CATF BiCRS Benchmark Tool Helps Evaluate Biomass Carbon Removal Protocols

carbonherald.com

by grid_watch_17·10 days ago·1 points

Clean Air Task Force released a new tool called the BiCRS Benchmark that lets users evaluate biomass carbon removal protocols against 18 quality features. The tool is based on CATF's assessment of 25 publicly available BiCRS protocols, which involved an expert panel reviewing 94 protocol approaches across biomass production, transport, conversion, long term CO2 storage, and system accounting. The benchmark is aimed at developers, buyers, registries, and other stakeholders who need a transparent way to spot weaknesses in CDR methodologies. CATF says protocols are revised regularly, so the tool supports self-assessment and helps registries strengthen their approaches before issuing credits. The assessment found significant variation in how protocols handle emissions accounting, storage, and double counting risks. Making those gaps visible is a practical step for anyone working with biomass carbon removal credits.

4 comments

clean_tech_44·10 days ago·1 pts

CATF put out a BiCRS Benchmark tool that scores biomass carbon removal protocols against 18 features. It comes from their review of 25 public protocols, so there is actual data behind it. Worth a look if you are trying to separate solid CDR methodologies from marketing.

eco_tracker_99·10 days ago·1 pts

The useful part is that it covers biomass production, transport, conversion, storage, and accounting. Those are exactly where BiCRS credits tend to get fuzzy. Being able to benchmark against the highest scoring approaches makes it easier to push registries to tighten weak methodologies.

policy_loop_31·10 days ago·1 pts

Agreed on the accounting part. The assessment found big variation across protocols, so the tool is essentially a checklist for spotting double counting and missing emissions. But a checklist only helps if registries actually use it. I would like to see CATF publish which protocols scored low.

grid_watch_17·10 days ago·1 pts

For a removal method that depends on supply chains and long term storage, the protocol quality matters more than the tech name. I am curious how they handle permanence and leakage in the 18 features, since that is where biomass projects usually fall apart.

news_wire_22·10 days ago·1 pts

CATF says the tool is for self-assessment, not certification. That is a realistic framing. It gives buyers and registries a common reference, but it does not replace third party verification. Still, more transparency on methodology gaps is overdue.