MEEWP Public Consultation Summary Fall 2025
The public consultation on the MEEWP Protocol v2.1 focused on three recurring themes: market acceptance of methane accounting choices (especially GWP20 vs. GWP100), local consultation requirements, and operational practicality for project developers. Commenters generally expressed support for the intent and rigor of the protocol but raised concerns about market trends, administrative burden, and alignment with existing regulatory frameworks.
One key point of discussion was the continued use of GWP20 for methane, which several commenters indicated has limited acceptance in international voluntary carbon markets. Our team responded by emphasizing its scientific rationale while introducing flexibility through conversion from GWP20 to GWP100, including for previously issued credits. This serves as a transitional solution while we continue monitoring market and policy developments.
Another important topic was Local Consultation. Multiple commenters questioned whether a registry-wide policy is appropriate for well-plugging projects that already operate under strict state notification and regulatory regimes. We reiterated that local consultation is now a baseline requirement under international integrity standards (e.g., ICROA, ICVCM, CORSIA), but clarified that state-mandated consultation processes can often be used to satisfy our requirements, avoiding duplication.
Additional comments addressed technical clarity (definitions, terminology, measurement thresholds), validation and verification requirements, site reclamation expectations, and eligibility/additionality when projects receive partial public funding. In most cases, our team responded to either clarify intent, commit to minor wording changes, or reaffirmed choices tied to credit integrity and co-benefits. Please see the section below for more detailed responses to key questions.
-
We acknowledge market challenges associated with GWP20. In v2.1, project developers are allowed to convert credits from GWP20 to GWP100, including for past projects. The selected GWP will be transparently embedded in project records. This flexibility is intended as a transitional solution while the BCarbon team evaluates market acceptance, academic research, and policy trends.
-
We maintain that GWP20 is supported by scientific literature. Allowing conversion to GWP100 provides comparability where needed. We see this as an adaptive approach and will continue reassessing best practices as standards evolve.
-
At BCarbon, we intentionally chose to avoid basing crediting on short-term leak rate measurements because they are variable, difficult to standardize, and vulnerable to manipulation. Historical production data is regulated, auditable, and less prone to gaming. We see measurement as a confirmation tool rather than the sole basis for crediting.
-
Local consultation is required under international integrity standards and will apply across all BCarbon protocols. Many well-plugging projects already satisfy these requirements through state-mandated notification and consultation processes. Developers can submit evidence of these existing processes to meet Local Consultation requirements, provided minimum standards are met. More details are available in our Local Consultation Policy.
-
Ideally, devices would detect methane near background levels, but cost constraints are recognized. The protocol distinguishes between pre- and post-plugging requirements and prohibits using a less sensitive device after plugging than before. While requirements may tighten in the future, current thresholds are considered sufficient to demonstrate leak cessation in most cases.
-
Project developers are not required to carry out plugging directly. They may partner with other entities for specific tasks, but remain responsible for overall coordination, documentation, and submission.
-
While we agree that well-plugging projects are unique, we believe that a consistent registry-wide framework is necessary for alignment with international standards. That being said, state or provincial consultation processes will often qualify, avoiding redundant or excessive engagement requirements.
-
Projects receiving partial public incentives must undergo a financial additionality assessment. If it can be demonstrated that public funding does not fully offset project costs and that methane reductions are not otherwise incentivized, the project may still qualify for BCarbon credits.
-
We believe local consultation is now a non-negotiable element of high-integrity credits. However, because many jurisdictions already require consultation, this requirement is frequently already met. The intent is not to add a burden, but to document and standardize engagement that already occurs.
-
Site reclamation has been a core element of the protocol since inception and reflects BCarbon’s emphasis on co-benefits and nature restoration, not only emissions abatement. We will accept most state-mandated reclamation activities and have added clearer definitions. However, we do not intend to remove reclamation as a requirement.