AMC for Carbon Removal Design Decisions Summary Table

This guide by RMI provides a comprehensive framework of design decisions for establishing a government-led Advance Market Commitment (AMC) for carbon removal. It outlines over 30 design questions and 110 options across categories such as market definition, procurement, governance, and legal structure to help stakeholders co-create an AMC tailored to the needs of the carbon removal sector.

• 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. Choosing high-durability only may "fill demand gap for early-stage high-durability technologies" but could "alienate some countries that rely on nature-based solutions from joining".
• The guide identifies several options for funding types that count toward a member's commitment, including 'pay for performance' (such as credit purchases), 'subsidy for performance', and 'pay for practice'. While pay for performance is the "easiest for accounting", pay for practice "could support early-stage approaches" but is the "most difficult for accounting".
• Regarding eligible buyers and suppliers, the AMC can include national, supra-national, or sub-national governments. Private sector involvement can vary from being "full members of the AMC" to having "corporate membership prohibited", with the latter offering the "simplest governance and procurement models".
• The AMC must decide whether to define its own product standards and methodologies or use existing ones. Creating its own standards allows the AMC to "set a high bar for quality, across jurisdictions" and be "updated over time to reflect best science", though it requires more time and effort.
• Procurement design involves decisions on who conducts solicitations, evaluates projects, and holds final decision-making power. If the AMC contracts with projects directly and resells a portfolio to members via a pooled fund, it "increases liability for AMC mechanism" but "reduces effort for members".
• Legal and institutional architecture options include incorporating as a non-profit, for-profit LLC, public-private partnership, or public benefit corporation. The AMC can be a "standalone" entity, a "network of institutions", or housed "within a single existing institution".
• Governance structures can include a board of directors, advisory board, executive team, steering committee, or member-based governance. The guide notes that including carbon removal suppliers in governance "likely create conflicts of interest if influencing purchasing".
• Operational funding for the AMC can be sourced through grants (from members or non-members), membership fees, transaction-based fees, expenditure-based fees, or carbon regulations. Transaction-based fees are noted as a "more stable funding source" but "may lead to entities reduce number of overall purchases".

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} }