The Rockefeller Foundation has launched a pioneering initiative that aims to accelerate the shift from coal-fired power generation to clean energy in developing countries. The Foundation’s Coal to Clean Credit Initiative (CCCI) is an innovative plan.
CCCI uses carbon credits to help retire old coal plants. Then, it replaces them with renewable energy sources. This work helps cut greenhouse gas emissions while supporting economic growth and boosting public health in vulnerable communities.
Introducing the Coal to Clean Credit Initiative (CCCI)
The CCCI aims to give financial rewards. This helps coal-fired power plant owners close their plants sooner than expected. It also encourages a shift to renewable energy.
The centerpiece of the initiative is a new type of carbon credit called “transition credits.” Credits are created when a coal plant shuts down early. It is replaced by clean energy sources like solar, wind, and energy storage systems. CCCI matters because:
These transition credits can be sold to companies or organizations. They help offset emissions, just like traditional carbon credits. The money from selling these credits can help replace coal plants with clean energy. It can also support workers and communities impacted by the closures.
Dr. Joseph Curtin, Managing Director for Power and Climate at The Rockefeller Foundation, remarked:
“Today’s progress update demonstrates that we are closer than ever to unlocking new benefits to people with credits that will help communities transition to clean, affordable energy. We are now focused on scaling this initiative and bringing dozens of such transactions to the market by 2030.”
Verra, a global nonprofit that certifies carbon credits, has approved the method for creating transition credits. This is a key development in the initiative. This official approval is an important step as it gives clear rules and protections.
The approved rules help ensure that the credits are high quality and provide real environmental and social benefits. The approved method aims to create jobs, improve energy access, and protect workers’ rights and local communities.
According to Mandy Rambharos, CEO of Verra,
“We need to rethink the very systems that are hurting people and the planet. Our new methodology empowers energy providers to make that shift in a way that doesn’t leave workers or communities behind and doesn’t inadvertently exacerbate energy poverty.”
Pilot Project: Transitioning the SLTEC Plant in the Philippines
The first real test of the CCCI is in the Philippines. ACEN Corporation, part of the Ayala Group, is retiring its 246 MW South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation (SLTEC) coal plant. Originally slated to close in 2040, ACEN plans to retire the plant by 2030 using the CCCI framework.
- To fully replace SLTEC’s power output, ACEN aims to build 1,000 megawatts (MW) of solar, 250 MW of wind, and 1,000 MW of battery storage.
These clean energy sources will offer reliable and affordable electricity. They will also help reduce harmful air pollution in the region.
This transition is especially important in Batangas, where the SLTEC plant is located. The area’s population density is 31% higher than the national average, and unemployment levels are among the highest in the country.
Closing the plant and switching to renewable energy should create new permanent jobs. It will also improve local air quality. This change may reduce health problems linked to pollution. Over 726,000 people live within 20 kilometers of the plant, making the project’s public health impact significant.
ACEN is teaming up with several organizations to support this transition. Partners include GenZero, Keppel, and Mitsubishi Corporation via its subsidiary, Diamond Generating Asia. These partners will work together to ensure the project delivers both environmental and social benefits.
Scaling Up: Targeting 60 Coal Plant Transitions by 2030
The Rockefeller Foundation will expand the CCCI, building on its pilot project in the Philippines. They aim to support 60 coal plant transitions by 2030. This effort will focus on emerging markets, especially in the Asia-Pacific region.
The Foundation believes this could lead to $110 billion in investments. It may also create 29,000 permanent jobs, prevent 9,900 premature deaths each year, and cut down 640,000 lost workdays annually thanks to improved air quality.
The initiative could create about $21 billion in economic benefits. It could also help consumers in emerging economies save up to $8.3 billion each year on power costs. These figures come from early estimates by Catalyst Advisors.
Renewable energy technologies, like solar and wind, are now cheaper than coal in many markets. This is possible when they are paired with energy storage, says the International Energy Agency (IEA).
To ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the transition credits, the Rockefeller Foundation has awarded a $600,000 grant to the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM Limited). This funding will help set high standards for transition credits. It will also make sure that Indigenous Peoples and local communities are included in designing and implementing future projects.
Addressing Coal Dependence in Emerging Economies
Coal-fired power remains a significant challenge for global climate efforts. Its carbon emissions rose by 0.9% (135 Mt CO₂) in 2024.
The IEA reports that coal made up about 36% of global electricity in 2023. Many emerging economies still depend on coal to meet rising energy needs. This is happening even with global pressure to reduce coal use.
Programs like the Rockefeller Foundation’s CCCI help connect climate goals with economic needs in developing countries. The initiative offers a clear plan to close coal plants early. It replaces them with clean energy sources, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, it protects jobs and supports communities. It also ensures reliable access to electricity.
A 2023 BloombergNEF report says emerging markets need more than $2.6 trillion for clean energy by 2050. This investment is crucial to meet global climate goals, especially net zero. Using innovative methods like transition credits can help unlock capital. This approach could be crucial for speeding up decarbonization.
The CCCI works alongside other global initiatives. One example is the Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETP). These agreements offer financial and technical help to countries like Indonesia, South Africa, and Vietnam. They support these coal-heavy nations as they shift to clean energy.
A Model for the Future
The Rockefeller Foundation’s initiative highlights how philanthropy, private companies, governments, and financial markets can collaborate. They aim to address a tough challenge in the global energy transition: retiring coal plants early.
The CCCI combines verified transition credits, strong social protections, and clear economic benefits. This makes it a model for coal-dependent regions around the world to follow.
As more countries seek to decarbonize and meet their climate commitments, initiatives like this will likely play a growing role in shaping a cleaner, healthier, and more sustainable future.
The post Rockefeller Foundation’s Carbon Credit Initiative: Turning 60 Coal Plants Into Clean Energy Gold appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits