Robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) policy brings carbon removal to the major league

As carbon removal technology and companies continue to mature, a major focus of the industry has turned not to if carbon removal is possible, but if it can continue to scale and grow to combat the devastation currently promised by climate models.

Scalability is the question that looms large above carbon removal, and it’s a worthwhile thing to be concerned about. So, how does carbon removal scale? It’s a complex answer involving market demand, social capital, and technological innovation, but we believe that one of the biggest things that could help carbon removal scale is clear standards and rules for carbon removal.

We need policies governing monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) to clarify standards and rules in carbon removal. Put simply, MRV proves the climate benefit of carbon removal work.

Current challenges in carbon removal monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV)

Leveling the playing field with rules and referees

Currently, there are few standardized rules and definitions around MRV in the carbon removal field, and that’s typical for an industry as it starts to scale up. The field has been innovating and engineering climate solutions that relate to ocean systems, land management, and the carbon cycle — highly complex and specialized technologies that all require unique MRV approaches.

The complexity of the field means that each carbon removal company has to make decisions around the best way to present the research and reporting around their technology, and each carbon removal buyer needs to decide what they want to require from the companies they purchase carbon from. MRV providers are often brought in to help test and prove the quality of carbon removal, but each has their own quality measures. At best this creates inconsistencies across the market that can hurt competition, and at worst it allows private companies to exploit low standards at the detriment of our climate. Aligning on a definition and key markers of “high-quality carbon removal” can help make quality the center of the carbon removal market.

Getting players off the sidelines with a clearer and more transparent market

Carbon removal quality remains subjective and hard to gauge which is a major barrier to entry for new buyers and governments. So far, the industry has attracted roughly 10 billion dollars of public and private investment, but entering a market with different definitions of quality means new buyers — often corporations who are looking to meet their net-zero targets — are regularly required to retain or hire experts at great expense to verify the quality of the carbon removal they want to purchase.

We imagine a marketplace where each carbon removal company’s MRV properties are clearly accessible — so we can easily identify the highest quality removals from lower quality ones — and the information listed is verified to be accurate. When we make MRV information easier to understand, it empowers buyers to “shop around” to find carbon removal companies that align with their goals and mission.

Protecting players by with federal standards and oversight

Carbon removal is set to be the next trillion-dollar industry and that makes it vulnerable to future fraud. We’ve seen poor projects and fraud plague the existing carbon reduction marketopens in a new tab, where some carbon credits had very little climate impact. Carbon removal buyers will be under increased scrutiny for their purchases as the market continues to mature.

Industry-wide alignment around clear standards can help de-risk the industry by making sure carbon removal quality is being clearly and consistently evaluated. This helps build trust in the industry overall, and it can help ensure that all public dollars spent on carbon removal through government investment and procurement are achieving their intended climate impact.

How we get there

The U.S. government has a key role to play in MRV by creating guidance and oversight that sets up the right market structures and removes poor credits from the market entirely. The existing government efforts to set rules and standards for carbon removal MRV, while welcome, fall far short. Right now, as the technology matures, is the perfect moment for the government to create consistency across the carbon removal field in a way that encourages competition and creates more credibility for carbon removal policies and private sector purchases.

Clearly established quality measures and MRV practices would help expand government support and the market because a streamlined process would make it easier to understand what you would get from your purchase. In our report, we highlight Energy Star and Energy Guide as an example from another sector of how clear and equal standards can help empower people to become more scrupulous buyers.

Full list of policy recommendations

Standards

The federal government should resource its technical agencies and national labs to inform third-party quantification standards.
The federal government should issue guidance on minimum viable quantification standards to help accelerate alignment and improve market certainty in the near-term.

Protocols

Agencies should adopt pre-existing protocols in relevant carbon removal policies and programs.
The DOE should fund the National Labs to play a technical assistance role to civil society and private sector efforts on protocol development and improvement.
The DOE and EPA should provide educational resources to help subnational governments incorporate carbon removal protocols into existing programs.

Data collection, reporting, and transparency

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and United States Geological Survey (USGS) should lead systems-level monitoring efforts for agricultural soils, forests, mineral resources, geologic storage capacity, oceans, rivers, and watersheds.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should establish a standard data reporting package for all publicly-funded projects.
In an effort to encourage transparency and accountability, the federal government should maintain a ledger of carbon removal tons generated through federal programs.
DOE should be tasked with issuing a report every two years illustrating data trends and providing nuance to help the public understand the progress, opportunities, and challenges facing the field.

Innovation

The federal government should increase innovation funding on MRV across carbon removal pathways.

Coordination and oversight

Congress should authorize an interagency governmental body, led by OSTP, to align MRV efforts across agencies, inform the development of MRV market infrastructure, and create necessary oversight functions to reduce conflicts of interest.
Congress should sanction the creation of a private-sector led Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO) for MRV providers and registries.

Ultimately, MRV helps the carbon removal market do what any competitive market should: provide people with the goods or services they purchased. Our 25 member alliance—representing companies responsible for virtually all permanent removals to date—support additional regulation for the carbon removal industry because it helps protect the industry as a whole and drive demand in the carbon removal market.