ICR Approves Coal-Abatement Methodology in Principle, Pilot Only

The International Carbon Registry (ICR) has approved a first-of-its-kind methodology for crediting emissions reductions from permanently leaving commercially viable thermal coal reserves unmined — but only in principle, and only for a pilot project. No credits can be issued under it yet.

In early October, the ICR Board approved methodology M-ICR010, Coal Abatement for the Energy Transition v3.0, subject to conditions. The registry announced the decision last Friday. The methodology's developer, TransEnergy Global, may now publish and use it, but the approval does not register any project and does not authorize the issuance of ICR carbon credits.

"This approval is a decision to test the methodology, not a verdict on it," ICR Chief Executive Guðmundur Sigbergsson said in the announcement.

What does the conditional approval change?

For now, very little in market terms. TransEnergy Global must bring its first project into validation within six months of the board decision. No other project can register under the methodology until that first project has been registered and the registry has completed its review of the safeguards in practice.

The ICR plans to reassess the methodology after the first project has been verified, or within 24 months of the approval, whichever comes first. It will also report on the methodology's application to the board at each regular meeting.

The pathway to this point was already long. The methodology passed through public consultation, independent validation by TÜV NORD CERT under ISO 14064-3, and ICR review across three rounds before reaching the board.

Which questions remain open?

The board flagged unresolved issues around three core credit-quality tests: additionality, market leakage and permanence. In the coal-abatement context, these translate into specific evidentiary problems.

The board questioned reliance on the asset owner's own assessment of commercial viability — the claim that a coal reserve would otherwise be mined rests substantially on the developer's economic analysis. It also raised the role of legal rather than economic barriers in ensuring coal stays underground, a distinction that determines whether a project truly changes behaviour or simply credits coal that statute had already locked in.

The registry said the effectiveness of the safeguards cannot be established before a project completes validation, registration, monitoring and verification. The board will make its final determination only after reviewing the first verified project.

Why the pilot structure matters

The conditional, pilot-only approval marks a cautious posture from a registry weighing an entirely new class of abatement claim. Codely avoided extraction differs from standard project types: the emission reduction never physically occurs at a facility, and the counterfactual — that the coal would have been mined and burned — must be proven rather than measured.

That burden explains the staged gates. The six-month validation deadline forces the developer to commit a real asset to scrutiny. The 24-month reassessment window caps how long the methodology can circulate without verified evidence. The board-level reporting cadence keeps the question of leakage and permanence on the agenda rather than deferred.

For buyers of ICR credits, the immediate supply implications are nil. No projects are registered under M-ICR010, and no credits exist. The watch item is whether TransEnergy Global meets its six-month validation deadline and what the first verification report says about the additionality and leakage safeguards the board itself doubts.

The decisive milestone is the board's final determination after the first verified project — or the 24-month reassessment, whichever arrives first.