AMC for Carbon Removal Design Decisions Summary Table

The document outlines over 30 design questions and 110 options for creating a government-led Advance Market Commitment (AMC) for carbon removal. It details trade-offs across key operational areas, including market definition, product eligibility, procurement processes, standards, legal structures, and governance models. The guide aims to help governments, industry, and civil society co-create an AMC that fills industry gaps and supports a diverse portfolio of carbon removal technologies.

• An AMC's market definition must determine eligible carbon removal approaches, with options ranging from specific approaches to a mix of low- and high-durability solutions. High-durability focus fills demand gaps for early-stage technologies but may alienate countries relying on nature-based solutions, while a combined portfolio is more inclusive but increases accounting complexity.
• The document identifies several funding mechanisms for member commitments, including 'pay for performance' (such as credit purchases), 'subsidy for performance', and 'pay for practice'. While pay for performance is the most straightforward for accounting and demand creation, pay for practice can support early-stage approaches but makes emissions accounting impossible.
• Geographic eligibility for carbon removal production can be restricted to member jurisdictions or opened to any geography. Opening eligibility to any geography allows less wealthy countries to participate without being members and provides the greatest variety of suppliers, though it increases funding and accounting complexity.
• The AMC must decide whether to define its own product standards and methodologies or leverage existing ones. Creating internal standards allows for a high quality bar across jurisdictions and updates based on science, but is time-intensive and may contradict existing standards.
• Procurement design involves decisions on who conducts solicitations, evaluates projects, and holds final decision-making power. If the AMC conducts solicitations and evaluations on behalf of members, it reduces the administrative burden for members and allows for streamlining, but increases the funding and effort required by the AMC mechanism.
• Legal and institutional structures for an AMC can vary from a single standalone entity to a network of institutions, and from non-profit to for-profit or public-private partnerships. Non-profit designations may be more trusted by the public, while for-profit LLCs have fewer business function limits due to tax status.
• Operational funding for the AMC can be sourced through grants (from members or non-members), membership fees, transaction-based fees, or expenditure-based fees. Transaction-based fees provide a stable funding source but may incentivize larger purchases, whereas membership fees may exclude less-wealthy nations.

APA

RMI (n.d.). AMC for Carbon Removal Design Decisions Summary Table. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/10/AMC-for-CDR-Design-Decisions-Summary-Table.pdf

Chicago

RMI. AMC for Carbon Removal Design Decisions Summary Table. n.d. https://rmi.org/app/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/10/AMC-for-CDR-Design-Decisions-Summary-Table.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=RMI |title=AMC for Carbon Removal Design Decisions Summary Table |url=https://rmi.org/app/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/10/AMC-for-CDR-Design-Decisions-Summary-Table.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{rmindamc, author = {{RMI}}, title = {{AMC for Carbon Removal Design Decisions Summary Table}}, institution = {RMI}, url = {https://rmi.org/app/uploads/dlm_uploads/2025/10/AMC-for-CDR-Design-Decisions-Summary-Table.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }