CRCF Delegated Act on Permanent CDR Methodologies

NEP welcomes the publication of the draft Delegated Act on permanent CDR methodologies, recognising it as a key milestone in the implementation of the CRCF.

NEP particularly welcomes efforts to ensure regulatory consistency and alignment with existing EU legislation and calls for a rapid adoption of the text.

NEP would nevertheless like to offer several comments and seek clarifications on certain aspects of the draft Delegated Act.

General

1. Activity period

The activity period set out in the Delegated Act is currently limited to a maximum of 10 years.

However this may not reflect the financial and operational realities of most large-scale carbon removal projects. Most subsidy schemes, PPAs, or offtake agreements run for 15 years or more.

Limiting the period to 10 years risks creating misalignment between certification cycles and financing structures, potentially reducing bankability and discouraging investment.

NEP recommends extending the activity period up to a maximum of 15 years to ensure long-term project viability.

2. Definition of ‘operators’

The CRCF framework is built on an ex-post certification logic (Art. 4(1)), where units are only issued after permanent storage is verified.

However, the Delegated Act defines ‘operators’ narrowly, and in a manner which would only cover CO₂ capture facilities (DACCS/BioCCS) or biochar producers (BCR).

This fails to highlight the fact that removal is only completed at the storage step, and hence both capture operators and storage providers should be able to trigger issuance if only one of them is issuing the credit.

NEP encourages the European Commission to allow storage actors (e.g. construction firms, farmers, geological storage providers) to register and trigger unit issuance of unique carbon removal value chains, if they hold full custody and liability.

The ability for actors beyond the capture step to register the carbon removal activity is consistent with the framework’s ex-post certification logic.

Where a solid document management system traces the removal from capture to durable storage, all certification-relevant information can be safeguarded.

In such cases, liability for providing and maintaining the required implementation conditions and their documentation is effectively upheld, ensuring integrity even when the registering operator is not the capture facility itself.

DACCS

1. Temporal matching

NEP welcomes that the Delegated Act supports annual matching until 2029. However, it should be noted that only a limited number of DACCS projects operating at scale are expected to be operational before 2030.

Commercial-scale projects take multiple years to plan, finance, and construct. These projects are designed for long-term operation and require long-term power purchase agreements. This means that even if annual matching is permitted until 2029 in theory, early projects may in practice still be unable to take advantage of this, as they will be obliged to align their design and contractual obligations with future regulatory requirements.

To support the successful deployment of early-stage projects, NEP calls on the European Commission to provide greater flexibility in temporal matching.

For example, for projects commissioned prior to the end of 2029, annual matching could be grandfathered for the duration of the activity period. This would provide developers with the necessary regulatory certainty and enable more viable financial planning for these critical first-mover projects.

This approach would require the maximum duration of the activity period to be extended to 15 years (see above).

In addition pilot projects could also be eligible for annual temporal matching for their lifetime.

Allowing temporal matching for the activity period of the first CDR projects would be analogous to the granting of ‘priority dispatch’ by EU law to renewable energy in the early years of the technology’s deployment.

2. Accounting for the CO₂ removed from sorbent processes

The Delegated Act appears to unintentionally exclude certain DACCS technologies from its scope, particularly those where CO₂ is initially embedded in certain compounds, for example, CO₂ bound in limestone, which is used to initiate the capture process.

The current draft lacks clarity on how CO₂ derived from such feedstocks is to be accounted for.

To address this gap, the term ‘fossil’ can be broadened to encompass these compound-based sources, ensuring that the methodology remains inclusive of current and emerging DACCS technologies.

3. Grid-supplied electricity to DACS plants

Concerning the lifecycle emissions associated with power supply, the draft methodology refers to the EU’s RFNBO Regulation (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/1184 of 10 February 2023 establishing a Union methodology setting out detailed rules for the production of renewable liquid and gaseous transport fuels of non-biological origin).

This Regulation requires that, unless grid-derived electricity can be ‘considered as fully renewable’, associated emissions are calculated based on the average intensity of grid-derived power either at a national or bidding zone level.

The existence of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPAs) is typically used to show that grid-derived electricity is ‘fully renewable’. However for most DACCS developers such PPAs will prove very difficult to secure, as an investment-grade credit rating is required, and these cannot be sourced given the early stage of the sector.

This would have a significant impact on the deployment of these projects and hence the cost down for DACCS technologies where smaller scale projects are crucial for innovation.

NEP proposes that the CRCF methodology explicitly clarifies that for early-stage small-to-mid scale DACS projects, Guarantees of Origin (GoO) certificates may be used to show that the power they consume is ‘fully renewable’.

Safeguards should be added to this allowance, e.g. that GoO certificates come only from recently-commissioned renewable projects; and that the renewable projects are within the same bidding zone.

Temporal matching requirements for GoO certifications should be in line with the overall methodology, i.e. grandfathering of annual matching for the activity period of projects.

BioCCS

1. Alignment with RED: cascade principle & feedstock exclusions

NEP welcomes that the Delegated Act broadly aligns with the Renewable Energy Directive (RED).

For example NEP welcomes that voluntary schemes, recognised by the Commission or the Member States under Article 29 of the RED, can be used to demonstrate compliance with biomass sustainability requirements.

This consistency is critical to ensure that investors and operators are not incentivised to favour bioenergy activities where carbon emissions are not captured, over BioCCS.

However inadvertent inconsistencies remain.

For example the draft Delegated Act text refers to the cascade principle, but BioCCS’s position in the hierarchy of the cascading principle has not yet been defined in the RED.

The cascading principle should only be applied within the CRCF once it has been legally established where BioCCS fits within this hierarchy.

If and when the cascade principle is applied, it should be done in strict consistency with the RED, which only requires this when public funds are being received for energy production.

Given that permanent CDR activities will require some public subsidies in the near term, it should be made clear that the cascade principle should only be applied to BioCCS activities if public subsidies are being provided for energy production, and NOT for carbon removals.

Similarly this consistency should also be applied to Section 4.2 (b) 5(ii) and (iii) of the Annex of the draft Delegated Act.

I.e. Edit the text as per the below:

“(ii) the certification body shall verify that the operator complies with any measures in national implementations of Directive (EU) 2018/2001 that are introduced to ensure that woody biomass is used according to the list of priorities established in Article 3(3) of Directive (EU) 2018/2001, including any derogations introduced by Member States under Article 3(3), if the operator receives support for the energy production.”

“(iii) the certification body shall verify that the operator does not receive direct financial support from Member States to use saw logs, veneer logs, industrial grade roundwood, stumps and roots to produce energy.”

2. Alignment with RED: reporting requirements

Clarity is needed on the requirements to report on biomass type, which should not go beyond those of RED.

The current Delegated Act text introduces non-standard forestry terminology that is unfamiliar to the industry. Schemes like the Sustainable Biomass Program already use well-established feedstock classification systems, and the CRCF should align with those for consistency and practicality.

Additionally, the term industrial grade roundwood (IGRW) is poorly defined in the RED. It encompasses all roundwood except that which is “unsuitable for industrial use.”

This lack of a uniform definition, which will likely end with multiple definitions in practice, will result in inconsistent implementation and undermine reliable feedstock tracking.

NEP therefore recommends that biomass sustainability criteria and reporting align as much as possible with RED and that the reporting requirement aligns with available nomenclature and feedstock classification systems from the approved voluntary certification schemes or national and industry classifications.

3. Newly constructed facilities

Annex Section 4.3. on the “Avoidance of unsustainable demand for biomass raw material” requires newly constructed facilities to demonstrate that they would be economically viable without the carbon capture element.

While NEP recognises and understands the underlying concerns, including those related to the risk of distorting biomass demand, the economic viability test currently in the draft text of the Delegated Act is not the most appropriate or effective mechanism to address these concerns.

NEP encourages the Commission to consider an alternative test.

For example an assessment as to whether a BioCCS facility has a strategic role in the host country’s overall decarbonisation plans, e.g. if it is making use of local or regional biomass supply, or it makes use of existing or planned critical infrastructure.

We would suggest that it is also important to consider the types of installations and their roles in the transition (power only; CHP, biofuels; waste to energy or industry applications) and types of biomass.

Coupled with the sourcing safeguards contained in RED, these measures should be sufficient to enable the deployment of sustainable new build BioCCS facilities, without limiting bioenergy in a manner inconsistent with the common treatment and subsidisation of other renewable technologies.

This could be complemented by accounting for all upstream supply chains emissions for newly constructed facilities, not just those attributed to the energy used by the CCS facility.

4. Treatment of mothballed installations

NEP does not agree that mothballed installations should be considered as ‘newly constructed facilities’. This is irrespective of whether the facilities have changed economic control or not.

Encouraging the conversion of existing infrastructure to BECCS is a sustainable and resource-efficient pathway. It encourages the use of existing installations, reducing the need for new construction and associated environmental impacts, including land-use and carbon footprint, compared to new build.

Therefore there should be no extra requirements on such projects, relative to already-operating biomass installations.

In addition, it is unclear why the definition places specific emphasis on changes in control.

Mergers and acquisitions are a critical mechanism for unlocking investment into decarbonisation projects that might not otherwise proceed, enabling scale, expertise, and capital to be brought together to accelerate climate action.

The proposed language would also have negative impacts on joint ventures between existing facilities and technology partners. It is customary practice in the industry to set up separate legal entities created to house such projects.

We would therefore suggest removing from the text any references to “sites where the CO₂ generating process was previously operational under the control of a different economic entity but where operations had ceased and are restarted after a retrofit or expansion.”

5. Nameplate biomass consumption

The term ‘nameplate biomass consumption’ is not commonly used and would introduce confusion. Its inclusion does not effectively support the intent of Article 4.3.1.

Defining this term based on historical operational data also risks locking facilities into their current fuel sources, thereby discouraging innovation.

The term fails to account for the varying energy densities of different biomass types, making the use of lower density, and potentially more sustainable biomass, commercially uncompetitive.

Furthermore, the term could pose challenges for existing power plants that currently co-fire biomass and plan to transition to 100% biomass in parallel with CCS installation.

The rigidity implied by “nameplate biomass consumption” may hinder such transitions.

NEP proposes replacing the term with the more established term ‘nameplate energy production’.

BCR

1. BCR permanence

Scientific consensus indicates that the inert fraction of biochar carries a negligible risk of re-emission, independent of biochar migration.

While long-term field trials and biochar migration studies remain important scientific objectives, for certification purposes permanence is best ensured through conservative material characterisation and end-use documentation, rather than post-application MRV at the level of individual BCR activities.

The CRCF methodology should therefore define permanence based on a conservative estimate of the stable carbon fraction.

It should also maintain the current approach of recognising application or incorporation as the point of permanent removal, supported by contractual storage assurances, rather than field sampling.

The CRCF methodology should recognise that once the biochar is mixed into a mineral matrix, or in a product, it should not be liable to monitoring as the carbon is in a stable form and therefore consistent with the principles of the CCS directive on monitoring and liability.

2. BCR ‘production batch’

The term ‘biochar batch’ is not clearly defined in the Delegated Act in relation to unit issuance. It is unclear whether multiple batches can be combined into a single issuance request, or whether biochar from different CRCF-compliant pyrolysis facilities can be blended and issued as one carbon removal activity.

Clarity is needed on whether blending and batching across facilities is permitted, ensuring flexibility for commodity-grade use and traceable issuance.

Industrial-scale deployment of BCR will only be possible if biochar packaging units from different facilities can be compliantly blended and incorporated into stable matrices for permanent sequestration.

The object based on which removal units are issued should be the unique chain of activities leading to a durable sink.

3. Soil application limit

The Delegated Act introduces a 50-tonne-per-hectare limit for BCR soil application, but this threshold lacks clear definition.

During the most recent Expert Group meeting, it was clarified that this limit is to be interpreted as cumulative.

NEP welcomes this clarification and urges the European Commission to reflect it explicitly in the final version of the Delegated Act.

About NEP

The Negative Emissions Platform (NEP) is a Brussels-based partnership of European and international organisations focused on carbon removals.

Our members are primarily technology companies, but also include project developers, investors, carbon marketplaces, and buyers of carbon removals.

We provide a forum in which diverse like-minded organisations actively collaborate to improve political and public recognition of carbon removals.