ACR’s New Carbon Capture Rules Could Reshape the Removal Supply Curve: What DAC and Biogenic Credits Mean for Buyers and Developers

What ACR Actually Changed in Its Carbon Capture Standards

ACR’s updated CCS methodology v2.0 now explicitly covers both fossil and biogenic CO₂ sources. That is the biggest change. It expands the eligible project universe beyond conventional industrial capture into DAC, BECCS, and other biogenic carbon removal pathways.

For buyers, that widens procurement options. For developers, it broadens the bankable pipeline.

The framework also tightens MRV around geologic storage. The requirements are designed to parallel the rigor expected under U.S. EPA Class VI and 45Q-style oversight, while applying comparable rules across jurisdictions so credits are easier to compare across projects and countries.

ACR now allows storage in saline reservoirs, depleted oil and gas reservoirs, and producing oil reservoirs with CO₂-EOR. That matters for project finance because reservoir choice affects permitting risk, permanence profile, and buyer acceptance.

Crediting periods are now 12 to 15 years depending on CO₂ source and storage reservoir. Non-EOR projects can renew their crediting periods. That structure is useful for developers modeling long-tenor offtakes and for corporate procurement teams comparing delivery timelines.

A key technical update is the use of revised default GWP values for baseline refrigerants to reflect U.S. regulatory changes effective January 1, 2025. That signals ACR is actively aligning crediting assumptions with current policy and inventory data.

The practical question for buyers is simple. If DAC is now clearly in scope, what does that do to market access, project count, and supply-side bottlenecks?

Why Direct Air Capture Now Has a Clearer Path Into the Voluntary Market

ACR’s v2.0 update creates a more legible registry pathway for DACCS project developers. It treats direct air capture as a first-class eligible source under a methodology built for quantified removals and storage accounting.

That matters commercially because DAC is still a premium, early-stage product. CDR.fyi’s 2025 snapshot says DAC has strong investor visibility but represents only about 8% of contracted durable carbon removal to date. That points to constrained supply relative to demand.

The same snapshot says megatonne-scale voluntary demand likely needs prices below roughly $200 to $300 per tonne excluding subsidies. That is a useful benchmark for buyers testing offtake economics and for developers calibrating project-finance assumptions.

IEA also notes that DAC deployment still depends on scale-up support, including government backing, but also on corporate procurement and accounting frameworks that recognize the negative emissions value of stored atmospheric CO₂.

For buyers, the practical implication is that ACR’s rules can improve contractability. They do not remove bottlenecks around energy input, storage access, MRV cost, or permitting. Those constraints still shape deliverability risk.

That raises the next supply question. If DAC is still scarce and expensive, which biogenic pathways can fill the near-term pipeline more quickly and at different price points?

How Biogenic Carbon Removal Credits Expand the Supply Pipeline Beyond DAC

The big supply-side shift is that ACR now opens the same crediting architecture to biogenic CO₂ sources, including BECCS and BiCRS. That can materially expand the removal pipeline beyond pure DAC developers.

For project developers, this matters because biogenic feedstocks often sit closer to existing industrial assets. Ethanol plants, biomass processing, waste-to-energy, and other point sources can make transport and capture infrastructure less demanding than a greenfield DAC build.

The market is already signaling stronger near-term traction for certain biogenic removals. CDR.fyi’s 2025 biochar snapshot says biochar accounts for 86% of all durable carbon removal credits delivered and 92% of credits retired since Q1 2022. That shows how non-DAC pathways can dominate actual throughput.

Gold Standard’s 2026 PARC consultation points in the same direction. It shows stricter treatment of biogenic carbon and radiocarbon testing to isolate eligible carbon streams in mixed-feedstock contexts. Buyers are clearly demanding hard proof of carbon origin and chain of custody.

For corporate procurement teams, the relevant question is not just whether a credit is a removal. It is whether it is durable, traceable, and feedstock-safe. Biogenic credits can vary widely in permanence, leakage treatment, and upstream sustainability screening.

That leads directly to the competitive benchmark. If ACR broadens eligibility, how does it compare on integrity signals versus Verra and Gold Standard when buyers screen programs for credibility?

Where ACR Now Sits Versus Verra and Gold Standard on Carbon Removal Integrity

ACR is now closer to the broader high-integrity carbon removal ecosystem. ICVCM lists ACR, Verra, and Gold Standard among CCP-eligible programs, which helps institutional buyers map registry choice to integrity screening.

Verra’s CCS methodology VM0049 became operational with DAC modules in October 2024 and later went digital in October 2025. That gives Verra a mature technical pathway for DACCS projects and a strong benchmark for methodological specificity.

Gold Standard has been moving aggressively on removals too. It approved its first engineered carbon removal and storage methodology in 2024 and in April 2026 launched consultations on new and updated methodologies, including its first biochar carbon removal standard.

The practical distinction for buyers is that ACR’s v2.0 positions itself as a more expansive carbon capture umbrella. Verra appears more modular on DACCS, while Gold Standard is emphasizing removals integrity through stricter methodology-specific controls and consultations.

ICVCM’s 2025 impact report says over 51 million credits using CCP-approved methodologies had been issued by October 2025, representing about 4% of 2024 market volume. That suggests integrity-labeled supply is still limited and likely premium-priced relative to the wider market.

The buyer-facing issue now becomes procurement strategy. If multiple standards are converging on removals, what should companies watch on pricing, MRV burden, and delivery certainty before signing offtake?

What Corporate Buyers Should Watch Next: Pricing, MRV, and Deliverability Risks

Buyers should expect a bifurcated market. DAC credits remain scarce and premium, while biogenic removals can scale faster but require deeper diligence on feedstock integrity, permanence, and leakage treatment.

Pricing should be evaluated against technology and contract structure, not just issuance status. The current DAC market suggests sub-$200 to $300 per tonne economics are still a key threshold for broader voluntary adoption, especially outside strategic brand-led purchases.

MRV is becoming a differentiator. ACR’s alignment with Class VI and 45Q-style rigor and Gold Standard’s move toward radiocarbon testing in mixed biogenic streams show that verification costs and data requirements are rising across the removals stack.

Deliverability risk is still substantial. DAC depends on power, heat, CO₂ transport, and storage access. Biogenic projects depend on feedstock contracts, equipment uptime, and local permitting. Procurement teams should ask for milestone-based schedules and buffer against slippage.

The strongest buyer play is to segment procurement by use case. Near-term claims can be served by higher-velocity biogenic credits, while strategic net-zero residuals may justify locking in DAC offtakes with tighter delivery covenants and replacement provisions.

In practice, the market is moving toward a removal supply curve defined less by offset volume and more by verified durability per dollar. That is exactly where ACR’s updated rules become commercially relevant.