This Protocol (A document that describes how to quantitatively assess the net amount of CO₂ removed by a process. To Isometric, a Protocol is specific to a Project Proponent's process and comprised of Modules representing the Carbon Fluxes involved in the CDR process. A Protocol measures the full carbon impact of a process against the Baseline of it not occurring.) provides the requirements and procedures for the calculation of net CO2 equivalent (CO2e) (The amount of CO₂ emissions that would cause the same integrated radiative forcing or temperature change, over a given time horizon, as an emitted amount of GHG or a mixture of GHGs. One common metric of CO₂e is the 100-year Global Warming Potential.)removals (The term used to represent the CO₂ taken out of the atmosphere as a result of a CDR process.) from the atmosphere via Industrial Process Biogenic Carbon Capture and 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”.) (Biogenic CCS). This Protocol is developed for application to Biogenic CCS processes or combinations of processes (e.g., solid sorption1, liquid solvent2, membrane processes3, electrochemistry4, etc.) in which a 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.)GHG Statement (A document submitted alongside Claimed Removals and/or Reductions that details the calculations associated with a Removal or Reduction, including the Project's emissions, Removals, Reductions and Leakages, presented together in net metric tonnes of CO₂e per Removal or Reduction.) can be accurately applied and in which the CO2 captured is stored with >1000 years 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.).
The Protocol ensures:
Specific standards (Standard physical constants as well as standard values set forth by bodies such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or others.) and Protocols which are utilized as the foundation of this Protocol and for which this Protocol is intended to be fully compliant with are as follows:
Additional reference standards that inform the requirements and overall practices incorporated in this Protocol include:
This Protocol was developed based on the current state of the art and publicly available science regarding Biogenic CCS. As Biogenic CCS is still a developing approach to CO2 removal (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.) (CDR) with ever-expanding published literature, this Protocol incorporates requirements that may be more stringent than other available regulations or Protocols. The approach taken here may be altered in future versions of the Protocol in-line with advancements in the available technology and published research.
This Protocol applies to projects anywhere that capture biogenic carbon at a point-source resulting from processing of an eligible biomass feedstock (Raw material which is used for CO₂ Removal or GHG Reduction.) as outlined in the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module, and store this carbon with >1000 years durability via physical or chemical trapping mechanisms laid out in a relevant CO2 StorageModule (Independent components of Isometric Certified Protocols which are transferable between and applicable to different Protocols.) (see Section 8). Projects that capture CO2 that is not of biogenic origin are not eligible. A cradle-to-grave GHG (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).) Statement must also be able to be accurately applied to all processes within the scope of The Project.
See Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module for calculation guidelines.
The Project must consider environmental and social impacts and the Project Proponent (The organization that develops and/or has overall legal ownership or control of a Removal or Reduction Project.) must provide evidence that The Project will do no net environmental or social harm by complying with Section 3.7.1 of the Isometric Standard as well as the following requirements:
The following topics are covered briefly in this Protocol due to their inclusion in the Isometric Standard, which governs all Isometric Protocols. See in-text references to the Isometric Standard for further guidance.
For each specific Project to be evaluated under this Protocol, the Project Proponent must document project characteristics in a Project Design Document (PDD) (The document that clearly outlines how a Project will generate rigorously quantifiable Additional high-quality Removals or Reductions.) as outlined in Section 3.2 of the Isometric Standard. The PDD will form the basis for project verification (A process for evaluating and confirming the net Removals and Reductions for a Project, using data and information collected from the Project and assessing conformity with the criteria set forth in the Isometric Standard and the Protocol by which it is governed. Verification must be completed by an Isometric approved third-party (VVB).) and evaluation in accordance with this Protocol, and must include consideration of processes unique to Biogenic CCS, for example:
Projects must be validated (A systematic and independent process for evaluating the reasonableness of the assumptions, limitations and methods that support a Project and assessing whether the Project conforms to the criteria set forth in the Isometric Standard and the Protocol by which the Project is governed. Validation must be completed by an Isometric approved third-party (VVB).) and project net CO2e removals verified by an independent third party consistent with the requirements described in this Protocol as well as in Section 4 of the Isometric Standard.
The Validation and Verification Body (VVB) (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.) must consider following requisite components:
The threshold for Materiality (An acceptable difference between reported Removals/emissions or Reductions/emissions and what an auditor determines is the actual Removal/emissions or Reduction/emissions.), considering the totality of all omissions, errors and mis-statements, is 5%, in accordance with Section 4.3 of the Isometric Standard.
Verifiers should also verify the documentation of uncertainty (A lack of knowledge of the exact amount of CO₂ removed by a particular process, Uncertainty may be quantified using probability distributions, confidence intervals, or variance estimates.) of the GHG Statement as required by Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard. Qualitative Materiality issues may also be identified and documented, such as7:
Project validation and verification must incorporate site visits to project facilities in accordance with the requirements of ISO 14064-3, 6.1.4.2, including, at minimum, site visits during validation and initial verification to the capture and storage site. Validators should whenever possible observe operation of the capture and storage processes to ensure full documentation of process inputs and outputs through visual observation and validation of instrumentation, measurements, and required data quality measures.
A site visit must occur at least once every 2 years at each location.
Verifiers and validators must comply with the requirements defined in Section 4 of the Isometric Standard. In addition, teams should maintain and demonstrate expertise associated with the specific technologies of interest, including solvent/sorbent chemistry, geological storage of CO2, electricity procurement and heat/power generation.
Competency must be demonstrated through the below relevant sectoral scope accreditations, or through demonstration of relevant experience, in accordance with Isometric's VVB policy:
CO2 removal via Biogenic CCS and subsequent storage is often a result of a multi-step process (such as capture, desorption, CO2 transport, CO2 temporary holding, the CO2 injection process, etc.), with activities in each step sometimes managed and operated by different operators, companies, or owners. When there are multiple parties involved in the process (e.g., injection site operators), and to avoid double counting (Improperly allocating the same Removal or Reduction from a Project Proponent more than once to multiple Buyers.) of CO2e removals, a single Project Proponent must be specified contractually as the sole owner of the CO2e removals. Contracts must comply with all requirements defined in Section 3.1 of the Isometric Standard.
The Project Proponent must be able to demonstrate additionality through compliance with Section 2.5.3 of the Isometric Standard. The baseline (A set of data describing pre-intervention or control conditions to be used as a reference scenario for comparison.) scenario and counterfactual (An assessment of what would have happened in the absence of a particular intervention – i.e., assuming the Baseline scenario.) utilized to assess additionality must be project-specific, and are described in Section 7.2 of this Protocol.
Additionality determinations should be reviewed and completed every five years (aligned with the Crediting Period), at a minimum, or whenever project operating conditions change significantly, such as the following:
Any review and change in the determination of additionality should not affect the availability of Carbon Finance and Verified Credits (A publicly visible uniquely identifiable Credit Certificate Issued by a Registry that gives the owner of the Credit the right to account for one net metric tonne of Verified CO₂e Removal or Reduction. In the case of this Standard, the net tonne of CO₂e Removal or Reduction comes from a Project Validated against a Certified Protocol.) for the current or past Crediting Periods (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.), but if the review indicates The Project has become non-additional, this will make The Project ineligible for future Credits8.
The uncertainty in the overall estimate of the net CO2e removal as a result of The Project must be calculated and transparently presented. The total net CO2e removed over a Reporting Period ([math: RP]; see Section 7.2.1) for a Project, [math: CO_2e_{Removal,\ RP}], must be conservatively (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.) determined, based on the requirements outlined in Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard.
Projects must report a list of all input variables used in the net CO2e removal calculation and their uncertainties, including:
The uncertainty information should at least include the minimum and maximum values of a variable. More detailed uncertainty information should be provided if available, as outlined in Section 2.5.7 of the Isometric Standard.
In addition, a sensitivity analysis (An analysis of how much different components in a Model contribute to the overall Uncertainty.) that demonstrates the impact of each input parameter’s uncertainty on the final net CO2e uncertainty must be provided. Details of the sensitivity analysis method must be provided so that the results can be re-created. Parameters may be omitted from a full uncertainty analysis if a Sensitivity Analysis can demonstrate that the parameter contributes to <1% change in Removal. For all other parameters, information about Uncertainty must be specified.
Biogenic CCS systems are typically operated continuously, with captured CO2 being transported and durably stored using a variety of potential processes. Due to the continuous nature of Biogenic CCS systems, the equations used to calculate removals will pertain to all net emissions occurring over an interval of time. This unit of time is defined as the Reporting Period, [math: RP], which is the time period during which net CO2e removals are claimed by the Project Proponent and submitted for verification. The total net CO2e removal is written hereafter as [math: CO_2e_{Removal}].
GHG emission calculations must include all emissions related to the project activities that occur within the Reporting Period. This includes (i) any emissions associated with project establishment allocated to the Reporting Period (See Section 7.6.3.1) (ii) any emissions that occur within the Reporting Period (See Section 7.6.3.2), (iii) any anticipated emissions that would occur after the Reporting Period that have been allocated to the Reporting Period (See Section 7.6.3.3), and (iv) leakage emissions that occur outside of the system boundary that are associated with the Reporting Period (See Section 7.6.3.4).
In line with the Isometric Standard, this Protocol requires that Removal Credits are issued ex-post (after net Removal from the atmosphere via Biogenic CCS has been achieved). Credits may be issued once CO₂ has been permanently stored in the identified storage reservoir.
The scope of this Protocol includes GHG sources, sinks and reservoirs (SSRs) associated with a Biogenic CCS project. A cradle-to-grave GHG Statement must be prepared encompassing the GHG emissions relating to the activities outlined within the system boundary.
GHG emissions and removals associated with The Project may be as direct emissions (Emissions that are produced by a specific CDR process and are directly controllable.) from a process or storage system, or as indirect emissions from combustion of fuels, electricity generation, or other sources. Emissions for processes within the system boundary must include all GHG SSRs from the construction or manufacturing of any project-specific physical site and associated equipment, closure and disposal of each site and associated equipment, and operation of each process, including embodied emissions of consumables in the process.
Any emissions from sub-processes or process changes that would not have taken place without the CDR project must be fully considered in the system boundary. Biomass feedstock emissions must be calculated as outlined in the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module. This allows for accurate consideration of additional, incremental emissions induced by the carbon removal process.
The system boundary must include all SSRs controlled by and related to The Project, including but not limited to the SSRs in Figure 1 and Table 1. If any GHG SSRs within Table 1 are deemed not appropriate to include in the system boundary, they may be excluded provided that robust justification and appropriate evidence is provided.
Figure 1. Process flow diagram showing system boundary for Biogenic CCS projects[Image: Figure 1]
Table 1. Scope of activities to be included in the system boundary for Biogenic CCS projects
| Activity | GHG Source, Sink or Reservoir | GHG | Scope | Timescale of emissions and accounting allocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Establishment of project | Construction and installation | All GHGs | Equipment and materials manufacture, transport to site and construction site emissions. To include:
| Before project activities start - must be accounted for in the first Reporting Period or amortized in line with allocation rules (Section 7.6.3.1 |
| Initial surveys and feasibility studies | All GHGs | To include any embodied, energy use and transport emissions associated with surveys required for establishment of the project site. | ||
| Misc. | All GHGs | Any SSRs not captured by categories above. | ||
| Operations | Energy use | All GHGs | Energy consumption associated with the project, for example through electricity or fuel use. | Over each Reporting Period - must be accounted for in the relevant Reporting Period (See Section 7.6.3.2) |
| Biomass feedstock sourcing and transport | All GHGs | Biomass feedtock sourcing, transport and processing. | ||
| Consumables (other than feedstock) | All GHGs | Embodied emissions associated with consumables required for operation of the project site (excluding feedstock). | ||
| Waste processing | All GHGs | Waste processing and end-of-life disposal of components used within the process. | ||
| Sampling required for MRV | All GHGs | Sampling required for MRV, including transportation to collect samples, shipping of samples for laboratory analysis and sample processing. | ||
| Staff travel | All GHGs | Flight, car, train or other travel required for the project operations, including contractors and suppliers required on site. | ||
| Surveys | All GHGs | Equipment, energy use and transport associated with surveys e.g. ecological surveys. | ||
| CO₂ stored | CO₂ only | The gross amount of CO₂ removed and durably stored over a Reporting Period. | ||
| Maintenance of project site | All GHGs | To include actual or anticipated maintenance (lifecycle Modules B2[^40]), repair (B3), replacement (B4) and refurbishment (B5) activities associated with project-specific site, equipment, vehicles, buildings or infrastructure over the project lifetime. | ||
| Misc. | All GHGs | Any SSRs not captured by categories above. | ||
| End-of-Life | End-of-life emissions | All GHGs | To include anticipated end-of-life emissions (lifecycle Modules C1-4[^40]). | After Reporting Period - must be accounted for in the first Reporting Period or amortized in line with allocation rules (See Section 7.6.3.3) |
| Sampling required long term monitoring for MRV | All GHGs | Ongoing monitoring, including transportation to collect samples, shipping of samples for laboratory analysis and sample processing. | ||
| Long term ongoing monitoring and surveys | All GHGs | Anticipated equipment, energy use and transport associated with ongoing monitoring and surveys e.g. ecological surveys. | ||
| Misc. | All GHGs | Any emissions source, sink or reservoir not captured by categories above. |
The Project Proponent must consider all GHGs associated with SSRs, in alignment with the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of GHGs, which includes: CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and fluorinated gasses such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). For CO₂ stored, only CO₂ shall be included as part of the quantification. For all other activities all GHGs must be considered. For example, the release of CO2, CH4, and N2O is expected during diesel consumption.
All GHGs must be quantified and converted to CO2e in the GHG Statement using the 100-yr Global Warming Potential (GWP) for the GHG of interest, based on the most recent volume of the IPCC Assessment Report (currently the Sixth Assessment Report).
Miscellaneous GHG emissions are those that cannot be categorized by the GHG SSR categories provided in Table 1. The Project Proponent is responsible for identifying all sources of emissions directly or indirectly related to project activities and must report any outside of the SSR categories identified as miscellaneous emissions.
Emissions associated with a project's impact on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of a project must also be considered. This is covered under Leakage in Section 7.6.3.4.
Biogenic CCS facilities will typically produce marketable co-products, e.g. energy, in addition to conducting CO2 capture activities. The system boundary of a Biogenic CCS project must include the full system as set out in Section 7.2, unless Eligibility Criteria are met which allow a more narrow system boundary to be drawn. Projects that meet at least one of the following Eligibility Criteria in Table 2 may draw a more narrow system boundary which only considers activities related to CCS.
Table 2. Eligibility Criteria for allowing a narrow system boundary for a Biogenic CCS project
| Description | Documentation required | |
|---|---|---|
| EC1 | The Biogenic CCS process is a retrofit to an existing facility that has been operational for at least 3 years prior to the introduction of the Biogenic CCS process. | Records of existing facility activities dating back 3 years. The GHG system boundary in this case is limited to materials and processes necessary for the retrofit and processes that directly contribute to the Biogenic CCS process, this includes existing processes at the facility that are operated at increased capacity to provide for Biogenic CCS (e.g., a steam boiler). |
| EC2 | The Biogenic CCS process is a component of a new facility. The facility can establish that the co-product facility alone is financially viable without the sale of carbon Credits (A publicly visible uniquely identifiable Credit Certificate Issued by a Registry that gives the owner of the Credit the right to account for one net metric tonne of Verified CO₂e Removal or Reduction. In the case of this Standard, the net tonne of CO₂e Removal or Reduction comes from a Project Validated against a Certified Protocol.). | Documentation that the proposed facility has a positive IRR even in the absence of carbon financing. Project Proponents must also provide documentation that CO2 removal is not required by law or common practice for similar new facilities. The GHG system boundary in this case is limited to processes that directly contribute to the Biogenic CCS process, this includes existing processes at the facility that are operated at increased capacity to provide for Biogenic CCS (e.g., a steam boiler). |
| EC3 | The Biogenic CCS process is a retrofit to an existing facility that produces an energy co-product, where the energy produced at the facility is sold into a grid that is regulated under a sufficiently rigorous cap-and-trade program. | Detailed analysis showing the expected reduction in grid emissions intensity. The GHG system boundary in this case is limited to materials and processes necessary for the retrofit and processes that directly contribute to the Biogenic CCS process, this includes existing processes at the facility that are operated at increased capacity to provide for Biogenic CCS (e.g., a steam boiler). |
Emissions associated with activities, consumables, and equipment related to the CO2 capture, transportation and storage processes must always be included the system boundary. In cases where The Project has demonstrated that the co-product facility is non-additional, univseral equipment may be excluded from the system boundary if The Project meets at least one eligibility criteria to qualify for a narrow system boundary (see Table 2). However, additional load imposed on any universal equipment by the operations of the CSS process must be proportionally attributed within the system boundary.
Any energy use within the system boundary must be accounted for through the requirements set out in the Energy Use Accounting Module. In cases where projects exclude emissions associated with the production of an energy co-product, any reduction in the efficiency of the energy production as a result of the CDR process must be counted towards energy use of the CDR process.
Refer to Energy Use Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
Ancillary activities, such as supplementary research and development activities and corporate administrative activities, that are associated with a project but are not directly or indirectly related to the issuance of Credits can be excluded from the system boundary.
Biogenic CCS may have additional impacts on GHG emissions beyond the scope of this Protocol, that are not already associated with marketable co-products. For example, providing a source of secondary low carbon heat or electricity, avoiding landfill emissions and reducing waste transport emissions. These potential impacts are not included in this conservative GHG accounting framework.
The baseline scenario for a Biogenic CCS project is dependent on whether the CCS aspect of The Project is part of a new-build facility, or a retrofit to an existing facility:
The counterfactual is the CO2 stored in the biomass feedstock that would have remained durably stored in the biomass feedstock in the absence of The Project. This is known as ineligible biomass, given that the CO2 stored would have remained stored in the biomass in the absence of the CDR project and is therefore not eligible to count towards Crediting. The Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module sets out requirements for establishing ineligible biomass as part of the Counterfactual Storage Eligibility Criteria. The Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module includes details for quantification of [math: CO_2e_{Counterfactual}].
See Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module for calculation guidelines.
The following sections outline the process for calculating the net CO2e removed for each Reporting Period based on total mass stored during that period, written hereafter as [math: CO_2e_{Removal,\ RP}].
Net CO2e removal for a process utilizing Biogenic CCS must be calculated as follows for a Reporting Period, [math: RP]:
[math: CO_2e_{Removal} = CO_2e_{Stored}\ –\ CO_2e_{Counterfactual} -\ CO_2e_{Emissions} ]
(Equation 1)
Where;
Note: Reversals occur after Credits have been issued so are not included in this equation. See Sections 9.2 and Section 5.6 of the Isometric Standard for further information.
Type: Sequestration
[math: CO_2e_{Stored}] represents the amount of CO2 present in the CO2-containing injectant that is injected and stored in the geologic or engineered storage formation in a given [math: RP]. This is the gross mass stored and does not account for reversals of storage from the storage formation.
This can be calculated by using the mass injected and the average concentration of CO2 in the injectant over a given time period, summed across the whole [math: RP]:
[math: CO_2e_{Stored,\ RP} = \sum_{t=1}^{T} C_{mean, inj,t} \cdot m_{inj,t}]
(Equation 2)
Where:
The mass of CO2-containing injectant, [math: m_{inj,t}], may either be directly measured using a mass flow meter, or may be indirectly measured by combining suitable volume and density measurements. In the latter case, the mass of injectant is calculated as:
[math: m_{inj,t} = V_{inj,t} \cdot \rho_{inj,t} ]
(Equation 3)
Where:
The density of the injectant may be measured either using a calibrated density meter, or may be indirectly measured by combining suitable pressure and temperature measurements. In the latter case, the density should be determined as a function of the pressure and temperature measurements by application of a suitable gas-phase equation of state model. Supporting information, including appropriate published scientific literature and/or internal empirical evidence, demonstrating the accuracy of the applied equation of state must be provided at the point of third party project verification.
Calculation of [math: CO_2e_{Stored}] requires two primary measurements
The concentration of CO2 in the gaseous, dissolved or supercritical CO2 stream must be:
The mass of injectant ([math: m_{Inj}]) is measured via use of a calibrated mass flow meter or volumetric flow meter and density measurements over a defined time interval (Δt). Preference is for high-accuracy flow meters such as coriolis or thermal mass flow meters, although other metering solutions are allowable. Flow metering must meet the following requirements:
In general, the Project Proponent must identify, highlight, and explain any data gaps or missing calibration data, if any occur. The Project Proponent must notify Isometric and the VVB when data gaps or missing calibration data occur and must clearly explain the approach taken and document the missing data within the GHG statement.
For those parameters where frequent, sub-hourly measurements are required (notably CO2 concentration measurements in the CO2 stream, and the measurement of mass of CO2 injected), the Project Proponent must adhere to the following procedure for handling missing data.
Where there are data gaps in measurement of the relevant parameter of up to 30 minutes, the Project Proponent may claim using an average quantity, based on the measurements proceeding and following the data gap.
Where there are such data gaps of longer than 30 minutes, the Project Proponent may apply this approach for up to a 30 minute period within the duration of the data gap, but no more than this. For the remainder of the period of the data gap, i.e. in excess of 30 minutes, no carbon dioxide removal may be claimed, due to a lack of data. In addition, data gaps must account for less than 5% of the data used for the removal calculation within a given Reporting Period, any missing data above this is also not creditable.
Where a calibration is missed, one must be completed as soon as this is noticed. For data collected between when the calibration was required and when it actually took place, a conservative estimate should be used agreed between the VVB, Project Proponent, and Isometric.
The project Proponent must maintain the following records as evidence of gross CO2 stored in injected CO2 or CO2-containing injectant:
Records of all analyses and injections must be maintained by the injection facility or Project Proponent and provided for verification purposes for a minimum of five years.
Type: Counterfactual
Refer to the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module for calculation of counterfactual storage.
See Section 3 of the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module for calculation requirements.
Type: Emissions
[math: CO_2e_{Emissions}] is is the total quantity of GHG emissions associated with the Reporting Period, [math: RP]. This can be calculated as:
[math: {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Emissions}^{}\ = \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Establishment}^{}\ + \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Operations}^{} + \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{End-of-life}^{}+ \ {CO}_{2}^{}e_{Leakage}^{}]
(Equation 3)
Where
The following sections set out specific quantification requirements for each variable.
GHG emissions associated with project establishment should include all historic emissions incurred as a result of project establishment, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 1.
Project establishment emissions occur from the point of project inception up until the first Reporting Period. Establishment emissions may be accounted for in the following ways, with the allocation method selected and justified by the Project Proponent:
The anticipated lifetime of The Project should be based on reasonable justification and should be included in the Project Design Document (PDD) to be assessed as part of project validation.
Allocation of project establishment emissions to removals must be reviewed at each Crediting Period renewal and any adjustments made. If the Project Proponent is not able to comply with the allocation schedule described in the PDD, e.g. due to changes in delivered volume or anticipated project lifetime, the Project Proponent must notify Isometric as early as possible in order to adjust the allocation schedule for future removals. If that is not possible, the Reversal process will be triggered in accordance with the Isometric Standard, to account for any remaining emissions.
GHG emissions associated with [math: CO_2e_{Operations}] must include all emissions associated with operational activities, including but not limited to the SSRs set out in Table 1.
[math: CO_2e_{Operations}] emissions occur over the Reporting Period for the deployment being Credited and are applicable to the current deployment only. [math: CO_2e_{Operations}] emissions must be attributed to the Reporting Period in which they occur. Allocation may be permitted in certain instances, on a case by case basis in agreement with Isometric.
[math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life}] includes all emissions associated with activities that are anticipated to occur after the Reporting Period, but are directly or indirectly related to the Reporting Period. For example, this could include ongoing sampling activities for MRV for the specific deployment (directly related), or end-of-life emissions for the project facility (indirectly related to all deployments).
GHG emissions associated with [math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life}] may occur from the end of the Reporting Period onward, and typically through to completion of project site deconstruction and any other end-of-life activities.
GHG emissions associated with activities that are directly related to each deployment must be quantified as part of that Reporting Period. GHG emissions associated with activities that are indirectly related to all deployments may be allocated in the same ways as set out in [math: CO_2e_{Establishment}].
Given the uncertain nature of [math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life}] emissions, assumptions must be revisited at each Crediting Period and any necessary adjustments made. Furthermore, if there are unexpected [math: CO_2e_{End-of-Life}] emissions associated with a Reporting Period, or the project as a whole, that occur after The Project has ended, then the Reversal process will be triggered to compensate for any emissions not accounted for.
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage}] includes emissions associated with a project's impact on activities that fall outside of the system boundary of a project.
It includes increases in GHG emissions as a result of The Project displacing emissions or causing a knock on effect that increases emissions elsewhere. This includes emissions associated with activity-shifting, market leakage and ecological leakage.
It is the Project Proponent's responsibility to identify potential sources of leakage emissions. As a minimum Biogenic CCS projects must account for market leakage emissions in accordance with the Biomass Feedstock Accounting Module.
[math: CO_2e_{Leakage}] emissions must be attributed to the Reporting Period in which they occur. Allocation may be permitted in certain instances, on a case by case basis in agreement with Isometric.
This section of the Protocol outlines requirements for emissions accounting relating to energy use, transportation, and embodied emissions associated with a CDR project.
Emissions associated with energy usage, whether through electricity or fuel use, must be accounted for throughout all phases of the process.
Energy related emissions may include, but are not limited to:
Process emissions associated with The Project will be calculated by totaling the energy use (thermal and electrical) of all equipment within the project boundary. To determine the energy use, the following measurements must be provided:
Electricity:
When the electricity is provided to the CCS processes via the output of a Biogenic CCS facility which produces electricity, the cradle to grave emissions factor for the bioenergy facility shall be used as the primary emissions factor for calculation of electricity related emissions for the CDR process.
Electricity metering and record keeping must be performed in accordance with the Energy Use Accounting Module.
See Section 3.2.6 of the Energy Use Accounting Module for requirements.
Thermal Energy
Any thermal energy used by the CDR process must be monitored, including steam use, direct combustion of fuels within the CDR process to provide heat, and use of waste heat.
In the case of steam, waste heat, or other thermal inputs to the CDR Process, measurements must be made of the total thermal energy supplied to the CDR Process. Total thermal energy must be measured using the following methods:
Emissions associated with thermal energy and its production, and record keeping, must be performed in accordance with the Energy Use Accounting Module.
The Energy Use Accounting Module provides guidance on how energy-related emissions must be calculated so that they can be subtracted in the net CO2e removal calculation. It sets out the calculation approach to be followed for intensive facilities and non-intensive facilities and acceptable emissions factors.
Refer to Energy Use Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
Emissions related to transportation via freight transportation services, such as rail, truck, or maritime transport must be accounted for, including:
The Transportation Emissions Accounting Module provides guidance on how transportation-related emissions must be calculated in a CDR project so that they can be subtracted in the net CO2e removal calculation. It sets out the calculation approach to be followed and acceptable emissions factors.
Refer to Transportation Emissions Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
Embodied GHG emissions associated with the manufacturing, delivery, and installation of all equipment and consumables that lie within the system boundary must be accounted for in each Reporting Period. Embodied emissions are those related to the life cycle impact of equipment and consumables.
Examples of project-specific materials, equipment and consumables that must be considered as part of the embodied emission calculation include but are not limited to:
Equipment, including:
Equipment and infrastructure for processes relating to the wider facility, for example energy generation or product manufacturing.
CO2 Capture Process:
CO2 transportation:
CO2 storage:
Universal equipment for all processes:
Consumables, including:
Consumables for processes relating to the wider facility, for example energy generation or product manufacturing.
Capture Process:
CO2 storage:
Universal consumables for all processes:
Embodied emissions for equipment used in the wider facility processes, CO2 capture process, CO2 transportation, or CO2 storage must be included the the system boundary. In some cases universal equipment may be excluded from the system boundary if The Project meets the eligibility criteria for a narrow system boundary outlined in Table 2.
The Embodied Emissions Accounting Module sets out the calculation approach to be followed including allocation of embodied emissions, life cycle stages to be considered, data sources and emission factors.
Refer to Embodied Emissions Accounting Module for the calculation guidelines.
Miscellaneous GHG emissions for emissions associated with a given Reporting Period are those not included in the SSR categories provided in Table 1. The Project Proponent is responsible for identifying all sources of emissions directly or indirectly related to project activities.
Miscellaneous GHG emissions must consider direct emissions of non-CO2 GHGs due to process leaks or fugitive emissions, releases, or GHG containing tailgas from:
Quantification of emissions associated with direct emissions of non-CO2 GHGs requires two primary measurements, the measurement of the total quantity of emissions and the analysis of emissions for CO2 and other GHG content. This can be calculated as follows:
[math: CO_{2}e_{MiscProjct} = \sum_{t=1}^{T} m_{em,t} \cdot\ C_{GHG,t} \cdot\ GWP_{GHG}]
(Equation 4)
Where:
The total quantity of direct emissions can be measured by various acceptable methods, including:
The concentration of GHGs in direct emissions must be measured directly via one of the following methods:
The Project Proponent must maintain the following records as evidence supporting calculation of emissions from the CO2 conversion process:
Records of all data and analyses must be maintained by the Project Proponent and provided for verification purposes for a period of five years.
This Protocol provides multiple options for durable storage of CO2. The Project Proponent can choose from available options when submitting their project for verification:
Durability and monitoring requirements for storage in saline aquifers.
Durability and monitoring requirements for storage in mafic and ultramafic formations.
Isometric would like to thank following contributors to this Protocol and relevant Modules:
California Air Resources Board. (2022). Carbon Sequestration: Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/carbon-sequestration-carbon-capture-removal-utilization-and-storage
Environment and Climate Change Canada. Clean Fuel Regulations: Quantification Method for CO2 Capture and Permanent Storage Version 1.0. (2022) https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/eccc/En4-474-2022-eng.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2005). IPCC Special Report on CO2 Capture and Storagehttps://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_wholereport-1.pdf
International Organization for Standardization. (2008). Evaluation of measurement data — Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (ISO JGCM GUM). https://www.iso.org/sites/JCGM/GUM/JCGM100/C045315e-html/C045315e.html?csnumber=50461
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). ISO 14044:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines. https://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2011). ISO 14066:2011 Greenhouse gases — Competence requirements for greenhouse gas validation teams and verification teams. https://www.iso.org/standard/43277.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2017). ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. https://www.iso.org/standard/66912.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 14064-2:2019. Greenhouse Gases - Part 2: Specification With Guidance At The Project Level For Quantification, Monitoring And Reporting Of Greenhouse Gas Emission s Or Removal Enhancements. ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/66454.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 14064-3:2019. Greenhouse gases — Part 3: Specification with guidance for the verification and validation of greenhouse gas statements. ISO. https://www.iso.org/standard/66455.html
International Organization for Standardization. (2022). ISO 9300:2022 Measurement of gas flow by means of critical flow nozzles. https://www.iso.org/standard/77401.html
Isometric. (n.d.). Isometric — Glossary: Defining the terms that appear regularly in our work. Isometric. https://isometric.com/glossary
Matthews, J.B.R. (Ed.). (2018). IPCC, 2018: Annex I: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R. (ed.)]. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of... Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.008
Methodology for assessing the quality of carbon Credits, Version 3.0. (2022, May). https://carbonCreditquality.org/methodology.html
NIST (2015, April 20). Overview of ASTM D7036: A Quality Management Standard for Emission Testing. https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/10/31/overview-astm-d7036.pdf
NIST. (2023). Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices - 2023 Edition. NIST. https://www.nist.gov/pml/owm/publications/nist-handbooks/handbook-44-current-edition
US Department of Energy. (2022) Best Practices for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Direct Air Capture with Storage (DACS). https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/FECM%20DACS%20LCA%20Best%20Practices.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023, April 18). Understanding Global Warming Potentials | US EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved June 14, 2023, from https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
California Air Resources Board (2018). CCS Protocol under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS). https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/CCS_Protocol_Under_LCFS_8-13-18_ada.pdf
Terlouw, T., Bauer, C., Rosa, L., Mazzotti, M. (2021). Life cycle assessment of CO2 removal technologies: a critical review. Energy & Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EE03757E
Shi, Xiaoyang, Hang Xiao, Habib Azarabadi, Juzheng Song, Xiaolong Wu, Xi Chen, and Klaus S. Lackner. "Sorbents for the direct capture of CO2 from ambient air." Angewandte Chemie International Edition 59, no. 18 (2020): 6984-7006. ↩
Custelcean, Radu. "Direct air capture of CO2 using solvents." Annual Review of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering 13 (2022): 217-234. ↩
Fujikawa, Shigenori, and Roman Selyanchyn. "Direct air capture by membranes." MRS Bulletin 47, no. 4 (2022): 416-423. ↩
Renfrew, Sara E., David E. Starr, and Peter Strasser. "Electrochemical approaches toward CO2 capture and concentration." ACS catalysis 10, no. 21 (2020): 13058-13074. ↩
For example, 40CFR195 - Transportation of Hazardous Liquids via Pipeline and 40CCF146.94 - Class VI Wells. ↩↩2
Water neutrality is defined as the total demand for water should be the same after new development is built, as it was before. That is, the new demand for water should be offset in the existing community by making existing infrastructure and homes in the area more water efficient. ↩
ISO 14064-3: 2019, Section 5.1.7 ↩
Lyons, L., Kavvadias, K. and Carlsson, J., Defining and accounting for waste heat and cold, EUR 30869 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-42588-5, doi:10.2760/73253, JRC126383. ↩
Flow meters must be calibrated to national traceable standards by an ISO 17025 accredited metrology laboratory. Flow meters may include critical nozzle flow meters (i.e. ISO 9300:2022 compliant meters), coriolis mass flow meters, and other applicable meters for mixed gas flows, as long as properly calibrated and maintained ↩
Dinh, Trieu-Vuong, In-Young Choi, Youn-Suk Son, and Jo-Chun Kim. "A review on non-dispersive infrared gas sensors: Improvement of sensor detection limit and interference correction." Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 231 (2016): 529-538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2016.03.040↩
Sandoval-Bohorquez, Víctor Stivenson, Edwing Alexander Velasco Rozo, and Víctor G. Baldovino-Medrano. "A method for the highly accurate quantification of gas streams by on-line chromatography." Journal of Chromatography A 1626 (2020): 461355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2020.461355↩