Biomass Feedstock Accounting
Loading...
This moduleModule establishes the requirements associated with the use of biomass feedstocks as a part of carbon dioxide removal (CDRProjects) projects. This includes setting out eligibility criteria for biomass feedstocks in relation to market leakagesustainability, counterfactual storage and dedicatedmarket energy feedstock considerationsleakage. This moduleModule also provides requirementsmethods for the quantification of counterfactual storage to determine eligible biomass ([math: CO_{2}e_{Counterfactual}]), and market leakage to determine emissionseligible associatedfeedstocks. with replacement of biomass ([math: CO_{2}e_{Leakage}]).
This moduleModule is currently applicable to the following biomass feedstocks:
Every projectProject Proponent must consider specific alternative uses of biomassfeedstocks that would have occurredoccured in the absence of the projectProject. The baseline scenario must be considered relative to each feedstock used if the projectProject utilizes multiple feedstock types, in line with Section 2.5.2. of the Isometric Standard.
Requirements If a Project uses any feedstock that is deemed ineligible by this Module, this feedstock will not count towards Crediting. If a Project utilizes ineligible biomass for biomassalternative uses in excess of 25% of the feedstock eligibilitymass in a given Reporting Period, removals within the Reporting Period will not be Credited by Isometric.
The current approach outlined in this Module provides:
This moduleModule was developed based on the current state of the art and publicly available science regarding thesourcing land use changes that result from paymentsbiomass for biomassBiomass feedstockCarbon Removal and Storage (BiCRS) Projects. This moduleModule is based in part on the most up-to-date literature and models likeat GREETthe time of publication. This Module will continue to be updated as scientific and CCLUBeconomic forunderstanding lifedevelops.
Future cyclework analysisto developedinclude atadditional Argonne National Laboratoryfeedstocks, and Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) for general equilibrium economic impacts developed at Purdue University. More specific modeling for the use case of biomass residuesuch as apurpose-grown feedstockBiCRS for CDR 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 effectsfeedstocks, 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 toas applynecessitated theby GTAP model to scenarios involving payments made for biomass residues for use in CDRdemand, and thisas moduleenabled willby beimproved updatedresearch accordinglyand modeling.
This moduleModule will be reviewed on an annual cadence in line with the Isometric Standard.
The Projectframework Proponentoutlined mustin considerthis Module sets out sourcing criteria that qualify feedstocks as eligible for use in BiCRS Projects in a way that ensures sustainable sourcing and accounts for the followingemissions factorsimpacts inthat assessingresult howfrom amarket particular biomass feedstock affects their net carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) removalleakage. These considerations may vary based on the impactscharacteristics ofand feedstocksourcing use in a given project.
These impacts are defined below in Table 1:
Table 1
Feedstock eligibility requires the
| |
| |
Feedstock eligibilityThis is determineddue byto itsthe potentialsignificant risk of market leakage impactassociated (seewith Sectionsourcing 2.1),these its counterfactual CO2 storage scenario (see Section 2.2) and whether it’s a purpose-grown feedstock (see Section 2.3)feedstocks. ToThis be eligible under Protocols applicableapplies to feedstocks that meet the other criteria outlined within this module,. aFeedstocks givensuch feedstockas food/feed crops and purpose grown BiCRS feedstocks are not detailed here as they have no path through the Module. Feedstocks 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.
Creating a market for biomass feedstocks may generate new revenue in the sourcecriteria sectorwithin thatthis alters producer behaviour in ways that result in additional GHG emissions. For example, increased profit may leadsection 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 qualifyestablish the feedstock as eligible. See Section 4 for usedetails.
Project
Table 2
For | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
section outlines how a Project Proponent is |
| |
The
|
| |
|
|
Any one of the criteria in Table 3 is sufficient to demonstrate minimal indirect market leakage:
Table 3
| The Project Proponent must
3.0 CounterfactualsWhen feedstocks are used for BiCRS Projects, each eligible unit of stored carbon will be Credited as CO2e. However, not |
|
Thus, to establish eligibility under market leakage criteria, the Project Proponent must demonstrate either:
It is recommended that where feasible a Project Proponent collects farm-specific information as part of their sustainable sourcing practices. However this information is not currently required for the determination of eligibility.
Biomass stores CO2 as organic carbon, C. A quantity of C can be converted to units of CO2 using the atomic mass of both elements. Inif 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 tonne of a gas will absorb over a given period of time, relative 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 of the CO2e stored as part of the Removal activity is eligible to count towards Crediting. This eligibility criteria is in place to ensure that the CO2 storedcarbon would not have remained stored aslonger, CO2termed [math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual}]. Only the fraction that would have been emitted in the absence of the projectProject activities will be Credited as an environmentally additional removal.
Accounting for counterfactual storage ensures Credits accurately reflect the Project's actual climate impact, preventing overstatement of removals by accounting for carbon that would have stayed out of the atmosphere for long periods regardless of the Project's intervention. This ensuresis also to ensure Project activities have a measurable impact in mitigating near-term climate change and to incentivize the use of feedstocks with the most near-term impacts.
Project Proponents must demonstrate that Creditingthe iscounterfactual conservativefate has been properly assessed and the projectcounterfactual passesstorage environmentalhas additionalitybeen appropriately quantified.
The eligibilityOnce a feedstock's counterfactual fate has been established, it's determined fate is valid for 10 years provided the feedstock sourcing does not change. Under exceptional circumstances where Isometric identifies a significant change to the understood counterfactual fate, Isometric reserves the right to conduct an audit to ensure feedstocks continue to meet the criteria includeslaid considerationout in this Module. Typically the historical fate of the feedstock is a good indicator of the future counterfactual fate of the biomass.feedstock 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
| To assess the counterfactual fate of the
3.2 |
| Table 2 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Counterfactual Criteria | ||
| Criteria | Documentation Required | |
| CC1 | Project feedstock harvesting activities will increase ecosystem carbon sequestration over 15 years | The Project Proponent must |
| CC2 | Feedstock is sourced through a government managed, funded or otherwise supported wildfire mitigation program. The [math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual}] of these feedstocks is 0. | The Project Proponent must provide evidence that the feedstock originates from a government mandated, managed or otherwise supported wildfire mitigation program, including evidence of program participation and chain-of-custody. |
| CC3 | The [math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual}] of the feedstock is quantified (See Section 3.3 for details). | The Project Proponent must provide a quantification of [math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual}] including all documentation, data-sets, references and assumptions associated with the calculation of counterfactual storage. |
Feedstocks that do not meet CC1 or CC2 within Table 2 must quantify counterfactual storage. Biogenic carbon that would likely be stored in the biomass for the next 15 years in the counterfactual is considered counterfactually stored.
Counterfactual storage is a quantified measurement of stored biogenic carbon, and takes into account the amount of biogenic carbon within the feedstock and the emissions associated with the release of the biogenic carbon.
Biomass decay that would lead to additional carbon storage in the landscape is taken into account (e.g., soil organic carbon gains from biomass decay). This effect may be nonlinear and Project Proponents can provide evidence of its negligibility at the feedstock removal rates.
Counterfactual storage is reported in CO2e (units. Counterfactual emissions are evaluated at GWP 100) in the counterfactual scenario at 15 years:
If all stored biogenic carbon within the feedstock would be emitted within 15 years;
FeedstocksThis is to increase the eligibility of feedstocks that arehave sourceda throughdisproportionately governmentlarge managednear-term orrelease fundedof wildfireGHGs mitigationwith ora restorationGWP100 activities>1 willin the counterfactual. Example calculations can be assignedfound ain counterfactualAppendix storage value of 06.
ProjectEquation Proponent should provide a government source demonstrating that the funding or management of the biomass collection or harvesting was required, funded, or managed by a federal or state government body1 and wasequation done for the purpose of wildfire mitigation or post-wildfire ecosystem restoration.
If all of the biogenic C would have been released from storage within 15 years, [math: CO_{2}e_{Counterfactual}] = 0.
The portion of the stored biogenic C that is eligible under this framework is the lesser of two values that must be demonstratedused byto the Project Proponent:quantify 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 wouldis notineligible havefor counterfactually been released within 50 years (see Equation 1)Crediting.
[math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual,\ n} = CO_2e_{Feedstock} - CO_2e_{EmissionsCounterfactual}]
(Equation 1)
[math: CO_2e_{EmissionsCounterfactualCounterfactual,\ x}\ \ = \ \ CO_2e_{Feedstock} \ \ - \ \ CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions}]
(Equation 1)
[math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions} \ \ = \ \ min(CO_2e_{StorageCounterfactualEmissions15CounterfactualEmissions15},(1-δ_{50})\\ \timesCO_2e_{Feedstock}\ \ - \ \ CO_2e_{CounterfactualStorage50})]
(Equation 2)
Where:
This
The intent of this criterion is to avoid situations in which the biomass could have been used for energy production instead of for CDR.
The feedstock must meet the eligibility criteria in Table 6 in order to be eligible for use under this Module:
Table 6
|
|
Specific emission calculations associated with a project’s counterfactual storage scenario and market leakage, as required in Protocols applicable to this module, are determined as described below.
For aeach specificReporting removalPeriod, emissions[math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual}] must be aggregated across all feedstock production batches, [math: p], within that removal, where [math: n] is the total number of batches:
[math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual,}\n}\ =\=\ \sum_{px=1}^{n}CO_{2}e_\ CO_2e_{Counterfactual,\px}]
(Equation 3)
Where:
Sourcing CO_{2}e_{Counterfactual,\feedstocks p}]
Once a Project's feedstock is identified as eligible, it maintains it's eligibility for Creditinga period of 10 years provided the feedstock sourcing does not change. Under exceptional circumstances where Isometric identifies a significant risk of substantial market leakage, Isometric reserves the right to conduct an audit to ensure feedstocks continue to meet the criteria laid out in this Module.
The following information must be submitted every 10 years:
Certain feedstocks are deemed ineligible by this Module due to the associated high risk of significant market leakage. These include cases where the feedstock was cultivated for the purpose of food, feed, energy or use in BiCRS as well as materials used in long-lived wood products such as construction materials and furniture. There are exceptions under specific circumstances. To establish feedstock eligibility, the feedstock must meet the relevant criterion outlined in Table 3.
| Table 3 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Prohibited Feedstocks | ||
| Criteria | Documentation Required | |
| PF1 | Applicable to non-woody feedstocks: The feedstock must not have been produced for bioenergy applications. This does not affect the use of residues that have fulfilled their purpose for energy generation (e.g., post anaerobic digestion manure). | The Project Proponent must provide evidence that the feedstock was not produced for bioenergy use for 2 years prior to the Project's first procurement date. |
| PF2 | Applicable to woody feedstocks: The feedstock must not be suitable for use as a component of long-lived wood products or pulpwood (e.g, construction materials, furniture, fiberboard etc.). Feedstocks that have fulfilled their use as long-lived wood products or pulpwood are eligible if they cannot be further repurposed. Residues from wood processing are eligible if non-marketable or marketed only for bioenergy, landscaping or mulch over the previous 2 years. | The Project Proponent must provide evidence of the feedstock lifecycle including generation and utilization/disposal for 2 years prior to the Project's first procurement date. Feedstocks sourced from wildfire mitigation programs are exempt from this requirement if the Project Proponent can provide evidence that the feedstock was sourced by, or to meet the clear goals of, a government supported wildfire mitigation program, including evidence of program participation and chain-of-custody. |
All feedstocks must select a market leakage assessment and meet all criteria within the selected assessment as laid out in EC13Table 4 (e.g., ML5.1 and ML5.2) for productionthe batch p, in tonnesevaluation of CO2e
| Table | ||
|---|---|---|
| ML1: Quantify Market Leakage | ||
| Criteria | Documentation Required | |
| ML1.1 | The [math: CO_2e_{Leakage}] of
| The Project Proponent must quantify the emissions associated with market leakage |
| ML2: CCS retrofits where baseline facility emissions exceed capture capacity. For feedstocks that meet both of the following criteria, [math: CO_2e_{Leakage}\ =\ 0]. | ||
| Criteria | Documentation Required | |
| ML2.1 | The Maximum Biogenic Carbon Utilization Rate of the CCS infrastructure does not meet or exceed the Baseline Emission Rate. This criteria allows for the qualification of a feedstock mass that does not exceed the Maximum Biogenic Carbon Utilization Rate, after subtracting both the Baseline Emission Rate and any parasitic load of the retrofit infrastructure. All values are expressed in feedstock equivalent units. | Documentation demonstrating the Baseline Emission Rate over the last 5 years and an evidenced calculation of the Maximum Biogenic Carbon Utilization Rate of the CCS infrastructure (See Appendix 4 for calculation requirements). |
| ML2.2 | All feedstock sourced outside the baseline, including any feedstock sourced to meet parasitic energy requirements or reductions in the facility's primary outputs, must be accounted for under another market leakage criteria. | A quantification of the parasitic load, and/or any decrease in the primary output of the facility due to the retrofit infrastructure and evidence of how this is accounted for. |
| ML3: Retrofit baseline feedstocks. For feedstocks that meet both of these criteria, [math: CO_2e_{Leakage}\ =\ 0]. | ||
| Criteria | Documentation Required | |
| ML3.1 | The facility feedstock consumption remains consistent in mass and sourcing compared to the pre-retrofit baseline. | A quantification of the Baseline Feedstock Consumption Rate for the facility for 5 years prior to the retrofit installation (See Appendix 4 for calculation requirements). |
| ML3.2 | All feedstock sourced outside the baseline, including any feedstock sourced to meet parasitic energy requirements or reductions in the facility's primary outputs, must be accounted for under another market leakage criteria. | A quantification of the parasitic load, and/or any decrease in the primary output of the facility due to the retrofit infrastructure and evidence of how this is accounted for. |
| ML4: The Project Proponent does not contribute significantly to the revenue of the feedstock supplier. For feedstocks that meet this criteria, [math: CO_2e_{Leakage}\ =\ 0]. | ||
| Criteria | Documentation Required | |
| ML4.1 | The Project Proponent must demonstrate one of the following: There was no payment made to the feedstock supplier for the feedstock. The payment made to the feedstock supplier is equal to or lower than the recovery, transportation and replacement costs6. The Project Proponent was paid for the removal of the feedstock, such as a tipping fee. The Project Proponent paid a third party, whose sourcing activities also adhere to one of the above. | The Project Proponent must provide one of the following: Purchase/removal records between the Project Proponent and the feedstock supplier demonstrating the price paid and evidence of how this adheres to this criteria. A signed affidavit from the third party and/or feedstock supplier that the third party is not providing payment exceeding the recovery, transportation and replacement costs. |
| ML5: There is an excess supply of feedstock with an economic purpose. For feedstocks that meet both of the following criteria, [math: CO_2e_{Leakage}\ =\ 0]. | ||
| Criteria | Documentation Required | |
| ML5.1 | The feedstock is demonstrated to serve an economic purpose7 and the Project Proponent can demonstrate a local supply excess (e.g., stable or growing stockpiles), that the Project won't exceed. | The Project Proponent must provide all of the following: Historical contracts between the feedstock supplier and the end-use/disposal sites. A quantification of the Baseline Feedstock Generation Rate over the previous 5 years (See Appendix 4 for details). Where this detail is unavailable, an affidavit from the feedstock supplier demonstrating the historical fate of the feedstock may be considered, subject to third-party verification (e.g., a VVB). |
| ML5.2 | The Project Proponent must demonstrate the price paid to the feedstock supplier was not significant, leading to increased production. This must be demonstrated by one of the following: A demonstration that the price paid to the feedstock supplier for the feedstock does not exceed 5% of the total revenue generated from the feedstock supplier's operations. A demonstration that the price paid to the feedstock supplier does not exceed 2x the cost the feedstock supplier would have paid for disposal. A demonstration that the price paid to the feedstock supplier for the feedstock is less than 5% of the total benchmark-priced revenue. This revenue is derived from all marketed products and calculated per unit of residue produced. | The Project Proponent must provide one of the following: Purchase/removal records between the Project Proponent and the feedstock supplier demonstrating the price paid and evidence of how this adheres to this criteria. Evidence of all marketed products associated with the feedstock production, a quantification of marketed products production per unit of feedstock and an evidenced price point for the sum of the products produced. Where this detail is unavailable, an affidavit from the feedstock supplier that documents payments made for the feedstock by the Project Proponent do not constitute a large share of upstream operations revenue. |
| ML6: Excess residue productions with no economic purpose. For feedstocks that meet both of the following criteria, [math: CO_2e_{Leakage}\ =\ 0]. | ||
| Criteria | Documentation Required | |
| ML6.1 | The feedstock is demonstrated to serve no economic purpose and the Project Proponent will not use the feedstock above the Baseline Feedstock Generation Rate. | The Project Proponent must provide all of the following: Historical contracts between the feedstock supplier and the end-use/disposal sites. A quantification of the Baseline Feedstock Generation Rate over the previous 5 years (See Appendix 4 for details). Where this detail is unavailable, an affidavit from the feedstock supplier demonstrating the historical fate of the feedstock may be considered, subject to third-party verification (e.g., a VVB). |
| ML6.2 | The Project Proponent must demonstrate the price paid to the feedstock supplier was not significant, leading to increased production. This must be demonstrated by one of the following: A demonstration that the price paid to the feedstock supplier for the feedstock does not exceed 5% of the total revenue generated from the feedstock supplier's operations. A demonstration that the price paid to the feedstock supplier does not exceed 2x the cost the feedstock supplier would have paid for disposal. A demonstration that the price paid to the feedstock supplier for the feedstock is less than 5% of the total benchmark-priced revenue. This revenue is derived from all marketed products and calculated per unit of residue produced. | The Project Proponent must provide one of the following: Purchase/removal records between the Project Proponent and the feedstock supplier demonstrating the price paid and evidence of how this adheres to this criteria. Evidence of all marketed products associated with the feedstock production, a quantification of marketed products production per unit of feedstock and an evidenced price point for the sum of the products produced. Where this detail is unavailable, an affidavit from the feedstock supplier that documents payments made for the feedstock by the Project Proponent do not constitute a large share of upstream operations revenue. |
| ML7: Sustainable Usage Rate of feedstocks with an economic purpose. For feedstocks that meet both of the following criteria, [math: CO_2e_{Leakage}\ =\ 0]. | ||
| Criteria | Documentation Required | |
| ML7.1 | The feedstock is demonstrated to serve an economic purpose and the Project Proponent is able to demonstrate that the Project will not exceed the Sustainable Usage Rate of the feedstock. | The Project Proponent must provide all of the following: A conservative quantification of the Sustainable Usage Rate over the previous 5 years (See Appendix 4 for details). All data-sets, assumptions, references and documentation used in the quantification. |
| ML7.2 | The Project Proponent must demonstrate the price paid to the feedstock supplier was not significant, leading to increased production. This must be demonstrated by one of the following: A demonstration that the price paid to the feedstock supplier for the feedstock does not exceed 5% of the total revenue generated from the feedstock supplier's operations. A demonstration that the price paid to the feedstock supplier does not exceed 2x the cost the feedstock supplier would have paid for disposal. A demonstration that the price paid to the feedstock supplier for the feedstock is less than 5% of the total benchmark-priced revenue. This revenue is derived from all marketed products and calculated per unit of residue produced. | The Project Proponent must provide one of the following: Purchase/removal records between the Project Proponent and the feedstock supplier demonstrating the price paid and evidence of how this adheres to this criteria. Evidence of all marketed products associated with the feedstock production, a quantification of marketed products production per unit of feedstock and an evidenced price point for the sum of the products produced. Where this detail is unavailable, an affidavit from the feedstock supplier that documents payments made for the feedstock by the Project Proponent do not constitute a large share of upstream operations revenue. |
If the Project's feedstock only qualifies for ML1 within Table 4 the emissions associated with replacement material, as other forms of market leakage are assessed tomust be 0calculated.
[math: forCO_2e_{Leakage}] eligibleis feedstockspart of the calculation of [math: CO_2e_{Emissions}] as set out by the relevant Protocol. Thus[math: CO_2e_{Leakage}] must be quantified and aggregated across all feedstock batches, market[math: leakagex], forwithin athat batchremoval, where [math: n], is given bythe total number of batches.
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage}] attributed to feedstocks for a Reporting Period is quantified with the following equation:
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage,}\ \ =\ \ \sum_{x=1}^{n}= CO_{2}e_{Replacement,\n}]
(Equation 4)
(Equation (5)
NoteWhere:
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 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,\ n}] can be calculated as follows:
[math: CO_2e_{Replacement,\ n} = CO_{2}e_{Energy\ Replacement,\ n} + CO_{2}e_{Embodied\ Replacement,\ n} + \\ CO_{2}e_{Transportation\ Replacement,\ n}]
(Equation 5)
Where:
The calculation approachof details.
The Project Proponent must undertake an appropriate assessment based on the available information regarding the feedstock. The assessment must consider the market leakage impact of the feedstock use for the Project, including all relevant emissions.
If the Project Proponent contributes more than 5% of revenue to the feedstock supplier, the Project Proponent must assess their upstream attributional emissions (See Section 6.4 of the GHG Accounting Module for guidance).
To quantify the impact of market leakage, Projects must identify the alternative use of the feedstock and the marginal impact associated with the productiondiversion of feedstock from this alternative use. This will typically involve identifying the unconstrained marginal product and useapplying a conversion rate to understand the quantity of the replacement product for injection batch 𝑛, in tonnes of CO2e. See Embodied Emissions Accounting Module for calculation approach details and emission factor requirements.
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 detailsrequired.
Replacement emissions can be considered 0 where any of the following conditions in Table 7 are met:
Table 7
|
| |
|
| |
Examples | 4.3.1 Wood Products Diverted from Bioenergy Production
4.3.2 Manure Diverted from Nutrient ApplicationA Project Proponent may source manure that is partially over the Sustainable Usage Rate. The Project causes some displacement to 4.3.3 Biomass Diverted from Animal BeddingA Project Proponent may source feedstock that otherwise would have been used for
|
Calculationquantity of [math:hay CO_{2}e_{Replacement}]that requires,must butbe issourced notas limited to, the following measurements:
Forrequired replacement of fertilizer function providedmultiplied by the Projectemission feedstock, the mass of fertilizer accountedfactor for in emission calculations, [math: m_{Replacement}], 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) content. Feedstock NPK 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 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.
The Project Proponent must maintain the following records as evidence of [math: CO_{2}e_{Replacement, n}] calculations:
Records must be maintained and provided for verification purposes for a period of five yearshay.
Isometric would like to thank the following contributors to this Module:
Matthew Gammans, Ph.D. (North Dakota State University)
Kevin Fingerman, Ph.D. (Cal Poly Humboldt)
This section outlines how to calculate the replacement mass of fertilizer, [math: m_{Replacement}], for a specific quantity of sourced manureremoved from a singlelocation location.without The actual replacement emissions depend on various variables related toaffecting the nutrientfeedstock's compositionenvironmental ofbenefits theor sourced manure and the nutrient requirements of the cropland surrounding the manure source location.
The Sustainable Use Rate (SUR) is the quantity of manure that can be taken without the need to calculate replacement emissions. There are three potential cases:
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 can be calculated as follows:
[math: SUR = QuantityGenerated\ -\ ObservedCounterfactual]
(Equation 6)
In this case, the [math: SupplyRegion] is the feedlot, thus [math: QuantityGenerated] is total quantity of manure produce annually at the source feedlot
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 can be calculated at the feedlot level. In this case, variables are calculated in the following manner:
Then the SUR 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 7)
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 can be computed using Equation 7 above, but with variables are calculated in the following manner:
| |
| |
| |
|
Replacement mass is calculated as follows:
If
[math: QuantityProcured \leq SUR]
then:
[math: m_{Replacement,\ p}=0]
Otherwise, the appropriate replacement mass value is:
[math: m_{Replacement,\ p} = \\ (QuantityProcured-SUR)\\ \times (ManureNutrient_{N} \cdot FertiliserEmissions_{N}\\ + ManureNutrient_{P} \cdot FertiliserEmissions_{P})]
(Equation 8)
Potential additional data sources:
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 removedremovals and long-term storage compliance, and will enable quantification of the
emissions removal resulting from the Project activity during the Project CreditingReporting Period, 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 creditingCrediting.
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.
| Table 5 | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Parameter Description | Equation | Parameter Type | Units | Data Source | Monitoring Frequency | QA/QC | Required Evidence | Reference | ||||
| [math: CO_2e_{ | Assessment | The Project Proponent | Each feedstock, | Transparency on rationale for the chosen type of evidence | Report relying on one or more of the data sources | Section 3.3 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | |||||||
| [math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualStorage50}] | The mass of biogenic CO2e that would have remained stored in the counterfactual after 50 years. | Equation 2 (Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module) | |||||||||||
| Assessment | The Project Proponent | Each feedstock source, every 10 years | Transparency on rationale for the chosen type of evidence | Report relying on one or more of the data sources | |||||||||
| [math: | The mass of biogenic CO2e that is contained within the feedstock. | Equation 1 & 2 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module. | Measured | Tonnes of CO2e | Determined based on the carbon content of the feedstock converted to CO2e units multiplied by the mass of the feedstock. | The Project Proponent must measure the mass of their feedstock and analyze the carbon content of the feedstock. | Each feedstock, every 10 years. | ISO 20236:2024 | Evidence demonstrating the TOC content of the feedstock and the mass of the feedstock. | Section 3.3 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | |||
| [math: CO_2e_{Leakage}] | The GHG emissions associated with the Project's impact on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of the Project. | Equation 5 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | Assessment | Tonnes of CO2e | The Project Proponent must account for the GHG emissions that result from the sourcing of biomass that fall outside of the Project system boundary including land-use change and replacement products. | Each feedstock every 10 years | Transparency on rationale for chosen type of evidence. | Report relying on one or more of the data sources | 4.3 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | ||||
| [math: CO_2e_{Replacement}] | The emissions associated with the replacement product required to provide the equivalent service as the | Equation 6 of the | Determined | The Project | Each feedstock every 10 years | Transparency on rationale for chosen type of evidence. | Feedstock weigh scale tickets for each batch or other equivalent records to support the calculation. Replacement product analysis documentation. | Appendix 2 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | |||||
| Baseline Feedstock Consumption Rate | A quantification of the average rate that a given feedstock is consumed by a facility over the 5 years prior to a retrofit. | Appendix 4 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | Measured | Tonnes | Determined from purchase records between the feedstock supplier and the facility. | The Project Proponent must provide a quantification of the average consumption rate of feedstock by a facility prior to a retrofit installation. | Each feedstock, every 10 years | Feedstock purchase contracts | Appendix 4 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | ||||
| Baseline Feedstock Generation Rate | The rate at which a feedstock is generated over the 5 years prior to the Project Proponent's first purchase date. | Appendix 4 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | Measured | Tonnes | Determined by end-use/disposal records of the feedstock from the feedstock supplier. | The Project Proponent must provide evidence of the rate at which the feedstock was generated over the previous 5 years. | Each feedstock every 10 years | A record of feedstock end-use/disposal. | Appendix 4 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | ||||
| Baseline Emission Rate | The average rate at which biogenic CO2 is emitted from a point source over the 5 years prior to the installation of CCS retrofit infrastructure. | Appendix 4 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | Measured | Tonnes of CO2e | Determined from emission monitoring systems. | The Project Proponent must provide evidence of the rate at which biogenic CO2 is was released by the facility over the 5 years prior to the installation of CCS retrofit infrastructure. | Each facility emission source | Quantified in line with the Isometric BioCCS Protocol | Outputs from emission monitoring platforms. | Appendix 4 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | |||
| Maximum Biogenic Carbon Utilization Rate | The maximum quantity of input biogenic carbon that can be utilized by a capture process. | Equation 7 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | Assessment | Tonnes | A quantification of the biogenic carbon output from an emission source and the capture capacity of CCS infrastructure. | The Project Proponent must quantify the maximum amount of biogenic carbon that can be captured by the CCS infrastructure. | Each CCS unit | ISO/DIS 27920 | Tested or determined capture capacity and a quantification of the Baseline Emission Rate. | Appendix 4 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | |||
| Sustainable Usage Rate | A quantification of the rate a resource can be utilized without compromising the services that the resource provides. | Equation 8 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module | Assessment | Tonnes/ha | Regional data-sets demonstrating a Sustainable Usage Rate or a quantification based on the feedstock removed and the services the feedstock provided. | The Project Proponent must demonstrate a conservative quantification of the Sustainable Usage Rate including all data-sets, references, assumptions and documentation. | Each feedstock, every Reporting Period. | Transparency on rationale for chosen type of evidence. | Report relying on one or more of the data sources. | Appendix 4 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module |
For replacement of fertilizer function provided by the feedstock, the mass of fertilizer accounted for in emission calculations must account for the equivalent amount of service that the feedstock provided. See Section 8.2 for a worked example using manure.
The total fertilizer capacity previously provided by the feedstock must be calculated based on the feedstock's NPK content. Feedstock NPK content must be determined by sampling of the feedstock(s) for each production batch x, or from available scientific literature.
The amount of fertilizer replacement in the counterfactual scenario must account for replacing the same amount of NPK as in the project feedstock, using the most limiting factor (either N, P, K) to determine the mass of fertilizer required.
This documentation.section
If the quantity of manure procured does not exceed the Sustainable Usage Rate then [math: CO_2e_{EnergyReplacement},\ x\ =\ 0]. Guidance on calculating the Sustainable Usage Rate can be found in Appendix 4.
The following equation can be used to calculate [math: CO_2e_{Replacement,\ nx}]
[math: CO_2e_{Replacement,\ x}\ \ =\ \ max(0,\ Rr\ -\ SUR) \cdot (CO_2e_{EmbodiedReplacement}\ +\ CO_2e_{EnergyReplacement}\ +\ CO_2e_{TransportationReplacement})]
(Equation 6)
Where:
See calculations for embodied emissions accounting and choice of emission factors in "Embodied Emissions Accounting Module"
ForestUnsustainable certificationsforest canmanagement helpis ensurea thatmajor biomassconcern usedwithin forthe CDRBiCRS activitiesindustry doesas notrates incentivizeof forestrydeforestation activitiescontinue thatto reduceexceed globalregeneration in many areas. While carbon stocks are an important consideration for the validity of removal Credits, additional factors must be considered to protect global forests. FourThis certificationsis why, in addition to our requirements for carbon stock and primary forest considerations, we have the additional requirement that feedstock sourcing adhere with the principles laid out by leading forest sustainability organizations.
Relying on the principles and expertise of these programs allows us to be confident that feedstocks sourced for removals credited by Isometric are vetted against the highest standards to provide aecosystem, highcultural degreeand forest sustainability. This includes the maintenance of confidencehabitats, throughthe supplypreservation chainof visibilitybiodiversity and regularecosystem auditing: FSCservices, PEFC,as SFI,well as respecting local communities and ATFSworkforces.
Pre-approved forestry certification/management programs are listed in Table 6. BiomassFeedstocks certifiedsourced underfrom these four certificationsprograms are eligiblesatisfy the requirements of SC1.1 and SC2.1, for use in any Biogenic Carbon Capture and Sequestration (BCCS)BioCCS or Biomass with Carbon Removal and Sequestration (BiCRS) project, including retrofit projects, subject to the other eligibility criteria outlined in this Module.
For retrofit Projects, feedstock sourcing has a broader range of eligible certification/management programs for the Isometricfeedstock Biomasssourced at or under the Baseline Feedstock AccountingConsumption moduleRate (See Appendix 4 for details). TwoThe additionalestablishment biomassof certifications,baseline SBPfeedstock sourcing and RSB,quantity provideprovides eligibility subject to an additional requirementconfidence that Project Proponents provide information on the regionfeedstock (USwould state-level or equivalent is acceptable) from which the biomass isbe 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%regardless of the biomassBiCRS sourcedproject. These additional programs, that satisfy the requirements of SC2.1 only, are listed in Table 7.
| Table 6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Forestry Certification/Management programs suitable for
|
| Table 8 | |
|---|---|
| Residues eligible for SC5 | |
| Industry | Residue Example(s) |
| Landscaping | Lawn trimmings, below-grade wood chips, etc. |
| Primary agricultural processing | Rice husks, oat hulls, etc. |
| Food processing | Waste streams from food manufacturing facilities |
| Beverage processing | Spent grains etc. |
| Textiles | Cotton gin trash, wool lanolin etc. |
A Project Proponent identifies an excess supply of corn stover over the SUR. The corn stover contains 30t of biogenic carbon. The counterfactual fate of the excess stover is combustion in piles and therefore all biogenic carbon would be released as emissions much earlier than 15 years.
Convert the carbon to CO2e
[math: CO_2e_{Feedstock}\ \ = \ \ 30 \cdot \dfrac{44}{12}\ \ = 110]
Calculate [math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions}] by applying equation 2
[math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions}\ \ =\ \ min(CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions15},\ \ CO_2e_{Feedstock}\ \ -\ \ CO_2e_{CounterfactualStorage50})\\\ \\\ 110\ \ =\ \ min(110,\ \ 110\ \ -\ \ 0)]
Apply equation 1
[math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual}\ \ =\ \ CO_2e_{Feedstock}\ \ -\ \ CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions}\\\ \\\ 0\ \ =\ \ 110\ \ -\ \ 110]
A Project Proponent sources excess slash residue from an FSC certified forestry project. The wood contains 30t of biogenic carbon. The decay rate of the wood residue is slow due to recalcitrant components such as lignin. The counterfactual fate of the slash material is piled up and left to decay. 25% of the biogenic carbon remains after 15 years. 5% of the biogenic carbon remains after 50 years. 1% of the emissions from decaying C are released as CH4 in the first 15 years. The 100-year GWP of CH4 is 27.
Convert the carbon to CO2e
[math: CO_2e_{Feedstock}\ \ =\ \ 30\ \ \cdot\ \ \dfrac{44}{12}\ \ =\ \ 110]
Calculate [math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions15}] by combining CO2 and CH4 emissions as CO2e
[math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions15}\ (CO_2)\ =\ (30\ \cdot\ (1\ -\ 0.25))\ \cdot\ 0.99\ \cdot\ \dfrac{44}{12}\ =\ 81.7\\\ \\\ CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions15}\ (CH_4)\ =\ (30\ \cdot\ (1-0.25))\ \cdot\ 0.01\ \cdot\ \dfrac{16}{12}\ \cdot\ 27\ =\ 8.1\\\ \\\ CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions15}\ =\ 81.7\ +\ 8.1\ =\ 89.8]
Calculate [math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualStorage50}]
[math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualStorage50}\ =\ 110\ \cdot\ 0.05\ =\ 5.5]
Calculate [math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions}] by applying equation 2
[math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions15}\ =\ min(CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions15},\ CO_2e_{Feedstock}\ -\ CO_2e_{CounterfactualStorage50})\\\ \\\ 89.8\ =\ min(89.8,\ 110\ -\ 5.5)]
Apply equation 1
[math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual}\ =\ CO_2e_{Feedstock}\ -\ CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions}\\\ \\\ 20.2\ =\ 110\ -\ 89.8]
A Project Proponent sources excess oat shells from a hulling facility. The oat hulls contain 30t of biogenic carbon. The current counterfactual fate of the oat shells is that they are left to decay in large piles. The decay rate of the oat shells is fairly slow given the recalcitrant components such as lignin. 25% of the biogenic carbon remains after 25 years. 1% of the biogenic carbon remains after 50 years. 4% of the emissions from decaying carbon are released as CH4 within the first 15 years. The GWP of CH4 is 27.
Convert the carbon to CO2e
[math: CO_2e_{Feedstock}\ =\ 30\ \cdot\ \dfrac{44}{12}\ =\ 110]
Calculate [math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions15}] by combining CO2 and CH4 emissions as CO2e
[math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions15}\ (CO_2)\ =\ (30\ \cdot\ (1\ -\ 0.25))\ \cdot\ 0.96\ \cdot\ \dfrac{44}{12}\ =\ 79.2\\\ \\\ CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions15}\ (CH_4)\ =\ (30\ \cdot\ (1\ -\ 0.25))\ \cdot\ 0.04\ \cdot\ \dfrac{16}{12}\ \cdot\ 27)\ =\ 32.4\\\ \\\ CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions15}\ =\ 79.2\ +\ 32.4\ =\ 111.6]
Calculate [math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualStorage50}]
[math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualStorage50}\ =\ 110\ \cdot\ 0.01\ =\ 1.1]
Calculate [math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions}] by applying equation 2
[math: CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions}\ =\ min(CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions15},\ CO_2e_{Feedstock}\ -\ CO_2e_{CounterfactualStorage50})\\\ \\\ 108.9\ =\ min(111.6,\ 110\ -\ 1.1)]
Apply equation 1
[math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual}\ =\ CO_2e_{Feedstock}\ -\ CO_2e_{CounterfactualEmissions}\\\ \\\ 1.1\ =\ 110\ -\ 108.9]
Such as slash material, defined in 40 CFR 80.1401 as "A residue, including treetops, branches and bark, left on the ground after logging or accumulating as a result of a storm, fire, delimbing or other similar disturbance". ↩
AllowedDownstream Statewood levelprocessing alternativeis programsdefined as wood processing that converts raw wood material into products such as sawn timber, plywood, furniture or other goods. ↩
The sourcing region is defined as a region of similar ecological characteristics, such as biodiversity, as defined by relevant regional authorities (Carbon Direct 2025). ↩
A primary forest as defined by the UN FAO is a naturally regenerated forest of native tree species, where there are outlinedno clearly visible indication of human activities and the ecological processes are not significantly disturbed. For more information visit:herehttps://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/531a9e1b-596d-4b07-b9fd-3103fb4d0e72/content.
Resources to demonstrate the sourcing region is not a primary forest:
Such as woodMSW, removalwaste water treatment sludge, expired food waste, hospital/commercial waste, biogas from areasthe affecteddigestion byof windfall,waste fires,treatment insect,sludge orand diseasemunicipal attacks,woody or where wood is removed for widely-recognized ecological reasons (e.g., to reduce wildfire hazard)waste. ↩
Criterion 1.1Recovery, Sustainabletransportation Biomassand Sourcingreplacement costs include but are not limited to the following:
feedstock, Carbonthe Dioxide RemovalVersionsuch 1as the removal of corn stover residue from fields or the chipping of forestry residues.1
CriterionAn 3.4,economic Sustainablepurpose Biomassis Sourcingone providing market recognized economic value through revenue generation or cost reductions for Carbonan Dioxideoperation. Removal,This Versioncould 1.1,include Octoberthe 2023sale ↩
Criterionof 1.1, Sustainable Biomass Sourcinggood(s) for Carboneconomic Dioxide Removalprofit, Version 1.1, October 2023 ↩
Criterion 3.4, Sustainable Biomass Sourcing for Carbon Dioxide Removal, Version 1.1, October 2023 ↩
Criterion 4.2, Sustainable Biomass Sourcing for Carbon Dioxide Removal, Version 1.1, October 2023 ↩
Cellulosic biorefinery locations and capacities can be obtained fromor the Renewableuse Fuels Association: https://ethanolrfa.org/resources/ethanol-biorefinery-locations. Ifof the feedstock isfor listedan environmental service such as “Cellulosicsoil Biomass”,nutrient thenenhancement wethat assumewould 100%otherwise ofrequire harvested-for-salea corncostly stover within 50 km has an alternative fate of an ethanol production use. At present, given the small total production of cellulosic biofuel, facilities where “Cellulosic Biomass” is listed as only one potential feedstock among multiple (e.g., “Corn/Cellulosic Biomass”) will be assumed to be primarily corn and stover procured from these areas will be assumed to not have an alternative use as an energy cropintervention. ↩
The verifieruse mayof providemarginal thirdemissions partyrates verificationwould duringbe the verificationmost siteconceptually visitsaligned viaapproach on-sitewith reviewa ofconsequential feedstockemissions practicesaccounting framework, utilization,however currently available data and records,methodologies includingfor observationtheir ofcalculation feedstockare stockpiles,not deliveries,sufficient applications,to orpermit otherconfident usesreal-world usage. ↩