Clarifications on Verra’s Pilot Project Review Prioritization Process

We have received a number of thoughtful comments and concerns regarding the announcement of Verra’s pilot project review prioritization process last week and want to thank everyone who reached out.

Early responses indicate there is some confusion about how this pilot process will and won’t work, so allow me to provide further clarification here.

To start, this new process is a pilot, developed in direct response to inquiries from both project developers and credit buyers. Currently, Verra regularly receives requests to accommodate urgent requests, but do not have a clear and transparent process for meeting this demand. These stakeholders asked for a clearer, structured pathway to accelerate reviews under specific circumstances, particularly for projects ready to issue credits and deliver climate impact.

This process was designed to meet that demand and to explore innovative ways to improve responsiveness without compromising the integrity of our review system.

To be clear:

• Every project, whether in the standard or priority queue, undergoes the same rigorous technical review procedures and standards.
• Paying a prioritization fee does not guarantee approval. It only moves a project into the priority queue, provided the project meets all readiness criteria.
• Revenue generated by the prioritization fee goes directly to a fund for increasing review capacity, which benefits all projects. The issuance prepayment does not create additional revenue; it simply shifts the timing of existing payments. Many external stakeholders have questioned why we wait to collect fees until issuance, especially when the bulk of the work occurs earlier in the process.
• This is a pilot. If it doesn’t deliver on its intended goals (i.e., improving speed, access, and accountability without compromising quality), we will either not move forward with implementing it or address the issues that were identified.

Importantly, the revenue from prioritization fees is being reinvested directly into Verra’s review system, expanding capacity and ultimately reducing processing times for all projects, not just those using the fast-track queue.

Here are a few other clarifications based on comments received:

• Suggestions that project reviews are shaped by financial pressure overlook the fact that Verra is a nonprofit, mission-driven organization. Our responsibility is not to private interests, but to the environment: to ensure that real, verifiable climate action is delivered through every project we certify.
• Prepayment mechanisms are not new. What’s changed is the amount involved. Our updated fee structure ensures that if a project ultimately receives fewer credits than expected, fees are adjusted accordingly, reinforcing accountability while maintaining fairness.
• Concerns that projects might use prioritization to bypass updates to methodologies or standards reflects a misunderstanding of how the applicability of methodology or program updates is determined. Whether a new methodology applies is based on the submission date (or, in some cases, the project start date), not the timing of approval. Prioritization does not affect that.
• The distinction between Verra and validation/verification bodies (VVBs) is fundamental. Prioritization only begins after a project is submitted to Verra, meaning VVBs have no visibility into whether a project has opted in. VVBs are bound by ISO accreditation standards, and Verra reinforces their independence through a performance management program and clear, repeated guidance that they should take the time needed to get their reviews right.

We welcome honest scrutiny. But we also want to remind everyone that the alternative to innovation is inertia and that new approaches are what drive market developments. In a market as consequential and fast-moving as this one, standing still is not an option.

So again: if the pilot fails to deliver, we consider ending or updating it. But if this new approach helps us serve projects more quickly, while protecting the quality of our work and the trust of the communities we serve, then it is absolutely worth exploring.

Warm regards,

Mandy