Market Watch Brief · CD-VM0043-2026
Verra · VM0043 Draft v2.0 · #CN0128 Brief · September 2026

VM0043 Cuts Cement Displacement to 6.5%

Verra's draft revision reduces the default cement displacement factor by roughly four-fifths. It is the dominant term in the credit calculation for CO2-in-concrete projects.

By Vaibhav Jain · Climate Decode · · 7 min read

DEFAULT CEMENT DISPLACEMENT FACTOR30 - 6.5per cent, proposedA cut of roughly 78% in the dominant term of the credit calculation-78% STATUS · NOT YET PUBLISHEDv1.1remains the effective methodologyConsultation closed 10 Aug 2026, expert review proposals closed 27 Aug CLIMATE DECODE · VM0043 REVISION

At a glance

Cement displacement

30% TO 6.5%

The proposed default falls by roughly four-fifths. It is the dominant term in the credit calculation for this project type.

Status

IN EXPERT REVIEW

Consultation closed 10 August 2026; expert-review proposals closed 18 September, extended from 27 August. v1.1 remains the published methodology.

Direction of travel

DEFAULTS OUT

Generous static defaults give way to project-based calculation, in line with the wider VCS revision programme.

Our view

A default value is not a technical footnote when it sits in the numerator. Cement displacement is the term that converts a volume of concrete into a volume of credits, and moving it from 30% to 6.5% is not a refinement of the methodology — it is a restatement of what the project type is worth.

The more useful signal is the pattern. Across the VCS book Climate Decode is watching the same substitution: positive lists giving way to project-specific demonstration, and generous defaults giving way to measured values. Developers who built financial models on published defaults are the ones this turn is aimed at, and concrete is simply where it is most visible this quarter.

VM0043 v2.0

What the revision proposes

Verra has consulted on a major revision to VM0043 CO2 Utilization in Concrete Production, v1.1, carried under methodology development ID #CN0128 and intended to result in the publication of v2.0. The public consultation ran from 10 July to 10 August 2026. Verra issued a Request for Proposals for independent expert review on 30 July, with proposals originally due 27 August 2026; Verra later extended the deadline to 18 September 2026.

Parameterv1.1Proposed v2.0
Default cement displacement factor30%6.5%
Mineralisation efficiencyStatic default (60%)Project-based calculation, default updated
Natural carbonationOutside the calculationFolded into emission reduction and removal
Eligible optional activitiesCore CO2 injection onlyPlus SCMs, CO2 process water, steam curing, RCA

Alongside the quantification changes, the revision adds four optional project activities: use of supplementary cementitious materials; process water carrying dissolved CO2; reduction of process-related CO2 emissions from steam curing; and mineralisation of CO2 into recycled concrete aggregate feedstocks. It also aligns the treatment of liquid-CO2 processing emissions with VMD0056 and VM0049. The revision is sponsored by CarbonCure Technologies, which is also a technical contributor, alongside 3Degrees.

Status note

As at 18 September 2026 the revision has not been published. VM0043 v1.1 remains the effective methodology, and every figure above describes a draft that has completed consultation and is in independent expert review. The final v2.0 values may differ from the consultation draft. Nothing here should be read as a change already in force.

The arithmetic

Why the displacement factor dominates

CO2 utilisation in concrete credits two distinct things. The first is the CO2 mineralised into the concrete itself and held there. The second, and much the larger, is the cement avoided: injecting CO2 strengthens the mix, so less cement is needed for the same performance, and cement is where the emissions are. The cement displacement factor is the assumption that governs how much cement is treated as avoided.

That is why a move from 30% to 6.5% is not a marginal adjustment. Holding everything else constant, a factor cut by roughly 78% cuts the dominant component of the credit yield by roughly the same proportion. Projects transitioning to v2.0 should expect materially fewer credits per unit of concrete produced, before any additional conservatism from netting out natural carbonation.

Natural carbonation compounds it in the same direction. Concrete absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere over its life whether or not a project intervenes. Folding that baseline uptake into the calculation removes from the credit a quantity that would have occurred anyway — correct in accounting terms, and a further reduction in net creditable volume.

Working against those two, the four new optional activities widen what a project can claim for. Supplementary cementitious materials and recycled concrete aggregate in particular open revenue lines that v1.1 did not reach. Whether the widening offsets the tightening is a project-specific calculation, and Climate Decode's expectation is that it will not, for most existing facility configurations.

Action

What developers and buyers should do now

For developers with CO2-in-concrete projects in the pipeline, the immediate task is to re-run volume forecasts against the consultation draft rather than the published v1.1, and to treat the draft numbers as the planning case rather than the downside case. A project whose financial model only works at a 30% displacement factor is a project whose model needs revisiting before the next financing conversation, not after v2.0 publishes.

For buyers holding or contracting forward volumes from this pathway, two questions belong in the next counterparty call. First: which methodology version do your delivery assumptions rest on. Second: what happens to contracted volumes if the project transitions to v2.0 mid-crediting-period. Forward contracts written against v1.1 yields carry a delivery risk that is now quantifiable, and the party bearing it should be named in the contract rather than discovered later.

The wider point for anyone building a durable-removals portfolio is that methodology revision is a live risk in this asset class in a way it is not in compliance markets. A registry can restate the yield of a project type between one contract and its delivery. Climate Decode advises clients to price that explicitly — through version-locked offtakes, delivery-shortfall provisions, or both — rather than assuming the methodology under which a project registered is the methodology under which it will deliver.

TerraNova
Finance-grade decarbonisation planning
TerraNova — adjusted MACC, best-fit projects and a five-year forecast for your sites.
Book a TerraNova Demo →

About the Author

Vaibhav Jain — Managing Director, Climate Decode

Vaibhav Jain

Managing Director, Climate Decode

12+ years in carbon markets and climate finance across four continents. Leads the Canopy product and aligned advisory services in corporate sustainability. 79+ projects delivered across 25 countries. Formerly South Pole · Yes Bank · PwC.

Speak to Vaibhav → Meet the team →

© 2026 Climate Decode · Market Watch Brief · Reference CD-VM0043-2026

Series Home Insights Home Contact Us

Newsletter

Carbon market insights, to your inbox

Regulatory shifts, market outlooks and new tools from Climate Decode. Work email only — first and last name optional. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Subscribe to insights →