Gold Standard Carbon Credits: Buyer’s Guide and Pricing

Gold Standard carbon credits are verified units that represent one tonne of CO2e reduced or removed by a project that meets the Gold Standard for the Global Goals. Unlike generic offsets, these credits come from activities that are independently validated and verified for climate integrity and measurable co‑benefits aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals—think clean cooking, renewable energy, safe water, or land use projects—then issued and tracked with unique serial numbers in a public registry.

This buyer’s guide explains how Gold Standard works from end to end: the rules behind GS4GG, who checks what (validators, verifiers and certification), and which project types are eligible. You’ll learn what sets Gold Standard apart from other crediting programmes, where it fits alongside Verra or ACR, and the practical pros and cons for corporate buyers. We’ll cover how to buy (marketplace, brokers, or direct), what drives price, how to use credits in credible claims, Article 6 and corresponding adjustments, the due diligence steps to take (with a checklist), how biogas/biomethane projects fit, how to verify credits in the registry, and how to avoid greenwashing—before finishing with FAQs and key takeaways.

How the Gold Standard for the Global Goals works

The Gold Standard for the Global Goals (GS4GG) is the rulebook behind Gold Standard carbon credits. It defines what counts, how impacts are measured, and when credits can be issued. Projects must be real, independently verified, and contribute measurable benefits to sustainable development, with GS requiring robust stakeholder engagement, gender-responsive design, and environmental and social safeguards alongside rigorous monitoring, reporting and verification.

Here’s the typical project lifecycle buyers should expect before any Verified Emission Reductions (VERs) are issued:

1. Scope and methodology: The developer selects an eligible project scope (community services, renewable energy, or land use & forestry) and applies an approved methodology—often adapted from CDM or GS-specific methods—to quantify impacts.

2. Stakeholder engagement and safeguards: Local consultation, gender and inclusion requirements, and risk safeguards are documented upfront.

3. Baseline, additionality and SDGs: The project establishes a credible baseline, demonstrates additionality, and maps contributions to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, typically to at least two SDGs.

4. Independent validation: An accredited third-party body reviews the project design against GS4GG rules before implementation.

5. Monitoring and verification: After operations begin, the project monitors results and undergoes third‑party verification to confirm achieved outcomes.

6. Certification and issuance: On successful assurance, the programme issues Gold Standard VERs, each representing 1 tCO2e, with unique serial numbers.

7. Registry listing and retirement: Credits are listed in the public Gold Standard registry (launched in 2018) for transfer and retirement, ensuring full traceability for claims.

For buyers, this process means gold standard carbon credits come with clear MRV, unique serialisation, and a public audit trail from issuance to retirement—making due diligence simpler and claims more defensible.

Governance and assurance: validators, verifiers and certification

Integrity in Gold Standard carbon credits is anchored in clear governance and strict independence. The Gold Standard Foundation sets strategy, while the Secretariat maintains rules and operations under the Technical Governance Committee (GS‑TGC). NGO Supporters provide oversight on major rule changes. Independent assurance is mandatory before any issuance to the public registry.

• Governance: The Foundation Board oversees strategy; at least half its members come from the NGO supporter community.

• Standards and rules: The Secretariat, guided by the GS‑TGC, develops and updates GS4GG requirements and methodologies.

• Auditors (VVBs/DOEs): UNFCCC‑accredited Designated Operational Entities act as Validation and Verification Bodies, auditing projects against GS4GG.

• Independence: The same DOE cannot both validate and verify a project, except for micro‑ and small‑scale activities.

• Certification and issuance: Following successful independent verification, Gold Standard certifies results and issues VERs, each equal to 1 tCO2e, with unique serial numbers.

• Registry: All units are recorded, transferred, and retired in Gold Standard’s public registry for full traceability.

Validation confirms the design meets GS rules before implementation; verification confirms monitored outcomes after implementation. Historically, certification services were provided by an external body; as of December 2024, Gold Standard has updated its assurance model and buyers should rely on the registry record, validation and verification reports, and issuance details when documenting claims about Gold Standard carbon credits.

Eligible project types under Gold Standard

Gold Standard carbon credits can be issued across three scopes, each with general GS4GG requirements and scope‑specific rules. Projects must follow approved methodologies, demonstrate additionality, pass independent validation and verification, and contribute to Sustainable Development Goals. For buyers, supply typically spans household‑scale “people” projects and infrastructure‑scale renewables, plus nature‑based land use.

• Community services: Off‑grid or mini‑grid renewables; end‑use energy efficiency such as efficient cooking and heating; waste management and handling that produces energy or usable products; and water, sanitation and hygiene activities with climate benefit. Common examples seen in the market include efficient cookstoves, household biogas, safe water filtration and borehole rehabilitation.

• Renewable energy: Grid‑connected generation from solar, wind, hydro or waste‑to‑energy, with additional requirements depending on technology. These projects displace fossil power and generate VERs once metered output and emissions factors are verified.

• Land use & forestry: Afforestation/reforestation, changes in agricultural practices, soil organic carbon, and emerging blue carbon activities. GS requires actual tree planting (avoided deforestation is not eligible), activities in areas not forested for at least the past 10 years, and at least 10% of the Project Area set aside as a protected biodiversity zone. Projects near wetlands must avoid planting or interventions in those zones.

These eligibility rules make Gold Standard carbon credits more uniform for due diligence while still offering a broad portfolio across community, energy and nature‑based solutions.

What sets Gold Standard apart from other crediting programmes

When buyers compare independent crediting programmes, Gold Standard stands out for putting sustainable development and community safeguards at the centre of credit quality. The standard’s rulebook (GS4GG) requires robust stakeholder engagement, gender‑inclusive design, and environmental and social safeguards alongside hard climate accounting—so the story behind the tonne is auditable, not aspirational. That’s why many procurement teams view gold standard carbon credits as easier to defend in disclosures and audits.

• SDG‑first design: Projects must contribute to Sustainable Development Goals (typically at least two), embedding co‑benefits in the core standard. By contrast, some programmes such as VCS focus on GHG attributes only and rely on add‑on labels (e.g., CCB) for co‑benefits.

• Independent assurance baked in: UNFCCC‑accredited DOEs act as Validation and Verification Bodies, with separation of roles (no same‑firm validate/verify except for micro and small scale). This keeps conflicts of interest in check before issuance.

• Tighter AFOLU eligibility: Land use & forestry requires actual tree planting; activities aimed at preventing deforestation are not eligible. At least 10% of the Project Area must be a protected biodiversity zone, and wetlands are excluded from planting/intervention.

• Methodology lineage and compatibility: GS can be applied to CDM projects and often uses CDM methods with GS‑specific rules; it does not recognise other independent programmes for generating GS‑labelled credits.

• Transparent tracking: All units are issued as VERs with unique serial numbers and recorded in a public registry (launched in 2018), enabling full traceability from issuance to retirement.

• Community‑scale depth: Strong coverage of household and community services (clean cooking, safe water, household biogas) alongside grid renewables gives buyers diversified access to measurable SDG outcomes.

For corporates seeking high‑integrity claims, these features make gold standard carbon credits a pragmatic choice where impact, assurance and transparency need to align.

Pros and cons for buyers

For procurement teams, the appeal of gold standard carbon credits is the combination of robust MRV, embedded SDG benefits, and transparent tracking. The standard’s governance and safeguards make claims easier to defend with auditors and stakeholders, but those same guardrails can narrow supply in certain categories and influence pricing and availability.

• Strong assurance: UNFCCC‑accredited DOEs validate and verify, with separation of roles (except micro/small scale), before issuance to the public registry.

• SDG co‑benefits by design: Stakeholder engagement, gender‑inclusive design, and environmental/social safeguards are core GS4GG elements.

• Traceability: Public registry (2018 onward) with unique serial numbers from issuance to retirement supports clean audit trails.

• Clear land‑use rules: Actual tree planting, protected‑area set‑asides (≥10%), and wetland exclusions add environmental safeguards.

• Methodology lineage: Frequent use of CDM methods with GS‑specific rules can simplify technical review.

• Eligibility limits: No avoided‑deforestation credits; some AFOLU options are therefore off the table.

• Geographic concentration: The large majority of projects are in developing, low and middle‑income countries; local/domestic options may be limited for some buyers.

• Pricing variability: Prices reflect project type and market dynamics, not quality; projects with complex implementation and strong co‑benefits can price higher.

• Heavier documentation: More safeguards and SDG evidence mean more documents to review; plan time for diligence using validation, verification and issuance records in the registry.

For most corporates, these trade‑offs net positive: gold standard carbon credits offer credible climate impact with auditable SDG outcomes, suitable for high‑integrity claims.

How to buy Gold Standard credits (marketplace, brokers, direct)

You’ve got three practical routes to purchase Gold Standard carbon credits: buy and retire through the Gold Standard marketplace, source via brokers or exchanges, or contract directly with project developers and credit providers. Whichever you choose, insist on traceability in the public registry, validation/verification reports, and clear retirement instructions tied to your claim.

Marketplace (fastest for buy‑and‑retire)

Gold Standard operates a marketplace that allows companies to purchase high‑integrity credits and retire them with full traceability. It’s straightforward for discrete volumes and immediate claims: select an eligible project, review documentation, purchase, and request retirement so your organisation appears in the registry record. This route minimises operational friction and ensures your gold standard carbon credits come with a clean audit trail from issuance to retirement.

Brokers and exchanges (sourcing and liquidity)

In the wholesale market, brokers facilitate non‑standardised or smaller, occasional trades, while exchanges suit frequent trades and larger, standardised volumes. Good brokers can source specific technologies, geographies, or vintages across multiple sellers and handle custody through registry transfer or retirement on your behalf. Ask for project documentation (validation/verification) and the list of unique serial numbers before settlement.

Direct from projects and credit providers (relationships and pipeline)

Credit providers act as aggregators/retailers between developers and buyers, and many developers can sell directly. This path can secure pipeline supply and co‑marketing benefits. Define delivery versus retirement at contract, then confirm every unit’s issuance and transfer/retirement in the Gold Standard registry. For claims, keep the registry linkages (project ID, vintage, serials) on file with your purchase records for the gold standard carbon credits you use.

How pricing works and what drives costs

Prices for Gold Standard carbon credits are set by market dynamics rather than a fixed tariff. In voluntary markets, credits do not clear at a single price: buyers pay premia or discounts based on project type, perceived impact, and delivery terms. Importantly, price is not a proxy for quality—integrity comes from the standard, methodology, and independent verification—while pricing reflects complexity, liquidity, and demand. By contrast, compliance credits tend to exhibit more commodity‑like pricing; voluntary credits are differentiated.

• Project type and MRV complexity: Community services, grid renewables, and land use & forestry have different monitoring, data and verification costs, which flow into unit pricing.

• SDG co‑benefits and “charisma”: Projects with strong, well‑evidenced sustainable development outcomes often command a premium because buyers value credible impact narratives.

• Vintage and delivery timing: Older vintages can discount; immediate delivery/retirement typically prices above forward contracts that carry delivery risk.

• Volume and liquidity: Larger blocks and liquid categories clear tighter; bespoke small lots or niche geographies can price higher per unit.

• Assurance and transaction fees: Validation/verification costs, registry issuance/transfer fees, and greater documentation requirements add to delivered price.

• Intermediation and FX: Broker spreads, financing terms, and currency movements shift the all‑in cost to the buyer.

• Policy and eligibility factors: Programme rules (e.g., tighter land‑use eligibility) can constrain supply and influence price.

Delivered price = Project ask + assurance/registry fees + broker/exchange costs + FX + delivery/retirement charges

Practical tip: compare total delivered‑to‑retired costs across suppliers, and always tie purchased Gold Standard carbon credits to project IDs, vintages, and serial numbers for clean audit defensibility.

Using Gold Standard credits in corporate claims

Turning Gold Standard carbon credits into credible corporate claims comes down to transparency and retirement. In the voluntary market, end‑users purchase credits to counterbalance greenhouse gas emissions, then prompt retirement so the claim is exclusive. Because each Gold Standard VER equals 1 tCO2e and carries a unique serial number in the public registry, you can evidence exactly what you bought, when it was retired, and what impact it represents.

• Anchor your claim in retirement: Retire the units in the Gold Standard public registry and keep the project name/ID, vintage, and serial numbers on file.

• Be precise with wording: Reference the programme and unit type: “Gold Standard for the Global Goals” and “Verified Emission Reductions (VERs).”

• Match quantities and periods: Align the number of VERs (each = 1 tCO2e) with the emissions period you are counterbalancing.

• State the impact type: Specify whether the project delivers avoided emissions or enhanced removals, as applicable.

• Disclose project details: Name, country, scope (community services, renewable energy, or land use & forestry), methodology, vintage, volume, retirement date.

• Avoid double‑use and compliance framing: Voluntary credits are for voluntary claims; unless explicitly accepted, they cannot fulfil compliance obligations.

• Recognise co‑benefits accurately: If you reference SDG outcomes, cite the specific SDGs the project documents.

Suggested claim template: In FY2024, [Organisation] purchased and retired [X] Gold Standard VERs (1 tCO2e each) from [Project name, ID, country; vintage YYYY] to counterbalance residual emissions, as recorded in the Gold Standard registry on [retirement date].

Corresponding adjustments and Article 6 explained

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement creates international crediting pathways. Under Article 6.2, countries can transfer mitigation outcomes bilaterally as ITMOs; under Article 6.4, a UNFCCC‑supervised mechanism issues A6.4ERs (with the option for eligible CDM projects to transition). To avoid double counting between a host country’s NDC and a buyer’s use of credits, countries may apply a “corresponding adjustment” to their national accounting—essentially a book‑entry that ensures a tonne used elsewhere is not also claimed at home.

Gold Standard carbon credits are voluntary VERs, not A6.4ERs. They are widely used for voluntary claims and, unless explicitly accepted into a compliance regime, cannot fulfil compliance obligations. In contrast, Article 6 units are designed for use toward NDCs or authorised international transfers and come with government authorisation and accounting under the Paris framework.

What this means for buyers

Before you reference Article 6 in claims tied to gold standard carbon credits, be clear on the unit type and its intended use. Most corporate buyers use GS VERs for voluntary claims backed by retirement in the public registry. If you need Paris‑aligned units for compliance or policy‑driven claims, you should look for authorised transfers and the host country’s commitment to apply a corresponding adjustment.

• Confirm the unit type: VER (voluntary) vs A6.4ER or ITMO (Article 6).

• Check authorisation: Is there host‑country authorisation for “other use” and will a corresponding adjustment be applied?

• Match claim to unit: Use GS VERs for voluntary counterbalancing; reserve Article 6 units for settings that require authorised, adjusted outcomes.

• Keep evidence: Retain project ID, serials, retirement record, and any host‑authorisation documentation relevant to your claim.

Clarity on Article 6 and corresponding adjustments helps you avoid double‑counting risks and keeps your claims about Gold Standard carbon credits defensible.

A buyer’s due diligence checklist

Before you commit budget, build a simple but rigorous process that ties every tonne you buy to verifiable evidence. The aim is to ensure your Gold Standard carbon credits are eligible under GS4GG, independently validated and verified, transparently issued, and correctly retired so your claim is exclusive and defensible.

1. Confirm unit type and standard: Units are Gold Standard VERs (1 tCO2e each) under the Gold Standard for the Global Goals.

2. Check project scope eligibility: Community services, renewable energy, or land use & forestry only.

3. Land use guardrails (if applicable): Actual tree planting required; areas not forested for ≥10 years; ≥10% of Project Area set aside as protected; no planting/intervention in wetlands.

4. Methodology and additionality: Identify the approved methodology (often CDM‑derived) and review baseline/additionality justification.

5. Stakeholder and safeguards: Evidence of local consultation, gender‑inclusive design, and environmental/social safeguards.

6. Validator and verifier: UNFCCC‑accredited DOE(s) performed validation and verification; confirm separation of roles (except micro/small scale).

7. Assurance documents: Obtain final validation and verification reports, with monitoring period covered.

8. Certification and issuance: Verify issuance in the Gold Standard public registry, including issuance date and volume.

9. Serialisation: Record unique serial numbers, project ID, vintage, and volume linked to your purchase.

10. Transfer vs retirement: Define in contract and confirm in the registry; your claim must be tied to retired units.

11. SDG contributions: Cite the specific SDGs claimed and retain supporting project documentation.

12. Article 6 clarity: Do not imply corresponding adjustments unless host-country authorisation and accounting evidence are provided.

13. Vintage alignment: Match vintage and retirement timing to the emissions period you are counterbalancing.

14. Evidence pack: Keep the contract, invoices, DOE reports, registry screenshots/CSV of serials, and retirement confirmation together.

This checklist keeps procurement disciplined and ensures your gold standard carbon credits support clear, audit‑ready claims.

Biogas and biomethane: where Gold Standard credits fit

Anaerobic digestion projects can generate Gold Standard carbon credits when they meet GS4GG rules, apply an approved methodology, and pass independent validation and verification. In practice, biogas activities appear under community services (household‑scale), waste management that leads to energy or usable products, and renewable energy where waste‑to‑energy supplies a grid. For buyers, this provides a clear route to support circular, measurable climate impact with traceable VERs in the public registry.

Where biogas fits under GS4GG

• Community services (household biogas): Small digesters that provide clean cooking or heating at household/community level.

• Waste management and handling: AD that treats organic waste and produces energy or a usable product (e.g., biogas for heat/power).

• Renewable energy (waste‑to‑energy): Biogas‑to‑power supplying a national or regional grid as a renewable source.

Practical checks for buyers

Focus your review on: project scope and methodology selection; evidence of stakeholder engagement and safeguards; UNFCCC‑accredited DOE validation and verification; SDG contributions; and issuance/retirement records in the Gold Standard registry tied to unique serial numbers.

Why technology choices matter

For integrators and end‑clients, high‑efficiency upgrading and tight process control strengthen outcomes that underpin credible claims. Best‑in‑class systems can guarantee around 99.5% biomethane recovery and significant CO2e reduction, while advanced contaminant and oxygen control, robust dehydration, automation, and optional CO2 capture improve operational performance. Credit issuance still depends on the applicable Gold Standard methodology and successful independent verification.

How to verify credits in the Gold Standard registry

Before you make or publish a claim, the public Gold Standard registry is your single source of truth. Every unit of Gold Standard carbon credits carries a unique serial number and a recorded status from issuance to retirement. Verification is simply matching what you were sold to what the registry shows—by project, vintage, volume and serials—then confirming retirement for an exclusive claim.

• Find the project: Search the public registry by project name or project ID, then open the project record.

• Confirm the unit type: Check that issued units are Gold Standard VERs (1 tCO2e each) under GS4GG, and note the methodology and monitoring period.

• Match vintages and volumes: Compare the issuance/transfer batch and vintage year(s) to your purchase documents.

• Check serial numbers: Cross‑check the serial range(s) provided by the seller against the registry listing for exact alignment.

• Verify status: Ensure units you intend to claim are marked “retired” (not merely “issued” or “transferred”). Confirm retirement date and quantity.

• Tie to your organisation: Where applicable, confirm the retiring account/beneficiary aligns with your company or your designated retiree.

• Review assurance: Note the validator and verifier (UNFCCC‑accredited DOE) and the verification period referenced in the record.

• Keep an evidence pack: Save the project ID, vintage, serials, and retirement record. If a seller cannot provide project ID and serials for Gold Standard carbon credits, do not proceed.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid greenwashing

Even with high‑integrity standards, buyers can still misstep and undermine otherwise credible claims. Greenwashing most often creeps in through vague wording, weak evidence, or using the wrong units for the wrong purpose. Build your process so every tonne you claim from Gold Standard carbon credits is traceable, exclusive, and described accurately.

• Claiming without retirement: Always retire VERs in the Gold Standard registry and cite project ID, vintage, and serials. Transfers don’t equal claims.

• Using price as a proxy for quality: Cost reflects market dynamics and project type; integrity comes from GS4GG rules, validation/verification, and issuance.

• Vague or inflated claims: State that you used Gold Standard VERs, specify tonnes and period, and describe impact type (avoidance vs removal) without exaggeration.

• SDG overreach: Only reference SDGs evidenced in project documentation; avoid broad social claims you can’t substantiate.

• Article 6 confusion: Don’t imply corresponding adjustments or NDC use unless you have host‑country authorisation and documentation; GS VERs are for voluntary claims.

• Mixed unit types: Don’t combine different standards in one claim without clear attribution; keep Gold Standard carbon credits distinct.

• Vintage misalignment: Match vintage and retirement to the emissions period you’re counterbalancing.

• Insufficient audit trail: Keep DOE validation/verification reports, issuance records, serial lists, contracts, and retirement confirmations together.

Treat communications as an evidence‑backed summary of what the registry already proves. If a statement about your Gold Standard carbon credits can’t be tied to serialised, retired units and the underlying assurance documents, don’t publish it.

Frequently asked questions

If you’re short on time, this FAQ distils the essentials buyers ask most about Gold Standard carbon credits. Use it as a quick cross‑check during procurement and communications, and always anchor your claims in the Gold Standard public registry with project IDs, vintages and serial numbers.

• What exactly is issued under Gold Standard? Verified Emission Reductions (VERs), each equal to 1 tCO2e, uniquely serialised and listed in the public registry.

• Which project types are eligible? Three scopes: community services, renewable energy, and land use & forestry. Avoided deforestation is not eligible; actual tree planting is required for forestry.

• Are SDGs mandatory? Yes. Projects must demonstrate contributions to at least two Sustainable Development Goals alongside robust climate accounting.

• Who checks the projects? UNFCCC‑accredited DOEs act as Validation and Verification Bodies. The same DOE cannot both validate and verify, except for micro/small‑scale projects.

• How do I buy? Via the Gold Standard marketplace (buy‑and‑retire), through brokers/exchanges, or directly from project developers/credit providers—with registry traceability.

• How are prices set? By voluntary market dynamics and project characteristics (type, MRV complexity, vintage, liquidity). Price is not a proxy for integrity.

• Can I use GS credits for compliance? Not unless a regime explicitly accepts them. They’re primarily for voluntary claims backed by registry retirement.

• Do I need “corresponding adjustments”? Only if you intend Article 6‑type or NDC‑related use. Standard GS VERs are for voluntary claims and don’t inherently include adjustments.

• How do I avoid double counting? Retire units in the public registry and keep the retirement record (project, vintage, serials) tied to your claim.

• Where do I verify units? In the Gold Standard registry: match project ID, vintage, volumes and serial numbers, and confirm status as “retired” for exclusive claims.

Glossary of key terms

Use this quick glossary to decode procurement docs, registry entries and claims. It focuses on what buyers need to source, verify and communicate about Gold Standard carbon credits with confidence, keeping definitions short, practical and aligned to GS4GG requirements.

• Gold Standard for the Global Goals (GS4GG): The rulebook that governs project design, safeguards, assurance and issuance.

• Gold Standard carbon credits (VERs): Units of 1 tCO2e issued under GS4GG and serialised.

• Registry: Public database recording issuance, transfers and retirements with project details.

• Validation: Independent pre‑implementation review against GS4GG rules and methodology.

• Verification: Independent audit of monitored results after implementation.

• Certification: Programme step confirming verified results and triggering issuance.

• DOE/VVB: UNFCCC‑accredited auditor performing validation or verification (not both, except micro/small).

• MRV: Monitoring, reporting and verification that underpins quantification and issuance.

• Additionality: Evidence the project wouldn’t proceed as designed without carbon finance.

• Baseline: Credible counterfactual used to measure emission impact.

• Vintage: Year(s) the reductions/removals occurred prior to issuance.

• Serial number: Unique identifier enabling traceability of each VER.

• Retirement: Permanent cancellation in the registry to support exclusive claims.

• Scopes (Community services/Renewable energy/Land use & forestry): Eligible GS project categories.

• SDGs: UN Sustainable Development Goals that projects must contribute to.

• Article 6 / A6.4ER / ITMO / Corresponding adjustment: Paris mechanisms and accounting; distinct from GS VERs unless authorised.

• CDM: UN Kyoto‑era programme; many GS methods are CDM‑derived.

Key takeaways and next steps

Gold Standard carbon credits are serialised VERs (1 tCO2e) issued under GS4GG after independent validation and verification, with SDG contributions built into the rulebook. For buyers, the playbook is simple: verify the project, confirm issuance, retire the units, and communicate precisely with evidence.

• Integrity by design: UNFCCC‑accredited DOEs validate and verify; registry serials provide end‑to‑end traceability.

• SDG outcomes: Projects must demonstrate contributions (typically at least two), supported by safeguards and stakeholder engagement.

• Clear eligibility: Community services, renewable energy, and land use & forestry (actual planting; ≥10% protected area; no wetland interventions; no avoided deforestation).

• Pricing realities: Cost reflects project type, MRV complexity, volume, vintage and liquidity—not quality.

• Buy routes: Marketplace for fast retirements; brokers/exchanges for sourcing; direct contracts for pipeline—always tie to registry serials.

• Claims discipline: Retire units, cite project ID, vintage and serials; avoid implying Article 6 adjustments unless authorised.

Next steps: define your claim, shortlist eligible projects, collect DOE reports, purchase and retire, then file an evidence pack. If you’re integrating anaerobic digestion and biomethane solutions and want high‑efficiency upgrading aligned to credible MRV, talk to 99pt5 Ltd about engineering your pathway from gas to claim.