReplacement, n}]p calculations:
- If the feedstock provided an environmental service either:
- (1) documentation on how N, P, K values were determined from relevant literature,
- (2) for new or unique feedstocks, a per-feedstock lab analysis of N, P and K values, or
- (3) for highly variable feedstocks a per-batch lab analysis of N, P and K values.
- Feedstock weigh scale tickets for each production batch, [math: p], or other equivalent records to support calculation of [math: m_{Replacement,\ p}]
Records must be maintained and provided for verification purposes for a period of five years.
4.0 Acknowledgements
Isometric would like to thank following contributors to this Modulemodule:
- Kevin Fingerman, Ph.D. (Cal Poly Humboldt)
- Tim Hansen (350 Solutions)
5.0 Definitions and Acronyms
- Independent components of Isometric Certified Protocols which are transferable between and applicable to different Protocols.
- The organization that develops and/or has overall legal ownership or control of a Removal or Reduction Project.
- Those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic (human-caused), that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of terrestrial radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, by the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect, whereby heat is trapped in Earth’s atmosphere (CDR Primer, 2022).
- A set of data describing pre-intervention or control conditions to be used as a reference scenario for comparison.
- An assessment of what would have happened in the absence of a particular intervention – i.e., assuming the Baseline scenario.
- An activity or process or group of activities or processes that alter the condition of a Baseline and leads to Removals or Reductions.
- A calculation, series of calculations or simulations that use input variables in order to generate values for variables of interest that are not directly measured.
- Activities that remove carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere and store it in products or geological, terrestrial, and oceanic Reservoirs. CDR includes the enhancement of biological or geochemical sinks and direct air capture (DAC) and storage, but excludes natural CO₂ uptake not directly caused by human intervention.
A set of data describing pre-intervention or control conditions to be used as a reference scenario for comparison.A calculation, series of calculations or simulations that use input variables in order to generate values for variables of interest that are not directly measured.- Describes the addition of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere to a reservoir, which serves as its ultimate destination. This is also referred to as “sequestration”.
- The increase in GHG emissions outside the geographic or temporal boundary of a project that results from that project's activities.
- An entity that purchases Removals or Reductions, often with the purpose of Retiring Credits to make a Removal or Reduction claim.
- Third-party auditing organizations that are experts in their sector and used to determine if a project conforms to the rules, regulations, and standards set out by a governing body. A VVB must be approved by Isometric prior to conducting validation and verification.
SustainableThe Usageamount Rate:of thetime rate at which a feedstock can becarbon removed from the atmosphere by an intervention – for example, a locationCDR withoutproject affecting– is expected to reside in a given Reservoir, taking into account both physical risks and socioeconomic constructs (such as contracts) to protect the feedstock'sReservoir in question.- An analysis of the balance of positive and negative emissions associated with a certain process, which includes all of the flows of CO₂ and other GHGs, along with other environmental
benefits or availabilitysocial forimpacts alternativeof usesconcern. - Considering impacts at each stage of a product's life cycle, from the time natural resources are extracted from the ground and processed through each subsequent stage of manufacturing, transportation, product use, and ultimately, disposal.
- Life cycle GHG emissions associated with production of materials, transportation, and construction or other processes for goods or buildings.
- Purposefully erring on the side of caution under conditions of Uncertainty by choosing input parameter values that will result in a lower net CO₂ Removal or GHG Reduction than if using the median input values. This is done to increase the likelihood that a given Removal or Reduction calculation is an underestimation rather than an overestimation.
- Nitrogen [N], Phosphurus [P], and Potassium [K] are three nutrients essential to crop growth.
TheSustainable periodUsage ofRate: timethe overrate at which a Projectfeedstock Designcan Documentbe isremoved valid,from anda overlocation whichwithout Removalsaffecting the feedstock's environmental benefits or Reductionsavailability mayfor bealternative Verified, resulting in Issued Creditsuses.
6.0 Appendix 1: Calculating replacement mass for manure
This section outlines how to calculate the replacement mass of fertilizer, [math: m_{Replacement,\ p}], for a specific quantity of sourced manure from a single location. The actual replacement emissions depend on various variables related to the nutrient composition of the sourced manure and the nutrient requirements of the cropland surrounding the manure source location.
6.1 Relevant variables
- [math: ObservedCounterfactual] - quantity of manure (tonnes) from a supplier that is currently used for nutrient source.
- [math: QuantityProcured] - quantity of manure (tonnes) procured for CDR by the Project Proponent from within the [math: SupplyRegion].
- [math: QuantityGenerated] - total quantity of manure (tonnes) generated in a supply region.
- [math: SupplyRegion] - the geographic area considered when calculating relevant manure supply. Typically, this will include a 5-mile radius around the manure source. Under certain circumstances, this may be limited to the manure source.
- [math: Acres] - the number of relevant acres using manure. This can be estimated using the county-level share of total acres that use manure fertilizer multiplied by the total area of farmland within a 15-mile radius of the manure source.
- [math: PrimaryCrop] - The largest crop by acreage included in the [math: Acres] value
- [math: NutrientsReq_{f}] - necessary quantity of nutrient [math: f] (N or P) per cropland acre for the [math: PrimaryCrop].
- [math: ManureNutrient_f] - quantity of nutrient [math: f] (N or P) in 1 tonne of manure.
- [math: FertiliserEmissions_f] - the emissions
, in tonnes (CO2e,) generated in the production of 1kg of nutrient [math: f] (N or P) in fertilizer.
The Sustainable Use Rate (SUR) (Sustainable Usage Rate: the rate at which a feedstock can be removed from a location without affecting the feedstock's environmental benefits or availability for alternative uses.) is the quantity of manure that can be taken without the need to calculate replacement emissions. There are three potential cases:
6.2 Case 1: There exists an observed counterfactual
If the source can demonstrate through manure management plan records and/or an affadavit or other documentation the quantity of manure that was used for fertilization purposes either on- or off-farm, the SUR (Sustainable Usage Rate: the rate at which a feedstock can be removed from a location without affecting the feedstock's environmental benefits or availability for alternative uses.) can be calculated as follows:
[math: SUR] = [math: QuantityGenerated\ ]-\[math: ObservedCounterfactual]
(Equation 65)
In this case, the [math: SupplyRegion] is the feedlot, thus [math: QuantityGenerated] is total quantity of manure produce annually at the source feedlot
6.3 Case 2: No observed counterfactual, but eligible to use the source farm as the supply region and acres serviced
If the source can demonstrate through manure management plan records and/or through a signed affadavit that no manure has left the property of the feedlot for at least the prior two years, the SUR (Sustainable Usage Rate: the rate at which a feedstock can be removed from a location without affecting the feedstock's environmental benefits or availability for alternative uses.) can be calculated at the feedlot level. In this case, variables are calculated in the following manner:
| Variable | Calculation |
|---|
| SupplyRegion | The source feedlot. |
| Acres | The total number of cropland acres that is operated by the feedlot owner. |
| QuantityGenerated | The quantity of manure produce annually at the source feedlot. |
| PrimaryCrop | The largest crop by acreage of all cropland operated by the feedlot owner and in the vicinity of the manure source. |
Then the SUR (Sustainable Usage Rate: the rate at which a feedstock can be removed from a location without affecting the feedstock's environmental benefits or availability for alternative uses.) is provided by the following calculation:
[math: SUR = \max\left[\frac{{Acres \cdot NutrientsReq_{cN}}}{{ManureNutrient_{N}}}, \frac{{Acres \cdot NutrientsReq_{cP}}}{{ManureNutrient_{P}}}\right]]
(Equation 76)
6.4 Case 3: No observed counterfactual and not eligible to use the source farm as the supply region and acres serviced
If there does not exist an observed counterfactual and the source farm can not demonstrate that no manure has left the farm within the past 2 years, a regional estimate of the SUR (Sustainable Usage Rate: the rate at which a feedstock can be removed from a location without affecting the feedstock's environmental benefits or availability for alternative uses.) can be computed using Equation 76 above, but with variables are calculated in the following manner:
| Variable | Calculation |
|---|
| SupplyRegion | The region within a 5-mile radius of the manure source. |
| Acres | The total number of cropland acres that are within a 15-mile radius of the manure source multiplied by the share of the county's acres that are fertilized with manure. |
| QuantityGenerated | The quantity of manure produced within a 5-mile radius of the manure source, including the manure source. |
| PrimaryCrop | The largest crop by acreage of all cropland operated by the feedlot owner and in the vicinity of the manure source. |
6.5 Replacement memissions
Replacement mass is calculated as follows:
If
[math: QuantityProcured \leq SUR]
then:
[math: m_{Replacement,\ p}=0]
Otherwise, the appropriate replacement massemissions value is:
[math: \begin{align*}
m_{Replacement,\ p} &= \left(QuantityProcured-SUR\right) \\
(QuantityProcured-SUR)&\\
quad \times \left(ManureNutrient_{N} \cdot FertiliserEmissions_{N}\\ + ManureNutrient_{P} \cdot FertiliserEmissions_{P}\right)
\end{align*}]
(Equation 87)
Potential additional data sources:
- [math: NutrientsReq_{cf}] - N, P needs per farmland acre from AESL at UGA (K is assumed to not be limiting).
- [math: ManureNutrient_{f}] - N, P generated from cow manure in the county from Utah State University Extension.
7.0 Appendix 2: Monitoring Plan Requirements
This appendix details how the Project Proponent must monitor, document and report all metrics
identified within this Module to calculate counterfactual emissions. Following this guidance will ensure the Project Proponent measures
and confirms carbon dioxide removed and long-term storage compliance, and will enable quantification of the
emissions removal resulting from the Project activity during the Project Crediting Period (The period of time over which a Project Design Document is valid, and over which Removals or Reductions may be Verified, resulting in Issued Credits.), prior to each Verification.
This methodology utilizes a comprehensive monitoring and documentation framework that captures the
GHG impact in each stage of a Project. Monitoring and detailed accounting practices must be
conducted throughout to ensure the continuous integrity of the carbon dioxide removals and crediting.
The Project Proponent must develop and apply a monitoring plan according to ISO 14064-2
principles of transparency and accuracy that allows the quantification and proof of GHG
emissions removals.
| Parameter | Parameter Description | Required | Equation | Parameter Type | Units | Data Source | Measurement Method | Monitoring Frequency | QA/QC Procedures | Required Evidence | Reference |
|---|
[math: CO_2e_δ_{StorageCounterfactualEmissions15Storage\ Counterfactual\ Discount}] | EmissionsThe thatpercentage wouldof havethe counterfactuallycarbon beencontent released within 15 years orof the biomass sourcingfeedstock date.that is determined to have either not decomposed or turned into durable storage without the project activity by the threshold time | Under certain conditions | Eq. 1 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | Assessment | tonnes% | | The Projectproject Proponent will produce evidence or analysis that outlines the expected counterfactual fate of their biomass feedstock. This analysis will either suggest that all of the carbon content of the biomass would have been rereleased into the atmosphere before the threshold time, that part of the carbon content would have been rereleased as GHG, or that none of it would have. | Each feedstock source | Transparency on rationale for chosen type of evidence | Report relying on one or more of the data sources | 2.2 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
[math: δ_CO_{502}e_{Feedstock\ Electricity}] | ShareEmissions ofassociated carbonwith inelectricity feedstockusage thatfor wouldprocesses including but not have counterfactually returnedlimited to the atmospheregrowth, withinharvest, 50and yearscollection of the biomass feedstock | Under certain conditions | 2Eq.2 3 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | AssessmentMeasured | unitlesstonnes | See calculations for electricity use and choice of electricity emission factors in "Energy Use accouting module" as applied during the "Operations" aspect of project | TheDetermination Projectand Proponentaccounting willof producefull evidencebaseline oremissions analysisassociated with electricity usage for feedstock sourcing deducted from full project emissions associated with electricity use for feedstock sourcing; OR determination and accounting for electricity usage only for the project activities that outlinesoccur which are in addition to any sourcing activities that would occur in the expected counterfactual fatescenario of their biomass feedstock. | Each feedstock source | TransparencyAppropriate oncalibration rationaleand maintenance of scales or meters | Operator logs, plant data systems, or plant records | 3.1 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
| [math: CO_{2}e_{Feedstock,\ Fuel}] | Emissions associated with fuel usage for chosenprocesses typeincluding ofbut evidencenot | Reportlimited relyingto onthe onegrowth, orharvest, moreand collection of the databiomass sourcesfeedstock above and beyond business as usual. | Under certain conditions | 2Eq.2 3 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | Measured | tonnes | See calculations for fuel use and choice of fuel emission factors in "Energy Use accouting module" as applied during the "Operations" aspect of project | Determination and accounting of full baseline emissions associated with fuel usage for feedstock sourcing deducted from full project emissions associated with fuel use for feedstock sourcing; OR determination and accounting for fuel usage only for the project activities that occur which are in addition to any sourcing activities that would occur in the counterfactual scenario | Each feedstock source | Appropriate calibration and maintenance of scales or meters | meter, management system, OBD or other data records or logs, shipping documents | 3.1 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
| [math: m_{Replacement,\ p}] | The mass of thefertilizer replacement product required to provide the equivalent service as the mass of the project feedstockaccounted for ain function emission calculations | Under certain conditions | N/A | Measured | kg | Determined based on most likely replacement product. Total fertilizer capacity previously provided by the Project feedstock must be calculated based on the feedstock(s) NPK (Nitrogen [N], Phosphurus [P], and Potassium [K] are three nutrients essential to crop growth.) content. | Must account for the equivalent amount of service that the Project feedstock provided. The replacement counterfactual for the feedstock is determined to be the economically highest value use of the feedstock in a given state Feedstock NPK (Nitrogen [N], Phosphurus [P], and Potassium [K] are three nutrients essential to crop growth.) content must be determined by sampling of the feedstock(s) for each production batch or from available scientific literature. The amount of fertilizer replacement in the counterfactual scenario must account for replacing the same amount of NPK (Nitrogen [N], Phosphurus [P], and Potassium [K] are three nutrients essential to crop growth.) as in the project feedstock, using the most limiting factor (either N, P, K) to determine the mass of fertilizer required. | Each feedstock source | ISO 17025 accredited laboratory OR acceptable citations for region and feedstock. Input parameter transparency and analysis. | Feedstock weigh scale tickets for each production batch or other equivalent records to support calculation. Replacement product analysis documentation. | 3.2.3 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
| [math: m_{Replacement,\ f}] | The mass of the replacement product required to provide the equivalent service as the mass of the project feedstock for a function | Under certain conditions | Eq. 4 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | Measured | kg | Determined based on most likely replacement product | Must account for the equivalent amount of service that the Project feedstock provided. The replacement counterfactual for the feedstock is determined to be the economically highest value use of the feedstock in a given state | Each feedstock source | Input parameter transparency and analysis | Replacement product analysis documentation | 3.2 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
[math: CO_EF_{2}e_{EnergyEmbodied\ Replacement,\ n}] | The total life-cycle embodied emissions associatedfactor withfor the production and use of the replacement product for injection batch 𝑛. | Under certain conditions | Eq. 54 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | Measured | tonnes CO2e/unit (tonnes) | Argonne National Laboratory GREET Model, California Air Resources Board modified GREET model (CA-GREET), Ecoinvent database, US Federal Life Cycle Inventory database or LCA Commons, or from similar databases used in common LCA practices or tools | N/A | Each feedstock source | TransparencyN/A on | Choice and rationale for chosenEF typechoice of evidence | GHG Statement | 3.2 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
[math: CO_{2}e_{Transportation\ Replacement,\ nf}] | The total CO2e emissionsEmissions associated with transportation and delivery of the replacement product for a feedstock for injection batch 𝑛.function | Under certain conditions | Eq. 54 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | Measured | tonnes CO2e | See calculations for transportation and choice of emission factors in "Transportation Modulemodule" as applied during the "Operations" aspect of project | - On-line mapping systems using origin and departure from shipping documents, odometer readings AND fuel flow meters, fleet management system data, vehicle on board diagnostics, miles traveled & vehicle type, or similar; OR
- fuel flow meters, fleet management system data, vehicle on board diagnostics, miles traveled & vehicle type, or similar
| Each feedstock source | TransparencyAppropriate oncalibration rationaleand for chosen typemaintenance of evidence | GHG Statement | 3.2 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
[math: CO_{2}e_{Embodied\ Replacement,\ n}] | The total life-cycle embodied emissions (Life cycle GHG emissions associated with production of materials, transportation, and constructionscales or other processes for goods or buildings.) associated with the production and use of the replacement product for injection batch 𝑛.meters | UnderShipping certainrecords, conditions | Eq.weigh 5scale (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | Measured | tonnes CO2e | See calculations for embodied emissions accounting and choice of emission factors in "Embodied Emissions Accounting Module" | See calculations for embodied emissions accounting and choice of emission factors in "Embodied Emissions Accounting Module"
| Each feedstock source | Transparency on rationale for chosen type of evidence | GHG Statementticket | 3.2 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
| [math: Quantity\ Procured] | Quantity of manure procured for CDR from a manure source. | Always | Eq. 6 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | Measured | tonnes | Determined from purchase contract. | The Projectproject Proponent will report the amount of manure procured from a source. | Each feedstock source | N/A | Feedstock purchase contract | Appendix 1 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
| [math: Quantity\ Generated] | Total quantity of manure generated at a manure source. | Under certain conditions | Eq. 5 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | Measured | tonnes | Determined from feedlot records. | The Projectproject Proponent will report the total amount of manure generated from a source. | Each feedstock source | Thorough documentation from records across multiple months. | Feedlot records | Appendix 1 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
| Region | The geographic area considered when calculating the sustainable application rate, typically the county of the manure source (broader definitions may apply to sources near county borders, and narrower definitions for exceptionally large counties). | Under certain conditions | Eq. 5 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | Assessment | N/A | Typically defined as the county containing the feedlot. | | Each feedstock source | N/A | | Appendix 1 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
| Acres | Acres using manure source for crop c within the region of the manure source. | Under certain conditions | Eq. 5 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | Assessment | Acres | Most recent Census of Agriculture report | Based on USDA survey results regarding the number of acres in a county that apply manure and data on the most common crop grown in a county. | Each feedstock source | N/A | | Appendix 1 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
| [math: NutrientsReq_{f}] | Necessary quantity of nutrient f (N or P) for crop-type c per cropland acre. | Under certain conditions | Eq. 5 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | Assessment | tonnes | University of Georgia Nutrient Needs Cropsheet | | Each feedstock source | N/A | | Appendix 1 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
| [math: ManureNutrients_{f}] | Quantity of nutrient f (N or P) in 1 tonne of manure | Under certain conditions | Eq. 4 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | Assessment | tonnes | | | Each feedstock source | N/A | | Appendix 1 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) |
8.0 Appendix 3[math: AcceptableFertilizerEmissions_{f}] | The Forest Certification Programs for EC9Forest certifications can help ensure that biomass used for CDR activities does not incentivize forestry activities that reduce global carbon stocks. Four certifications provide a high degree of confidence through supply chain visibility and regular auditing: FSC, PEFC, SFI, and ATFS. Biomass certified under these four certifications are eligible for any Biogenic Carbon Capture and Sequestrationemissions (BCCSCO2e) or Biomass with Carbon Removal and Sequestration (BiCRS) project, subject to other eligibility criteria outlinedgenerated in the Isometricproduction of 1kg of nutrient f (N or P) in fertilizer.
| Under certain conditions | Eq. 4 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting moduleModule) | Assessment | tonnes | Ecoinvent 3.9.1 Two additional biomass certifications, SBP and RSB, provide eligibility subject to an additional requirement that Project Proponents provide information onwith the regionTRACI 2.1 method | | Each feedstock source | N/A | | Appendix 1 (US state-level or equivalent is acceptable) from which the biomass is sourced and provide evidence that forestry carbon stocks in these regions are stable or increasing. At this time, risk-based approaches that do not conduct site audits are eligible if they are provided through FSC or PEFC. FSC Mix certified biomass is eligible, but should not constitute more than 50% of the biomass sourced for a project.Certification | Projects types eligible for: | Additional documentation required |
|---|
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 100% | All BCCS and BiCRS | None | Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) 100% | All BCCS and BiCRS | None | Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) | All BCCS and BiCRS | None | American Tree Farm System (ATFS) | All BCCS and BiCRS | None | Sustainable Biomass ProgramFeedstock (SBPAccounting Module) | Eligible only for processes where the CDR is not the primary product produced. | Information on the region (US state-level or equivalent is acceptable) from which the biomass is sourced. Evidence that forestry carbon stocks in these regions are stable or increasing. | Roundtable for Sustainable Biomass (RSB) | Eligible only for processes where the CDR is not the primary product produced. | Information on the region (US state-level or equivalent is acceptable) from which the biomass is sourced. Evidence that forestry carbon stocks in these regions are stable or increasing. | FSC Controlled Wood Sources | Eligible only for processes where the CDR is not the primary product produced. | Submitted PPDs should target having FSC Mix account for no more than 25% of project biomass. | PEFC Controlled Sources | Eligible only for processes where the CDR is not the primary product produced. | Submitted PPDs should target having FSC Mix account for no more than 25% of project biomass. |
|
