Webinar | Cement and Concrete Book and Claim Framework

In this webinar recorded on March 16, 2026, staff from the Center for Green Market Activation and RMI present their Book and Claim Framework for the Cement and Concrete sector, which is available for download here.

A full transcript of the webinar is available below. Presentation slides can be accessed here. 

HEATHER HOUSE:
Welcome everyone, and good morning. We’re really excited for the webinar today. Thanks so much for joining us. We are gonna be giving an overview of the book and claim framework that our team has been working on over the last year and a half. So we’re really grateful for your attendance, and we’ll be looking forward to all of your questions at the end here. Let’s go ahead and advance.
Our main objective today for the meeting is just to highlight the context and the key features of our cement and concrete book and claim framework that we just recently published. When you drop your Q&A, your questions in the chat box, let us know if you’ve also had a chance to read it or not, it’ll be great to hear from you. But we’re just gonna do sort of a quick background and context, before diving into the details of the book and claim framework, and give you a pretty thorough overview of what we’ve been working on over the last year and a half. If you have any questions throughout the process, feel free to just go ahead and drop them into the chat box, and we’ll get to them once we do wrap up the framework overview. And as a note, you probably heard this when you joined, but this meeting will be recorded so that we can share it publicly. Next slide.
This is the team that has been working on this low-carbon cement and concrete book and claim framework over the last year and a half. RMI and Green Market Activation decided to partner up, and we launched a twelve-plus month design input process where we had thirty-plus stakeholders working alongside us to design this framework. So while this is really the central organizing team and the team that ultimately finalized the framework, there was thirty other faces behind this. And with that, I’m gonna pass it over to Andrew.

ANDREW ALCORTA:
Wonderful. Thank you, Heather. So I wanna provide a little bit of context on the framework before we dive into the details. A lot of this will probably be relatively well-known for many in this group, but I think it’s important to hit on some of these points at least briefly.
The first piece here is on the left we have cement production, but I think broadly we can say cement and concrete are materials that are critically important that we are going to continue to use as we look into the future, at volumes that are absolutely incredible. And the GHGs associated with the production of those materials are something that we really need to get our arms around. And so today, we use about four billion tons of cement annually, and that number is only expected to grow as we look out to 2050. And the challenge is the eight percent of anthropogenic emissions that are represented by cement production today will also only grow, both as demand increases per the graph that you see on the left, but also as other sectors of the economy decarbonize, leaving cement share to be bigger and bigger. And so this is a problem we need to get our arms around, and I think many on this call would agree, is critical to tackle in the coming years. If we go to the next slide.
The challenge is it’s a really hard problem to solve, for a bunch of reasons. The first is the emissions profile of cement and concrete production is just particularly challenging. A very large portion of the overall emissions associated with cement and concrete production are core process emissions, rather than fuel combustion, and so it makes it even trickier to abate than many other challenging sectors. The result is, for a large portion of decarbonization solutions out there, you end up with very high costs for low-emissions products. In many instances you may be looking up to fifty percent cost premium relative to conventional production, at least today, and obviously there are a range of solutions and a range of costs associated with that. But it does make commercializing low-emissions products very challenging.
What it really creates is uncertainty for producers about the demand that they are going to receive for low-emissions materials. This is compounded by the fact that construction demand is somewhat hard to predict to begin with. That goes through cycles. But when you think about the willingness to pay, for a decarbonized material that has traditionally been viewed and sold as a commodity, it puts a real challenge on the producers to be able to justify what can approach a billion-dollar investment in some cases at scale. And obviously, we’re looking at technologies that will change some of that math. But when you’re talking about real capital outlays, there are substantial challenges associated with doing that without very firm demand well into the future.
When you then look at the actual value chain and how production plays out in practice, cement production is concentrated in a region. And generally, there’s some exceptions to this, but generally you try to not move cement all that far. And so finding buyers for a low-emissions product within that catchment area can be quite challenging, even before you get to the next piece here around limited visibility, where buyers often don’t know where low-emissions production may be occurring, right? And finding it is a challenge, particularly finding it where their projects may be sited.
And then finally, if you can tackle all of these other pieces, you have the challenge of a very long and complex value chain where between a cement producer or a concrete producer and the ultimate owner of an asset that is trying to manage the Scope 3 emissions associated with that asset, you often have multiple intermediaries, including contractors that, operate on thin margins and really aren’t going to be willing to take a higher cost input until they know their customer is willing to pay for that low-emissions material.
And so all of these result in a situation where supply is looking for strong demand assurance to allow it to make large capital investments to decarbonize production. And demand is looking around and saying, “I’m struggling to find low-carbon products where I’m building.” And we need some way to break the gridlock that is occurring here.
So if we go to the next page, we see book and claim as a very effective way to break that gridlock and try to accelerate deployment of low-emission solutions. And specifically, the way we envision that happening is you take a low emissions product, you separate the emissions attribute off from that product, and you record it on a certificate, so an environmental attribute certificate like you see at the bottom of that diagram, and you sell that certificate separately to the parties that are looking to manage their emissions. In effect, you are selling the decarbonization value associated with that cement or concrete separately from the physical product. And that allows the physical product to pass through the value chain just like it always has as a gray product without disruption along the way.
We see this system increasing flexibility for both buyers and suppliers by giving them new ways to commercialize for suppliers and to meet Scope 3 targets for buyers. We see it providing demand assurance and firm offtake and revenues for suppliers that are looking at low-emissions production, such that they can make an investment case, to actually produce in that way, work. We see contracting for an attribute rather than the physical product enabling multi-year contracts that can actually ensure revenue not only in year one of a plant’s operations but well into the future, supporting the business case. And finally, we see this as a standardized way to connect supply of low-emissions materials or low-emissions certificates with demand, with the parties that really want to manage Scope 3 emissions and manage their footprint. And by connecting those parties with a standardized product, we believe that you are going to get much faster decarbonization in the sector than forcing each of those parties to work through many intermediaries in the value chain and try to coordinate, kind of a grand deal, a grand coalition bargain each time.
What that enables at the end of the day is supply can finally make investments in large scale low-carbon production, and they know they’re gonna have the revenues to back that up because it is part of an offtake contract for EACs. And demand can, one, directly support decarbonization of cement and concrete production, but importantly, it also allows them a streamlined way to achieve their Scope 3 goals without having to do a lot more coordination work in the ecosystem.
So that brings us to why we pursued a book and claim framework, and now we really wanna kind of walk through, how we thought about that, the principles that drove the development of the framework, the process, and ultimately how we see that fitting within the ecosystem.
So at the top level, what we were trying to do is establish clear and sector-specific guidance for how to apply book and claim within the cement and concrete value chain. The goal of that framework is to enable the transactions that I was just talking about to accelerate the decarbonization of cement and concrete production. As we thought about that, we really believed that six principles had to be true as we looked at the resulting framework.
First, it had to be credible from an environmental standpoint. We had to be representing real emissions reductions, real benefits to the atmosphere, and ensure that we were managing unintended consequences in the space, so that this is really driving towards decarbonization around high-quality solutions.
The second, it had to be usable. It has to ultimately be practical for market participants to transact using the framework if you are going to drive change through it. It can’t be so complex, that market participants are trying to use it and, and just running into various obstacles as they do so.
Third, it had to be compatible with existing regulatory and market constructs. And in particular we thought a lot about the EPD landscape, that already dominates in the built environment, ensuring that our framework was consistent with existing PCRs and the EPD landscape was really important to us as we embarked on this endeavor.
It had to be comprehensive, so it had to look at a range of decarbonization technologies and pathways and really try to find opportunities for all of those to compete within the system.
It had to be unifying. We wanted this to apply broadly and, and really be a global framework that could be, applied from market to market, and ideally that would minimize fragmentation in this landscape so that, the pool of demand that is there can really move using a common set of rules.
And then finally, recognizing that we are in the early days of driving low-emissions production in this space, it had to be adaptable. It had to be adaptable both to new technologies as well as market developments that may come. If we go to the next page.
I wanna talk a little bit about how we actually develop this framework in practice once we aligned on those principles. I’m gonna actually start with the bottom here. We engaged a very large range of stakeholders across the cement and concrete value chain, and I won’t go through every one of the icons at the bottom. but we established a working group, of around thirty members, and it was really important to us that that group contained major buyers that actually wanted to purchase EACs, trade associations and technical parties that could comment on, some of the intricacies associated with the creation of an EAC and alignment with existing PCRs and EPDs, NGOs that could, could comment on the environmental quality criteria, as well as producers in the space, both novel producers that are trying to really reinvent the process of producing low-emission cement and concrete, as well as the traditional majors that operate at scale within the space.
We launched that working group in September of 2024. And really over a year and a half, we worked through a number of very tricky problems, and we’ll touch on some of those over the remainder of the webinar to form the basis of the framework that was ultimately published earlier this month and approved by the steering committee, associated with that working group with very broad support, across many of the stakeholders.
Finally, I wanna, touch on how this fits within the broader standard landscape, if we can go to the next page before, we get into some of the details here. We recognize that we are operating in a complex and busy standards landscape at the moment. GHGP is going through revisions. SBTi is close to releasing a final version of its corporate net-zero framework V2. The AIM platform, for those that may not be familiar, is an effort that GMA, Gold Standard, and C2ES are convening to establish a standard on how you assess quality and value chain association for indirect mitigation mechanisms such as book and claim. And then ISO plays a role both on the underlying product category rules to understand the emissions profile of a cement or concrete product, but also with emerging standards on alternative chain of custody systems like mass balance and book and claim.
And so all of these are important players, and the first thing that I wanna note is we actively engage with all of these parties. And this framework has very intentionally endeavored to be consistent and aligned with the emerging guidance on all of these, leveraging conversations we are having on the side, participation in some of the consultative processes here across the board as well.
And if we go one more slide, I wanna double-click on how we then see all these pieces fitting together. So GHGP and SBTi are the broad voluntary accounting and reporting, as well as target-setting standards, that really dictate the rules of the road for how we think about greenhouse gas accounting as well as voluntary corporate targets.
One layer below that are AIM and ISO that are specifically speaking to how we think about best practice in the use of alternative chain of custody systems, such as a book and claim system, as well as how we think about quality and association as we are using those systems.
Then this cement and concrete book and claim framework sits one level down. It intends to be consistent with everything that you see above it but provide more specific sector-level guidance for how a book and claim framework can be applied to cement and concrete specifically, taking into account the nuances of the sector.
And then finally, one click below that is a registry rule book and an operational technology platform that will take the rules that have been agreed in the framework and actually operationalize them in effectively true/false statements such that this market can transact at scale in a digital registry. We’ll talk a little bit more about this at the end, but we are working towards that last step in the process now.
So hopefully this is, perhaps a little bit of a fire hose, but some background on why we felt the framework was necessary, how we thought about developing the framework, both from a principles standpoint as well as the process that we ran to do so in concert with many of the folks on this call and stakeholders across the ecosystem, and then finally, how we see this framework fitting into, a kind of multifaceted standards landscape that continues to evolve.
We’ll have time for questions at the end. I suspect that generated a few, but for now, let me pass along to Chandler, who is going to begin to walk us through some of the elements of the framework itself.

CHANDLER RANDOL:
Great. Thank you so much, Andrew. My name is Chandler Randol, and I’m a senior associate at RMI. And for the remainder of today’s webinar, we will be highlighting several key components of the framework. I do want to note that at the outset, we won’t have time to cover every single detail, and this is not intended to be a fully comprehensive walkthrough. Instead, our goal is to focus on the most important criteria and concepts that underpin the framework, and would highly encourage you to feel free to submit any questions that you have in the question box throughout this presentation.
Over the next few minutes, I’ll walk through several sections of the framework, including the functional units, eligibility criteria, and the emissions intensity measurement methodology. And after that, I will pass things over to Clayton Gerber, who will cover the remaining sections on issuance, accounting, baselines, and physical recipients.
So with that, we’re gonna get into just the overall concept of book and claim. Andrew, I think, did a great job already covering what book and claim is, but we also recognize this is complicated and important, so I think it’s worth briefly repeating.
At its core, book and claim is a chain of custody model that separates or decouples an environmental attribute from the physical product associated with it. In this case, that environmental attribute represents the lower global warming potential or GWP of a product. The environmental attribute is associated, is issued and sold separately as a certificate. And while the underlying physical product is sold into the market as a gray product or a product that has no underlying environmental benefit.
A common question that we hear is why is a book and claim sector needed in the cement and concrete sector? I think Andrew did a great job covering this already, but one of those key challenges really is the geographic mismatch between where low-carbon materials are produced and where buyers are ready and able to purchase them. As Andrew eloquently explained, book and claim helps bridge that gap between enabling buyers to support low-carbon production even when the physical material cannot be delivered directly to them.
In the diagram on this slide, the top line represents the physical value chain. That is the flow of the actual physical material. And the bottom line represents the virtual value chain, which tracks the flow of the environmental attribute certificates. One important takeaway and something we will return to throughout this presentation is that the virtual value chain is designed to closely mirror how a transaction occurs in the physical value chain. We’ll definitely elaborate on this further as we get into the functional units.
Another point worth emphasizing, especially for those who may be newer to the concepts of book and claim, is that while this approach is new to cement and concrete, it has been successfully implemented in several other sectors. Examples include renewable energy markets, sustainable aviation fuel, and sustainable maritime fuels. These precedents demonstrate how book and claim systems can help scale emerging low-carbon technologies while markets continue to develop.
With that, I’m gonna move us on to spend a couple minutes talking about functional units. As I mentioned earlier, environmental attribute certificate or EAC transactions are designed to reflect how the physical value chain operates. Really importantly, EACs are not denominated in emissions reductions or tons of CO2 avoided. Instead, they’re denominated in the functional unit of the product itself. Or in other words, the functional unit represents the unit in which EACs are issued and traded.
For example, this could be tons of clinker, tons of cement, or a cubic yard or cubic meter of concrete. The choice of functional unit is extremely important because it has significant implications for which decarbonization solutions can participate in a book-and-claim system. For instance, clinker or cement level functional units can capture interventions such as carbon capture and storage or alternative cement manufacturing processes. However, these functional units would not capture downstream interventions that occur at the ready-mix level, such as mix optimization. The functional unit therefore influences who within the value chain is able to generate an EAC.
For these reasons, we worked very closely with the working group to align on three different functional units: clinker, cement, and concrete. These interventions reflect the reality that there is no single pathway to decarbonize the cement and concrete sector, and instead, a range of solutions will be needed across the value chain, and we wanted the framework to accommodate as many credible decarbonization approaches as possible.
On that note, I do want to acknowledge something in the current framework. At present, the framework does not include a pathway for supplementary cementitious material or SCM producers to directly issue EACs. I wanna make clear that SCMs can be incorporated at the current existing functional units, but they cannot directly issue these EACs.
There are several technical considerations and guardrails that we felt required further analysis before incorporating this pathway. One example is the need for a robust methodology to demonstrate the replacement rate of an SCM within cement or concrete. Another is ensuring that the accounting methodologies align with standards that are likely to be accepted across the broader ecosystem of standards bodies. We are actively exploring how direct issuance for SCMs could be enabled in the future, and potential updates to the framework may be considered later in 2026 if a credible and accepted approach is identified.
Moving on, we’ve discussed where in the value chain EACs can be issued. Now we’ll turn to the question of how do we actually define the environmental attribute itself? In other words, how do we determine which products are eligible to generate an EAC? As Andrew mentioned earlier, one of our guiding objectives throughout this process was building on existing market infrastructure and to align the systems as closely as possible with how physical products are already measured and categorized.
One approach is to closely define low-carbon products. In the framework, we aligned with the Global Cement and Concrete Association’s low-carbon rating scheme for cement and concrete. This rating scheme categorizes products based on their emissions intensity relative to benchmarks, such as the country’s average clinker-to-cement ratio or a concrete strength class. The rating scales from G, representing the highest emissions intensity, to AA, representing the lowest.
We felt it was important that EACs be reserved for products that are truly catalytic to the market. In other words, that they should represent emissions levels that are significantly lower than what most producers can achieve under typical operating conditions and often require meaningful operational changes or capital investment. For this reason, the framework establishes an emissions eligibility threshold aligned with the GCCA rating of C through 2030. This corresponds to approximately a forty percent reduction in emissions intensity relative to a conventional benchmark. After 2030, the threshold tightens to a B rating, which corresponds to roughly a fifty percent reduction.
The reason we don’t set the threshold immediately at this B level is that we recognize the wide variety and range of maturity across producers. Some companies are long-established producers with existing infrastructure, while others are newer entrants that are still scaling innovative technologies. This phased approach creates a runway for solutions to reach scale while maintaining an ambitious decarbonization trajectory.
You may also be wondering how does the system apply to clinker? We’ve mentioned cement and concrete, but not clinker. Since the GCCA rating system is defined primarily for cement and concrete, but the cement rating is based on a clinker-to-cement ratio, we derived clinker ratings by setting that ratio equal to one, representing a product that is composed of a hundred percent clinker.
Moving on in this, another important eligibility criteria, relates to regulation. Across many book-and-claim systems, an important principle is that voluntary environmental attribute transactions should be additional to regulatory mandates. To address this, the framework adopts a relative regulatory disclosure approach. Producers issuing EACs must disclose all regulations that apply to their operations, as well as any relevant upstream regulations affecting production. This disclosure enables buyers to evaluate regulatory additionality based on their own procurement criteria. Importantly, this approach is consistent with other book-and-claim systems, including RSB’s book-and-claim manual.
Finally, I want to move on to this catalytic impact, sometimes also called market additionality. As mentioned earlier, EACs are intended to support solutions that go beyond emissions reductions that buyers could readily procure through normal physical purchasing channels. One example of a use case that we do not intend to incentivize is the use of non-beneficiated or non-activated fly ash or slag as the primary intervention for generating EACs. While these materials can reduce clinker, they are already widely available and typically do not involve additional costs or new investments.
More broadly, the expectation is that projects issuing EACs should require EAC revenue in order to be financially viable. In other words, they should demonstrate some aspect of financial additionality. That being said, standardized methodologies for determining financial additionality are difficult to develop and maintain across diverse markets. For that reason, the framework recommends that buyers assess financial additionality using their own internal criteria. This is an area which is likely to be further developed by the Sustainable Concrete Buyers Alliance, or SCoBA, to provide greater guidance.
So to summarize this section, eligible products must meet the GCCA low-carbon rating threshold of C through 2030 and B after 2030. Producers must disclose applicable regulations, and the projects should represent solutions that are additional to the market and financially dependent on EAC revenue.
On to the next slide here. We are going to move a bit deeper into the mechanics of how the system actually functions. In the previous section, we discussed the emissions intensity threshold required for eligibility. In this section, we’ll focus on how those emissions intensities are actually measured.
Andrew started to touch on this, but one of our goals was to align this framework as closely as possible with existing industry infrastructure. To do that, we rely closely on product category rules, or PCRs, and the environmental product declarations, or EPDs, that are developed under those rules. EPDs are widely used within the cement and concrete sector to disclose the lifecycle emissions intensity of products. It’s also worth noting that the GCCA low-carbon rating system we discussed earlier also relies upon EPD data to determine product ratings.
That said, we also recognize several real challenges associated with PCRs. One significant challenge is that PCR system boundaries and rules can vary by region, particularly between the United States and Europe. Clayton will be getting into this a bit in more detail, especially in the accounting section. But in general, we acknowledge the importance of ensuring the products in a company’s emissions inventory and the PCR system boundaries of an EAC product are sufficiently aligned so that products can be compared consistently across regions. There is certainly much nuance within that, and we will get into some of that. But definitely encourage a close reading of the accounting sections and the section four for more details.
Another challenge is that certain emerging technologies are not fully addressed within current PCR methodologies. One example is carbon capture, utilization, and storage, often referred to as CCUS. To address this gap, the Smart EPD Program, which is an environmental declaration program operator, has developed rules which provides guidance on how to account for CCS within EPD calculations.
In cases where regional PCRs do not clearly address CCUS, the framework allows producers to use the Smart EPD Annex A methodology as an alternative approach, which may be included in the EPD’s note section. In addition, because the climate benefit of carbon capture is ultimately realized when carbon is permanently stored, the framework requires that projects involving carbon capture and storage provide a third-party storage certificate. This certificate must disclose key information regarding storage volumes and associated emissions data. And finally, while carbon utilization can play an important role in supporting carbon capture deployment, we also recognize that not all forms of utilization deliver a clear atmospheric benefit. For example, certain applications such as enhanced oil recovery may ultimately lead to additional emissions with the release of additional fossil fuel production. Monitoring the long-term flow of carbon and utilization pathways is also still developing. And for these reasons, for now, the framework has limited eligible carbon utilization pathways to mineralization, where the carbon is chemically bound to stable materials.
So in summary, the framework aligns emission measurements with existing PCRs and EPD infrastructure, and while also providing supplemental guidance such as the Smart EPD CCUS annex to ensure emerging technologies can be accounted for in a credible and consistent way. Thank you so much. And with that, I’m going to pass it over to Clayton.

CLAYTON GERBER:
Awesome. Thanks so much, Chandler. And please keep the questions coming. We’re tracking all those now, and so we’ll make sure that we have the time at the end of the call to be able to address those. I will move on to the next slide here and talk through a little bit about the EAC issuance process and data tracking. And just kinda wanna note that, of course, transparency and accuracy and making sure that we’re actually being able to track and validate certificates is critical to this market being able to transact, being able to really grow and scale and build confidence in the system.
So, at the foundation, the first step of the issuance process is obviously going to be the material as actually being produced. And this is either could be coming from new facilities, or those that are actually already operating. And I’ll come back to the question of kind of commercial agreements in forward transactions. But the first thing is that the material must be produced.
From there, we have the EPD issuance and the verification. And so this will be actually what is underpinning the emissions intensity, calculation and methodology. And it’s supposed to be performed a type three EPD that’s verified, and must be within twelve months from the production, if it’s issued beforehand, or having additional verification on an ongoing basis of the underlying assumptions practices that went into that EPD, process.
There would also, as Chandler noted, need to be an additional step for the carbon sequestration for any carbon capture because that can have losses and other kinds of leakage from the capture to the sequestration. And we wanna ensure that what is actually being reflected is the sequestered CO2, as that’s really what the benefit to the atmosphere is gonna be coming from.
From there, you have the production or sale of the product itself. And now this is the closest kind of proxy to the imminent use of the product that we can kinda reasonably use as a marker to the market. And so while it is not the specific “when was the cement or concrete poured in the facility,” this is kinda the closest “it left the gate,” and therefore we can determine that it has high likelihood of imminent use or else the product would not be continuing to be purchased, and therefore it would not be used.
We do not use necessarily just the production alone because, that can have very different kind of time bound to when the product is actually gonna be implemented, and therefore imp-impacts on things like vintage, et cetera. And we don’t have assurance that the product will be used by just the production alone. And so that’s where, this framework kind of grounds the issuance eligibility upon the sale and distribution of the product itself.
I’ll note that the specific order of these first three steps may vary depending on some of the different use cases. For example, if you have to validate sequestration, that may take slightly longer, and the physical product may have been sold already. And so some of these first few steps can vary slightly. But these are all the pre-issuance steps that need to happen before the actual certificate is going to be booked on a registry.
So it brings me there, to that step. The registry is the data tracking and digital platform that ensures transparency through being able to track the product, what are the underlying assumptions, and the calculations that underpin the product itself. And therefore, when a buyer is then looking to claim and report that certificate, they are able to have the underlying information to make sure that it fits in with their inventory accounting, et cetera.
The registry, we do best practice, and we do recommend that registries are managed by third-party entities to reduce conflict of interest, as well as have public retirement statements to be able to transparently demonstrate to the market the interactions and issuance process to ensure minimal double issuance or other kind of bad actors within the space. I won’t go through all of the requirements, but we do list in the framework a number of data components that should be included in the registry itself and on the certificate. Things like the producer and location, the date of distribution, the functional unit, the EPD, the emissions intensity, and other things like that to really be able to provide the purchaser of that certificate the full gamut of valuable information that might impact how they would report or make claims on the product itself.
Moving then to the transfer on the registry. Once the certificate is booked, this is when the issuer or supplier would then be able to actually transfer the claims to those entities that are then looking to retire and purchase the certificates themselves. And so there may be one co-claimant at the different stages of the value chain, and we outline this in the later section on accounting around co-claiming. And so, while we wanna ensure that there’s only one claimant on each part of the value chain, we recognize that the value chain for these products typically are very long and include multiple stakeholders. And so we want the EAC value chain to be able to match that of the physical product. And so this could, for example, look like an architect or an engineering firm claiming a certificate towards their Scope 3 targets as well as an end user, because that’s how the product and the emissions intensity would typically flow within a physical value chain.
I’ll note that this issuance process is not the full kinda comprehensive registry rule book, and there will be further guidance, from a registry rule book and the registry itself on specific data flows, vintage requirements, and some of the other granular tracking components.
Coming back to the question around kind of commercial agreements and forward transactions, we see forward transactions and offtake agreements to really be catalytic in some of the core components that this sort of system, a book and claim system, can really enable to help those high CapEx long-term investments actually get off the ground. However, it’s important to note that the transaction is separate from the issuance process. And so what that means is you may have a forward offtake agreement and go through that contractual commercial contract, but you cannot actually issue certificates before the product is made. So this is not any form of ex ante kind of emissions accounting like you may see by other kinds of offset projects and things like that, that may need a kind of a forward look. We are really only trying to support this market for book and claim certificates based on actual production of the materials, and that is what then triggers the enablement of the issuance process. So the forward offtake agreement would then be based on how much is expected to be produced, and then once it’s produced, the certificates will be issued and transferred.
Moving on to the next slide, also noting that the EAC accounting is part of this broader landscape, as Andrew mentioned earlier. And so there are a number of different components that we really took into consideration and we’re up to date and tracking closely when thinking about how these certificates should be accounted for, and therefore, what should be on the certificate and how should it be designed. I’ll note that this framework is not a comprehensive accounting protocol or standard, as those are namely gonna be coming from organizations like GHGP or the AIM platform that go into a lot more detail. And so we really felt like it was needed to at least bring in this accounting component to make sure that it’s clear and transparent, the general framework for how you do these, and then provide guidance on where to look to kind of actually operationalize more of the accounting nitty-gritty components.
And so really wanna kinda start with the two different accounting approaches. Both sit within a substitution kind of framework that really looks to substitute or adjust emissions intensities of the products, of the functional unit, as we noted earlier, as opposed to just a base CO2 reduction.
And so the first is on the direct substitution, and this is when the emissions intensity on the certificate is directly replaced for the inventory intensity of an equivalent product of cement or concrete or clinker. And this would be then reported in a separate contractual ledger. And again, important to note here that the ledgers, while the guidance from GHGP and AIM is still being finalized and refined, we do envision that these certificates are going to be reported in a separate ledger than the kind of base location-based ledger. That’s not finalized, but that’s typically going to be the way that we see these EACs being reported, similar to how it is in Scope 2.
Within the direct substitution accounting approach, there are certain guardrails that we wanted to put in to make sure that there is kind of enough equivalence and a tight enough matching for the different functional unit products. And so, for example, from a geographical lens, we do think that for direct substitution, you must match by country or regional level. So for cement, that might mean, if you are buying an EAC from cement in the US, then you would need to be directly substituting that for the emissions intensity of cement that you have within the US or, for example, in the EU. For concrete, given the specificity and localization of the concrete market, those requirements are even further refined to be able to most likely reflect the benefit to the atmosphere and not misrepresent by taking into consideration just regional differences in the baseline emissions intensity.
When we move to enhanced substitution or substitution with kind of adjustments to be able to correct for that regional and product differences, this is when we would look at the baseline for environmental attribute certificate or rather for the low-carbon product itself, the most likely alternative to that market and product, and then calculate the difference and the impact of that from the baseline, and then use that and reflect that in your contractual ledger. And so what this approach looks to do is to be able to internalize some of those regional differences and perhaps some product specificity that the direct substitution would not enable. And so this would mean that you could buy a certificate from a different region, but you must reflect that region has a different baseline. And therefore, the atmosphere is seeing a different impact than if you were to directly substitute it in your inventory, which is from a different area.
So the framework itself goes through a little bit more and has some examples of this. So highly encourage you all to review those and to be able to understand these concepts a bit more. The forthcoming AIM guidance also will look to provide some more guidance and transparency on this. And so as we note at the bottom here, this is again, not the fully comprehensive, accounting guidance, but does at least provide some clarity and lens into how these certificates can be accounted for.
If we go to the next slide, wanting to double-click in section seven here really provides a bit more guidance on that accounting baseline for the case of enhanced substitution. So I’ll note that for direct substitution, the baseline is essentially just what’s in your inventory. So you don’t need any other kind of baselining product. But in the case for enhanced substitution, it really kind of is based on what are you comparing to? What is the likely alternative within the market that you should be kind of using as a reference point to calculate your impact? And so this methodology we provide, we feel is quite pivotal, and therefore, further guidance was, was needed within the framework.
So the, the kind of decision and selection tree follows an approach of first looking at whether the underlying product that’s issuing the EAC is coming from an existing plant where a decarbonization activity is happening from where the plant previously was, or whether it’s coming from an intervention that can kind of on an ongoing basis separate the impact from that intervention. For the second kinda pathway within that, we might think of like CCS, for example. You can separate the impact of CCS on an ongoing basis because you can calculate how much you’re capturing, and therefore what would have been emitted had the intervention not happened.
And so if you can, if you have a previously existing plant or you can capture the ongoing impact, then you should use that facility level data as the baseline because that is most granularly and most accurately what the atmosphere would have witnessed and what would have happened if the intervention did not occur.
If you cannot do that, so let’s say you’re in a new plant that doesn’t have any activity, or you’re looking to engage in an intervention that is therefore changing the operations so much that you cannot have an ongoing separation, an auditable separation. From there, then you would look at, are there specific regional available benchmarks that could be used for that product in the bounds of equivalence. So for example, is it the same cement type or is it the same concrete compressive strength? So those are some of the criteria. We recognize that there are multitude of millions, many, many, many other kinds of specific products and that there are other kinds of criteria to be looking at. But what we see typically is the cement and product type as well as the compressive strength are the most correlated to emissions intensity, and therefore, what we use as the basis, for the baselining methodology. If there is a regionally specific data available, then we recommend using that as the average. If there is not, then we would recommend either going to a GCCA band of D using the normalized clinker factor or if not, using the global average.
And so this is kind of a selection flow. We outline a bit more of this within the appendix as well in the framework, as well as highlight this kinda specific regional averages that we see as credible sources. But that is meant to be a dynamic list that as more granular averages and reference points become published, then we would be able to update that list to enable organizations to use more granular data than having to go to the GCCA bands, for example.
If we click through just to kind of highlight a couple examples here. The first one is on, let’s say, a CCS deployment on an existing facility. And so this in the first question, the answer would be yes to the first question, and therefore, you would use that facility data of what it was without the CCS because you can track that, as I mentioned.
In the second example, for, let’s say, an alternative product, that is a greenfield, and therefore does not have an existing facility to be able to leverage. This would be no, it is not able to track on an ongoing basis or have any previous information. It is based in the US for this example, and therefore there is a regional data baseline that can be used, and therefore you would use that regional baseline.
So if we go on to the next slide. for this one, this is kinda the last section within the framework itself. And we really look to— I provide more guidance and transparency into how the physical recipient should be using or not using in the impacts of the low-carbon product itself. And so what we really wanna do in this section is avoid what’s called double counting of the impact to be able to increase the credibility and trust environmental integrity of the system, which in turn would help with the scaling of this system. What we really want to underpin is these systems need to be credible and have high integrity, and therefore, they may be able to scale, and really help deployment in a much larger impact. If that credibility is at risk, then the market could fail.
And so the physical recipients, as we call them, are the folks who are actually receiving the low-carbon product whose environmental attribute has been separated and sold, elsewhere. And so these are on the top right section of the graph here. And so what you’ll see in kinda small writing there, so this is the contractors or the intermediaries in the end use of the product. And what we want to ensure is that they are not claiming the benefit of the emissions impact from the low-carbon product or the EAC towards their greenhouse gas accounting and reporting. And so double counting or erroneous double counting is when you have two stakeholders at the same place in the value chain accounting for the impact of the low-carbon product. You’re double-taking credit, essentially, for that product where, therefore, you’re overrepresenting the impact in that value chain, in that place in the value chain.
And so instead, what we recommend within the framework is that producers must provide either an EPD that excludes the low-carbon nature of the product and reflects, without the intervention. So for example, in the EU, you don’t need to include the CCS component, or you can’t, in the current EPDs. And therefore, you could reflect that the product without that low-carbon intervention, and therefore, the physical recipient would just be receiving the product without that impact. And therefore, it would just be kind of a more traditional product that they’d be accounting in their inventory.
Or you could provide that baseline factor that we just talked about, in the EPD notes section, and then contractually make aware that the baseline should be used for their corporate inventory reporting. And so we wanna make sure that the physical recipient is using a baseline factor, whether that be from any of their kind of accounting approaches, to be able to not reflect the low-carbon nature of the product being sold and avoid the double counting problem.
With that, kind of wraps up the general framework overview. As we mentioned at the top of the hour here, this is not the full comprehensive dive into every single component of the framework itself. It is quite a long document that has a lot more to be able to leverage. And so we highly encourage you to review the sections, and kind of build upon what we’ve talked about today and get deeper into it.
I see a bunch of questions coming in. So again, keep those coming in, and we’ll try to answer what we can during the time that we have. Before moving to questions, wanna quickly note on the next steps, as some of this might, might answer some of the questions as well. So we will continue to support the development of this broader system through both the market infrastructure that can enable the transactions and the flow of certificates, as well as helping to activate the market through the transactions, both in aggregate as well as bilateral.
And so on the market infrastructure, there are efforts underway to operationalize this through the registry itself, to be able to issue the certificates. And so we are working to further the registry plan itself. I’ll let some others speak to that as part of the questions.
And then also, we are looking to accelerate the decarbonization of the sector, through things, through products such as SEMs and are looking to understand and evaluate the benefits and risks of EAC issuance directly from SEM producers and SEM products. And so as Chandler mentioned, are working through, kind of an additional work stream to understand whether that should be incorporated into the framework in the middle end of this year.
And then on the activation side, we work through the Sustainable Concrete Buyers Alliance that was launched, earlier this year, end of last year, to be able to issue the first RFP in the coming weeks to bring demand together to then help scale suppliers and scale the low-carbon market. What we also see is that we also encourage buyers to be able to engage in bilateral negotiation in contracts themselves. So we don’t see this framework just being for SCoBA or any individual supplier or buyers, but rather, leverageable by the entire market to go through any of their own bilateral conversations and transactions.
And so really, what kind of underpins and really will look to use this framework is the demand and is the market for low-carbon products. And so really demand is the critical component that we need and that book and claim can help support by connecting the demand with the supply. And so we encourage any companies looking to decarbonize their value chain and their footprint to contact us to learn more about the framework, to learn more about SCoBA or how they might be able to engage in bilateral conversations as well.
With that, I think we’re at just at about time for questions. So I will open up and introduce Joan. Joan, if you can take us through the Q&A and kinda direct us to where we wanna go next.

JOAN GIBBONS:
Awesome. Sounds good. Thanks, Clayton.
So hi, everyone. I’m a program manager at GMA, working with the team on the book and claim for cement and concrete. And we’ll go through a lot of questions. So thank you everyone for all your questions. We’ll get through kind of as many as we can in the remaining time. And I’ve done a bit of grouping because I think there’s been some overlap in some of the themes. So right off the bat, we did have a question about registry. And so Heather, if you’re able to hop on, it’d be great to have you answer the question of whether we’re kind of partnering or developing a registry.

HEATHER HOUSE:
Sure. Happy to. Thanks, Joan. As you probably all know, GMA and RMI partnered on SABA, of which we created a registry for SAFc. RMI has also created a registry in the maritime space, Katalist. We both collectively intend to continue building out registries for all the sectors that we’re working on, that includes cement and concrete, chemicals, and steel as well. We have been in sort of an exploratory mode, connecting with a variety of different partners to figure out what the right makeup will look like. But, we will indeed have a registry by the end of this.

JOAN GIBBONS:
Awesome. Thank you, Heather. Andrew, I’m gonna pivot over to you next for a couple of questions. Maybe first, quickly, there was a question that came in, I think, during the initial part of your presentation portion about in what context do you see a long-term contract being possible? It’d be great to have you quickly touch on that, and then we’ll switch to another topic.

ANDREW ALCORTA:
That sounds good, and thank you for the question. I’ll try to stay relatively brief here because I think Clayton covered some of this during his section. But fundamentally what we see here is recognizing that suppliers need firm multi-year offtake to make some of these investments work. What we envision is that contracts will take place that can be signed in the near term, and in many cases, what we have seen, and we may see more creativity in terms of the models that are deployed here, the contracts stipulate payment upon issuance of the EAC. So you will have a firm contract that dictates the volumes that a buyer will purchase, dictates the price at which that purchase will occur, and effectively just says, “And this will be paid within these bounds when the EAC is issued, and we expect it over this timeline.”
So the intent here is that still allows the EAC to be issued when the product is actually sold, and you don’t have to jeopardize or water down that link, which we felt was very important from an integrity perspective. But that doesn’t actually stop or prevent you from being able to contract around that future issuance of the EAC. I hope that’s clear. If there are more questions there, feel free to pop them in and we can follow up.

JOAN GIBBONS:
Awesome. Thanks, Andrew. And the next one for you, we did get a few questions around our engagement with GCCA, and then there’s a few more questions later about the low-carbon rating system itself. But maybe first, can you describe a bit how we’ve engaged with GCCA as their framework has a few different criteria than ours or points of separation?

ANDREW ALCORTA:
Yeah, happy to. We’ve had conversations with the GCCA as we have developed this framework. They were not a member of the working group, but outside of that, we touched base with them on a number of occasions. You know, I’ll probably stay relatively high level here, but what I will say is, we have had, continue to have, productive conversations back and forth, and we believe that minimizing fragmentation in this landscape, particularly when demand remains relatively nascent, is beneficial for the landscape, and we will continue to look for opportunities to collaborate and try to reduce that fragmentation as we continue here over time.

JOAN GIBBONS:
Awesome. Thank you, Andrew. Shifting gears a little bit, I think, Clayton, I have a couple questions for you, maybe starting with eligibility threshold. This kind of relates to the low-carbon definitions, but there was a question about whether threshold is based on offtake agreement or vintage. For example, if an offtaker locks in EACs today for delivery beginning after 2030, do they need to meet the GCCA band B or GCCA band C?

CLAYTON GERBER:
Yeah. Great question. Thank you. Thank you for that. So as I mentioned, we really see this market being kind of that ex post as opposed to ex ante. And so what that means is that the emissions intensity and the eligibility threshold would be based— all of the issuance kind of criteria are based on point of time when the product is produced, distributed, and then therefore booked. And so what that means is that you are gonna be looking at in year thirty, if you’re doing an offtake agreement, for example, today, that has a contract that goes through 2030 or even beyond, you would be looking at, that time specifically, do you meet the eligibility threshold that is for that time? So in that example, you would be looking at B for any certificates that would be issued past 2030.

JOAN GIBBONS:
Thank you. And Chandler, I’ll pivot over to you for the next one. The question was more specifically, I think, related to the GCCA low-carbon definitions, but it’d be great for you to connect on our framework as well. And I think it’s really, is it valid for generally the global market, or are there any regional specific— The question was, is the GCCA bands can only be used for Europe or the US market, but I’d ask you to kind of elaborate on our framework as well with respect to geography.

CHANDLER RANDOL:
Yeah, absolutely. And it’s a great question. Simply yes, the framework is intended to be globally applicable, and that does apply to the low-carbon ratings as well. There are a couple appendices in the framework that describe the clinker-to-cement ratio that can be used to essentially define and normalize the cement rating to a particular country. If there isn’t an applicable clinker-to-cement ratio, you can use a global average to dictate that. And Clayton did a great job covering our accounting baseline as well and can follow that methodology. So yes, it is applicable to the global market, and it would apply for both Europe and the US, including the move from C to B by 2030.

JOAN GIBBONS:
Awesome. Thank you, Chandler. So jumping around a little bit here, ’cause there were a few questions related to the bands as well. I think another one, that I’ll pass over to you, Clayton, is around baselining, and this does have to do kind of with the GCCA low-carbon definition. So can you expand on whether the baseline selection tree ensures that if there’s no specific data, conservative values are used?

CLAYTON GERBER:
Yeah. Yeah, absolutely, and appreciate the question. I think even within the question, there’s actually kind of the rationale for why we chose band D as the global average if you were to be using a non-regionalized metric. And so, in the event that you cannot— there is no regionally available baseline, and you are not issuing from a facility that has existing data or is from a CCS plant or other solutions that can be parsed separately from the intervention itself, then you would go into that, okay, I have to use the GCCA bands. And for that, we chose band D as opposed to band E as a conservative metric, right? And so when we say conservative, when we’re thinking about a baseline, it actually means using the slightly lower baseline, lower emissions intensity, because then you are saying… you’re essentially assuming that the market has a slightly better than average emissions intensity with which you are displacing. And so, that is kind of the main conservative measure that we’ve taken within the framework when there is less granular data to be able to use for the baseline. Now we do hope that there will be more accurate, regionalized baselines that we can leverage to get more specific, but that’s kind of the approach we’ve taken to both enable the broad participation across markets and also erring on the side of conservative when the more granular data is not available.

JOAN GIBBONS:
Thank you, Clayton. Switching gears a bit to a question on regulatory surplus. There was a question about, kind of differences between this book-and-claim framework and other markets in terms of requiring regulatory surplus versus the framework that we just published requires disclosure. Can you just talk a little bit about kind of the approach taken there?

CLAYTON GERBER:
Absolutely. So, we do absolutely feel that regulatory surplus is still a valuable and very important criteria for this market. And so the move to disclosure of regulations and regulatory incentives was primarily in alignment with some of the other frameworks that exist for book and claim certificates and markets. So again, as I think Chandler mentioned, the kind of RSB approach has typically been to focus on disclosure and then allow other standards or other market participants, such as the buyers, to be able to then kinda provide more granular perspectives. The market has been quite kind of evolving on its perspective on certain types of regulations, and we didn’t wanna put out something within this framework that may be changed or underpinned by some of the other broader standards that will likely take positions on this as well. And so we kept the eligibility components to disclosure, and then that allows other standards, whether it be AIM or GHGP, SBTi or others, that will provide more guidance on this to let them kind of take that on, as well as individual companies today. And we see a lot of companies already, either companies or buyers alliances providing their own perspectives on kind of the definition of regulatory surplus. And so therefore, taking this kind of disclosure approach then can enable a little bit more dynamic and adaptable kind of operationalization as the landscape is continuing to change.

JOAN GIBBONS:
Thanks, Clayton. and Andrew, I see you pop on here. Do you wanna add anything to that as well?

ANDREW ALCORTA:
Yeah. No, I think very well said, Clayton. The one minor thing I would add is we really focused on how can you ensure that you are maintaining transparency and effective data flows to enable decision-making. And I think given a lot of the dynamics that Clayton just described, we wanted to ensure that we were providing that transparency and then allow buyers, whether it is buyers groups, individual buyers, and standard setters to make the final decision on exactly how those things should be defined. But we felt it was really important to make sure that that transparency remained, that none of that data was effectively destroyed or masked in the process.

JOAN GIBBONS:
Thanks, Andrew. All right. We had a few questions, there was one around eligibility, and I think specifically also touching on SCMs. I know we mentioned the kind of ongoing work stream, to kind of develop for SCMs and determine whether there’s an additional pathway there. But Clayton, maybe you can expand on that a little bit. The question was around beneficiated fly ash as an SCM, and if it’s been able to produce a certificate with a CAR methodology is available to use in this book and claim system. And then maybe if you can more broadly touch on kind of the approach with SCMs.

CLAYTON GERBER:
Yeah, absolutely. And so the approach is kind of grounding us in the framework itself again. So the approach we’ve taken of the functional units has been to really focus on cement and concrete, both of which SCMs would be able to issue kind of through those functional units by getting the EPDs for the downstream products. And so in both of those routes, SCMs can be used to issue certificates in the framework today. What we are looking to explore over the next few months is this question and consideration for the cap on replacement rate that most SCMs have, to be able to then understand whether there’s a pathway to directly issue a certificate which would come from a potential update in the future to the framework. And so what that means is, in the framework today, a beneficiated fly ash product would not be able to issue directly itself an EAC, and would have to work through a concrete or cement functional unit with the downstream player to be able to issue that certificate. And that again is really based on the technical limitations of the products themselves and the ways with which they’re used in the market. And yes, that is different from like the CAR methodology, but I think it’s important to note that, this system in a kind of budding book and claim value chain interventions market, generally, are not the same as an offset market. And I would also note that if you are already looking to, or already monetizing and selling through an offset market, that you would not also be able to issue an EAC in that as well. There are other offset methodologies for things like mineralization, for example, but you should not be both selling an offset credit and selling an EAC. That would be very clearly kind of double issuing emissions benefits to the market. It should be one or the other.

JOAN GIBBONS:
Thank you for that, Clayton. That’s helpful clarification. There are a few questions related to kind of Scope 1 and Scope 3 claims. So we had a question around whether a cement producer and an end user can both claim the reduction. Similarly, we had questions around kind of whether there’s kind of a bundled Scope 1 and Scope 3 claim, which happens in the SAF space with SAFc. And so Clayton, I’m wondering if you can speak to that a little bit around, claiming in the framework and how we’ve detailed that, and how those claims might be split between different players in the value chain.

CLAYTON GERBER:
Yeah, absolutely. So as I mentioned, the flow of the claims for the certificate, we wanna match as best as possible how that already flows within the value chain for the physical product itself. So let’s take a cement product as an example here. So the producer is gonna be the one who’s actually having the Scope 1 and 2 emissions. They are producing the clinker and the cement using the fuels, having those process emissions that Andrew mentioned as well. So those would be their Scope 1 and 2. And then from there, they sell the product to the various downstream entities. So that goes a general contractor, and then kinda moves on. And all of those downstream players, that product, those Scope 1 and 2 emissions are gonna show up as their Scope 3 emissions.
And so from there, that Scope 3 claim is really what’s being kind of transferred through it with the certificate itself. And that’s what’s gonna be used to reflect the emission benefit to the Scope 3 entities. And so in the physical value chain, that could go from a cement producer to a concrete producer who would then be internalizing the cement emissions as their Scope 3, the input to the concrete, as well as other market players like an engineering, architecture firm, general contractors, concrete contractors, and then the end user itself. So all of those companies typically can claim the same Scope 3 impact from the Scope 1 and 2 of the cement product itself.
And this is pursuant with other book and claim systems, so similar to SAF, where you can have a claimant of a freight forwarder as well as the airline and the end, the end customer. We also would envision the same thing for the cement and concrete, meaning that multiple players within that value chain could also co-claim the Scope 3 impact to the low-carbon product itself. And so, the registry rule book will look to provide more guidance on the kinda specific definition of the points in the value chain. But generally, the framework acknowledges this co-claiming allowability and kind of the ability to have multiple participants justifiably and with environmental integrity still claim the same impact.

JOAN GIBBONS:
Thank you, Clayton, that’s helpful. And I will flag that is outlined in the framework, and we flag that more detail might be established with a registry rule book as to those specific claimant parties.
Moving on to a couple questions around, I think, measurement methodology. There’s a question around kind of CCS and how that might be reflected in a certificate, and alignment with reporting according to GHGP. And there’s kind of another question related to raw material production and whether, if a raw material substitute or alternative fuel carries ISCC PLUS credits, will there be any consideration in EAC issuance of that? Chandler, I might hand that over to you to speak a little bit to the measurement methodology, and how we’ve kind of approached that with respect to following PCRs.

CHANDLER RANDOL:
Yeah, absolutely. I think CCS in particular, there are nascent rules for CCS currently. And so we have pointed to Smart EPD’s Annex A as an opportunity to align to an existing PCR that does have rules. We note and acknowledge that that may not be applicable in every region. And so in that instance, we would recommend to place those in a notes section so it is captured within an EPD, but recognize that it may not be able to actually impact the GWP limits of a PCR in a region that does not allow for a particular PCR rule. So we recognize that we can’t have a conflict between the rules in a particular region, but want to acknowledge that there may be GWP benefits that are not recognized by the rules that exist. And so a notes section would be the most appropriate in the meantime while PCRs continue to develop to enable those additional technologies. And Joan, can you remind me the second question?

JOAN GIBBONS:
The second question had to do with kind of raw material substitutes that might carry additional ISCC PLUS credits. And I think generally we’ve been leaning on PCR guidance within the framework for measurement methodology. And so, while PCRs might not kind of include guidance around everything, every possible scenario, our goal was to align as much as possible with measurement of the physical materials. And so we wanna make sure that we’re continuing and maintaining alignment between low-carbon products that are participating in book and claim and low-carbon products that are not, and ensuring that, especially with respect to policies, procurement policies, things like LEED, other certifications, that we’re kind of maintaining that alignment across both physical and, market-based mechanisms as much as possible. So I’ll leave it there, and Andrew, feel free to add something too, if you’d like.

ANDREW ALCORTA:
Yeah, just very briefly. I would point back to the principle that I highlighted up front of the framework being compatible with the other frameworks that exist in the space. And there were quite a few debates about how far do you stray from existing PCRs, recognizing that at least in some regions, I would assert, PCRs are incomplete for some of the technologies that we have coming. And we really came to the conclusion that the approach Chandler laid out is the best balance between ensuring compatibility with that system, not diverging too far from it, and trying to provide clear guidance while that standard landscape continues to evolve.

JOAN GIBBONS
Thanks, Andrew. And I think too, there was a bit of an element in that question and within the first question I mentioned around aligning with reporting according to the GHG Protocol. And I will flag, I think we mentioned earlier in the presentation around the kind of different standards that are evolving, and our work with the Advanced Indirect Mitigation Platform, the AIM Platform. And so a lot of the work we do outside of the cement and concrete program, but also at GMA, is to help provide guidance around reporting, in a way that helps fill some of those gaps while other protocols and other standards are evolving. And so, we are expecting updates from GHGP in the coming months, and the AIM platform will also be putting out an updated standard and guidance that helps provide some of that reporting guidance, for exactly how these interventions should be reported in different ledgers. So hopefully that answers that question.
Let’s see. There’s been a few that have come in since we started. I’m just doing a quick scan. There’s a question around the contractor and physical recipient. And so I think, Clayton, I might hand this one over to you. But the question was: Would a contractor who is the physical recipient of the lower carbon cement be able to partake in green public procurement programs using those revised EPDs? So I think for this question, we’re assuming that revised EPD might mean the kind of lower carbon number, but maybe you can kind of respond.

CLAYTON GERBER:
Yeah, absolutely. It’s a good question. So, when we look to avoid that double counting, what we really wanna make sure of is that the low-carbon nature of the product is not being reflected in both inventories or use cases. And therefore, what that really looks like is the low-carbon product should be flowing along the physical value chain as if it was a more traditional product in that market. So I think part of that will depend on what is the— whether it be a Buy Clean policy or the procurement policy, like, is it something that is looking at really pushing the threshold of saying, “Hey, we need fifty percent decarbonized product below this industry baseline?” or is it saying, “Hey, we want to not have the worst twenty percent above the market baseline in that market” to really kind of disincentivize the highest emitting products. So I think it will kind of vary based on the actual policy itself. But we would envision it being more acceptable to use that baseline product for applicability to any sort of procurement policy, rather than the low-carbon nature. So the really the kind of goal is to the product should be flowing all across the value chain as if it were a gray product of the baseline intensity. Is there anything else, Andrew, Joan, you wanna add to that?

JOAN GIBBONS:
I think I might just add that I think there’s another question further down around kind of end users taking advantage of other incentives like LEED, WELL Buildings, Buy Clean preferences, which kind of connects to that a bit. And I will say that those programs, and certification programs kind of are evolving as well. And so while we weren’t able to kind of incorporate any sort of book and claim guidance into any of those other policies or programs at this time because we are building this market, it’s nascent, and we are trying to kind of test and operationalize this book and claim framework, there is the potential for there to be kind of interaction down the line, with further evolutions. But really, we didn’t have control over what is accepted by LEED or buy clean policies today. But we hope that there’s kind of further guidance down the road that would allow potentially some interoperabilities, potentially qualifying with EACs or physical materials. We’ve seen kind of precedents for that with LEED and renewable electricity. And so I think there is the potential for kind of flexibility with those programs or with compliance down the road. But to maintain kind of clean and clear guidance for now, we’ve refrained from allowing or recommending kind of any sort of acceptance or qualification with EACs today.
Moving on, Clayton, there was a question— actually, I’m gonna skip over to— there was a couple questions about registry, and Andrew, maybe I’ll hand them over to you. There was a question around timeline for a registry and first transactions, and then there’s kind of questions around, another registry being developed, GCCA maybe building a book and claim registry and how that interacts with the work that we’re doing in the registry space. I will flag that in terms of first transactions, the Sustainable Concrete Buyers Alliance will be launching a procurement in the coming weeks, and so we do expect those to be some of the first transactions. However, there are existing kind of public, bilateral transactions that have already taken place that may be looking to leverage this framework as well. And so we do expect that there might be, as there have been in other sectors, a temporary registry solution that kind of is piloted while the development of the registry is underway in order to really test the design. And Andrew, happy to have you kind of answer the rest of it too.

ANDREW ALCORTA:
Yeah. Joan, I think very well said. So maybe three things that I would note here. One is the framework includes kind of the minimum data necessary for a registry to track. And I would encourage any parties that are engaging in bilateral transactions before a registry is formally developed to ensure that they are looking at that and ensuring they are capturing a minimum of that information, and if they see value in capturing more than that, that’s certainly great.
The second on timeline, it does take time to develop a registry. We’re in conversations with potential partners on the best way to do that. My expectation is it’ll be 2027 when we actually see a platform up and implemented, but we’re still working to hammer out some of the details around that timeline. Hopefully, that provides at least a directional sense for folks, though. And obviously important to come back to Joan’s note that temporary registries may be used in some instances in the interim, as long as robust information is being gathered, and the intent is ultimately to place that into a registry.
I think the third piece on other registries that may be under development, I think it’s important to call out here that that is the case across many sectors and some of that may be inevitable. Ultimately, where we can drive greater standardization and keep a one-stop shop for the sake of simplicity of an emerging market, we will try to do so, but I don’t see fundamental issues with the possibility that multiple registries may exist in the space. There are often choices where registries may operate slightly differently. In some cases, we’ve seen registries publish their retirements, in other cases not. And so there are choices that are made there, some of which may or may not conform to what we’ve traditionally viewed as best practice. We are focused on working with partners to develop a registry that is consistent with this framework, and will meet what we view as best practice. And what I can say is any others that are popping up in the meantime, we wish them well and we hope that they are kind of moving towards some more standards.

JOAN GIBBONS:
Thanks, Andrew. I think we’re getting to the last minute here. I did wanna mention one last question was around the First Movers Coalition and coordination with FMC participants. And I will say that we have engaged with FMC throughout this process. We do hope that folks are able to leverage the framework in order to meet their commitments. And so the intention there is that there is alignment with FMC and supporting those participants.
And I think with that, we are at time. So thank you very much for everyone who has stayed with us for the past ninety minutes. We really appreciate your engagement. We appreciate everyone who has participated in this process over the past year and a half. You all are the experts, and we really appreciate the time and energy spent in helping craft this framework together, and appreciate all of the questions that have come up. The framework can be downloaded from both the RMI and GMA websites. We will be sharing out this webinar recording following today’s session. And we welcome anyone to reach out to our email address. It’s info@buildscoba.org. We can send that out after this as well, for any follow-up questions, or if you’re looking to get engaged with the Sustainable Concrete Buyers Alliance. So thank you all.

ANDREW ALCORTA:
Thank you. Have a great one.