Model project revenue using realistic price ranges instead of one optimistic number, and see how exposed the economics are to market movement.
Open Credit Pricing Tool →This tool is for project developers, consultants and commercial teams who already have a rough credit-volume view and need to understand what happens under different price assumptions. It is most useful when you are comparing conservative, base and stronger buyer cases rather than looking for a single “correct” price.
Do not model to the best case first. The point of pricing work is to understand what the project looks like under realistic market ranges, not to justify the highest number available in a benchmark article.
| Scenario | Use |
|---|---|
| Conservative case | Tests whether the project still works if market appetite is weaker or buyer confidence is lower than expected. |
| Base case | Acts as the main internal planning assumption. |
| Premium case | Shows upside if the project quality and buyer fit are unusually strong, but should not be the only story. |
If the economics only work near the top of the market, that is usually a warning sign rather than a strength.
Different project types sit in different market bands. Pricing is often more useful when compared across categories rather than treated as a single market average.
The tool becomes more powerful when paired with feasibility and verification-cost modelling, because revenue without cost context can give a misleading sense of strength.
Use the pricing tool inside The Carbon Workbench to compare revenue across price cases and connect it into wider project economics.
Open Credit Pricing Tool →It is a modelling tool. Use benchmark guides for context, then use pricing scenarios for project-specific analysis.
No. It is almost always more useful to model a range and understand sensitivity.
No. It complements it. Pricing tells you what revenue might look like; feasibility tells you whether the project still works commercially once more variables are included.