The ICVCM gray zone

Eligibility is limited by:

• The version of the methodology applied
• The project's electricity generation capacity

For a more detailed discussion, see our blog on this topic.

Outstanding questions: Only later versions of the methodology were approved. Some projects started under a not-yet-approved version of the methodology and shifted to a later (approved) version. In such cases, which (if any) credits are eligible for the CCP label: (a) All credits since the project, at some point, verified using a CCP eligible version of the methodology; (b) Only those credits issued under approved versions; (c) None of the credits since the project was initially registered under an earlier version methodology (that is not CCP eligible)?

Similarly, some landfill gas (LFG) projects begin by exclusively flaring the captured gas but then later utilize the LFG to generate electricity. Sometimes they start with a smaller capacity (<10MW) and grow the capacity over time. In such cases where projects increase their installed capacity from below the 10 MW threshold to above, as previously asked, is the CCP label vintage-specific? If so, how would the CCP label be applied when a project makes such a change in the middle of a monitoring period?

Question sent to the ICVCM on June 10, 2024. No response to date.

Landfill gas projects are either: 

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ (a) flaring only; or 

‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ (b) capture and utilization of methane for energy (replacing fossil fuels) 

Some projects under type (b) use approved landfill gas methodologies but claim emission reductions using renewable energy methodologies that were “rejected” by the ICVCM (e.g., AMS I.D.). 

Outstanding question: Are such credits CCP eligible? Should the carbon crediting program “partition” the claimed emission reductions and give the label to only a portion (those using the approved methodology) and avoid giving the CCP label to the reductions based on rejected methodologies?

Question sent to the ICVCM on December 12, 2024. No response to date.