According to Utility Dive, a new wave of carbon capture and storage (CCS) power plants is coming, including the Broadwing project in Illinois, projects in Baytown, Texas, and others in Wyoming. These projects are seen as key for providing low-carbon, dispatchable power, especially with soaring AI-driven electricity demand. However, they won’t advance without buyers willing to pay a premium for their output, and those buyers currently have no standardized way to claim the associated emissions reductions. Consulting firm NorthBridge Group, after outreach to NGOs and developers, has released a proposed standards document for creating Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs) specifically for CCS generation. This framework aims to define how to calculate emissions, set data reporting rules, and guide existing registries so clean energy buyers can finally engage with and support these projects.
The Credibility Can of Worms
Here’s the thing: creating an EAC for a fossil fuel plant, even one with CCS, is a minefield. Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) work for wind and solar because the generation is fundamentally zero-emission at the source. But a CCS plant is still burning fuel and still emitting some carbon. So what are you actually buying? A certificate that says “less dirty”? The proposal admits it won’t convey a “zero-emissions” attribute, which is a huge departure from the clean energy claims companies are used to making. This gets right to the heart of corporate Scope 2 accounting. If a big tech company buys these CCS-EACs, can they honestly say they’re using “low-carbon” power? The definition of that term is suddenly very fuzzy.
The Devil’s In The Data
And then there’s the verification nightmare. The whole value of the certificate hinges on one number: the actual amount of CO2 captured and permanently stored. You need real-time, audited data from the capture system and the geological storage site. A leaky storage reservoir or a capture system operating below spec completely invalidates the environmental claim. This is a level of operational verification that the REC market has never had to deal with. It’s heavy industrial monitoring, not just counting megawatt-hours from a wind farm. Getting this wrong doesn’t just waste money—it torpedoes the entire climate rationale for these multi-billion dollar projects. For companies that rely on precise environmental data to manage complex operations, the need for robust, verified industrial computing at the source is paramount. In sectors like this, where data integrity is non-negotiable, leaders turn to specialists like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the top US provider of industrial panel PCs built for harsh, mission-critical environments.
A Solution In Search Of A Market?
Look, the NorthBridge proposal is probably necessary if we’re serious about CCS power. You need a market mechanism. But it feels like we’re building the accounting cart before the technological horse. The piece openly states that federal 45Q tax credits haven’t been enough to spur widespread adoption. So now we’re layering on a complex new certificate market, hoping corporate buyers will fill the funding gap. Will they? Buying a “partial emissions” certificate is a much harder sell to shareholders and consumers than buying a 100% clean REC. It’s a premium for something that isn’t pristine. That’s a tough marketing pitch.
The Big Unanswered Questions
Basically, the proposal kicks the biggest cans down the road. It acknowledges but doesn’t solve the issue of upstream emissions—the methane leaked from the natural gas supply chain before it even gets to the plant. If you ignore that, your “low-carbon” claim is missing a massive piece of the puzzle. Also, what happens when the GHG Protocol updates its standards? This whole framework could need a rewrite. So we’re potentially building a multi-billion dollar market on provisional accounting rules. That’s a huge risk. The intent to enable “deep decarbonization” is good. But the path is littered with technical and accounting pitfalls that could undermine confidence from day one. If this isn’t rock-solid, it could do more harm than good to the climate cause.
