--- title: "Terrapass Review" url: https://altstreet.investments/platforms/reviews/terrapass kind: platform-review updated: 2026-09-25 description: "Is Terrapass legitimate? Review of the retail carbon offset and REC seller founded in 2004: claim defensibility, portfolio trade-offs." publisher: AltStreet (https://altstreet.investments) license: Public factual pages may be read, quoted and cited with attribution and a link. Bulk redistribution is not permitted. --- # Terrapass Review Terrapass is the legacy U.S. retail carbon offset brand (founded 2004) — and it carries the California DFPI's first enforcement action against a carbon credit seller for failing to disclose fees. In July 2025, California's DFPI entered a consent order against Terrapass's current owner, Restitution Brands LLC (a Houston company that acquired the brand from Just Energy in February 2024), for failing to disclose that it retained, on average, 40% of each sales dollar (DFPI's release calls it average markups of over 40%; on a $500 purchase, only about $300 funded projects), requiring $68,559 in pro rata partial refunds ($30,988 to 621 California consumers and $37,571 to nine businesses), raised to $87,810 by an October 6, 2025 amended order after Terrapass self-reported an omitted business customer, and requiring the disclosure now in its terms. The product itself is unchanged in kind: portfolio-based, registry-verified offsets and RECs retired at purchase (about $16.51 to $17.61 per tonne for personal offsets as of September 2026), built for consumer and small-business climate claims, not investment. The order is resolved, no FTC action or class action exists, and the platform operates normally — and the mandated disclosure is now observable: Terrapass's terms state that in 2024 roughly 30% of sales went to operating costs and less than 10% was retained as net profit (company-stated example figures, 'may vary from year to year'; the consent order records the same figures as Terrapass's prior averages) — the economics the order forced into view, now the first thing any buyer should weigh. AltStreet score: 29.4 (D), scored August 14, 2026. Method: https://altstreet.investments/platforms | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Platform | Terrapass | | What it is | Carbon Offset Retailer | | Asset class | Carbon & Climate | | Website | terrapass.com | | Review first published | December 28, 2025 | | Last updated | September 25, 2026 | | AltStreet relationship | None: no affiliate, sponsorship or partnership | ## The short version Terrapass is legitimate, easy, avoidance-heavy retail offsetting whose defining 2025-2026 fact is regulatory: the California DFPI's first action against a carbon offset seller for not disclosing fees, over an undisclosed 40% of each sales dollar retained. Resolved by consent, with refunds ordered and disclosure language added to the terms — the numbers below are the record as of August 2026. - **40%** Share of each sales dollar the DFPI found Terrapass retained, on average, from February 1, 2024 to March 30, 2025 without disclosing it (the press release calls it average markups of over 40%; the regulator's example: only about $300 of a $500 purchase funded projects). DFPI's first action against a carbon credit seller for failing to disclose fees, brought under the California Commodity Law of 1990 as a material omission; Terrapass neither admitted nor denied the findings. The order records that Terrapass had previously incurred about 30% of sales as operating costs and retained under 10% as net profit, and its terms now carry the same figures as a 2024 example (company-stated, 'may vary'). - **$87,810** Pro rata partial refunds ordered: $30,988 to 621 California consumers and $37,571 to nine businesses in the July 2, 2025 order ($68,559, the 'over $68,500' in DFPI's release), with the business figure raised to $56,822 by the October 6, 2025 amended order after Terrapass self-reported one omitted customer. A resolved consent order with a desist-and-refrain order and new terms language — no fraud finding, no FTC action, no class action found. - **Feb 2024** Restitution Brands LLC (Houston) acquired Terrapass from Just Energy — the brand's second ownership change, following the 2014 sale to JustGreen and Just Energy's 2021 creditor-protection process. The company sites publish no leadership names; the consent order is signed by CEO David Meckley. - **$16.51-$17.99/t** Current pricing (re-captured September 25, 2026): $7.99 per 1,000 lbs one-time or $7.49 per 1,000 lbs per month for personal offsets; Balanced Living household plan from $8.34/month; $16.99/tonne business one-time or $16.49/tonne monthly; Balanced Business plan $8.50 per employee per month for 0.5 tonne; Green-e Climate certified business offsets $17.99/tonne; flight offsets $8-$80 by distance; RECs $8.00/MWh (five-REC minimum); WRCs $4 per 1,000 gallons. Projects: reforestation, REDD+, landfill gas, orphan-well closure, industrial emission reduction, residential solar — under Gold Standard, Verra, CAR, ACR, with Puro.earth and Isometric added on the standards page (company-stated). - **287,656 t** Company-stated customer offsets in 2023 — the last credible scale marker. A circulating '43M tonnes cumulative' third-party figure does not verify against company materials and is not adopted. Complaint footprint thin: no standalone BBB profile located; a six-review Sitejabber sample (2.8/5, none newer than 2021). Data note: Sources: California DFPI press release and consent order (primary, July 2025), the amended consent order (October 2025), Restitution Brands and terrapass.com site captures (August and September 2026, incl. live pricing pages and Wayback captures), 3BL Media (2014 sale), Just Energy SEC filings (2021 creditor protection), Sitejabber (now SmartCustomer). Re-verified September 25, 2026. Company-stated figures attributed as such throughout. ## Key figures | Figure | What it is | Context | | --- | --- | --- | | 40% | Share of each sales dollar the DFPI found Terrapass retained without disclosure | Consent order, July 2, 2025, DFPI's first action against a carbon credit seller for failing to disclose fees, brought under the California Commodity Law; the regulator's example: only about $300 of a $500 purchase funded projects | | ~30% + <10% | The 2024 example economics now disclosed in Terrapass's own terms | Share of sales to operating costs and retained as net profit (company-stated, 'may vary from year to year') — the disclosure the order required, now observable; the order records the same figures as Terrapass's prior averages, against 40% retained in the order period | | $87,810 | Pro rata partial refunds ordered to 621 California consumers and ten businesses | $68,559 in the July 2, 2025 order, raised by the October 6, 2025 amendment; a resolved consent order with new terms language — no fraud finding, no FTC action, no class action found | | 1 filing | The original TerraPass Inc's entire EDGAR footprint — a paper-era Reg D notice from 2007 | Current owner Restitution Brands LLC has no EDGAR presence of any kind: an SEC-filing original company, then an SEC-reporting public parent (Just Energy), now a private owner with no public-filing footprint | ## Verdict Terrapass is a very low-friction on-ramp in U.S. retail offsetting — a retailer sourcing through recognized registries —and it is also the platform that turned retail fee opacity into a regulatory issue for the category. The DFPI order is narrow (disclosure, not credit quality; state, not federal; resolved by consent with modest ordered refunds), and nothing suggests customers didn't receive retired credits. But it established on the record what this review could previously only infer: Terrapass retained, on average, an undisclosed 40% of each sales dollar in the order period. Post-order, the calculus is clean: if you value one-click simplicity and accept a disclosed markup, Terrapass works; if fee efficiency or claim durability is the point, transparent peers and durable-removal channels do the same job better per dollar. Nothing here concerns investors — credits retire at purchase and no investment product exists. **Best for** - Individuals and small businesses wanting minimum-friction, registry-verified offsetting with subscription convenience - Buyers who value a twenty-year brand and simple claims support over fee efficiency - Event/travel offsetting where speed matters more than per-dollar carbon maximization **Look elsewhere if** - You want most of your money reaching projects — the DFPI record shows 40% of each sales dollar retained in the order period, and fee-transparent peers exist - You need audit-grade claims — per-purchase retirement serials and registry links are not provided by default, and avoidance-heavy portfolios face rising scrutiny - You are looking for any form of carbon investment or price exposure — retirement-at-purchase forecloses it by design **Strengths** - Simple retail purchase flow with visible headline pricing ($16.51-$17.99/tonne as of September 2026) - Registry-verified sourcing across Gold Standard, Verra, CAR and ACR, plus Puro.earth and Isometric per the standards page (company-stated), with a public project list, Green-e certified product options and a company-stated annual independent accountant audit of purchases and retirements - The DFPI matter was resolved by consent, refunds were ordered, and the mandated disclosure is now observable in the terms — including 2024 example figures (~30% of sales to operating costs, <10% retained as net profit, company-stated) and a proof-of-actions commitment; no FTC action or class action found - Twenty-year brand history through three ownership regimes, with Terrapass continuing to operate through the Just Energy restructuring and the subsequent 2024 sale **Limitations** - DFPI's first action against a carbon credit seller for failing to disclose fees, over an undisclosed 40% of each sales dollar retained — now the permanent context for its pricing - Ownership opacity: a two-year-old Houston LLC owner whose sites publish no leadership names (its CEO is identified only in the consent order), after a bankruptcy-era brand transfer - No per-purchase retirement evidence (serials, registry links) by default; retirement is aggregated annually and the accountant's audit the company describes is not published on the site - Avoidance-heavy project mix carries the claims-defensibility risk this review has always flagged — now compounded by the fee history ## What this means for your decision. | Topic | Finding | | --- | --- | | | The July 2025 California DFPI consent order is the headline fact — DFPI's first against a carbon credit seller, and it was about the money | | | The brand has changed hands twice — today's Terrapass is a Houston LLC, not the 2004 startup | | | The product is simple and priced visibly — the economics inside it were not | | | Scale claims need attribution discipline | Terrapass remains what it has long been — one of the lowest-friction ways for a U.S. consumer or small business to buy portfolio-based offsets — and it is now also the industry's cautionary example on retail fee opacity: a regulator had to force disclosure that 40% of each sales dollar stayed with the company. The order is resolved, the platform operates normally, and avoidance-heavy portfolio offsetting at ~$17/tonne has legitimate uses with eyes open. But the burden the DFPI shifted is permanent: the first diligence question at Terrapass is no longer project quality — it is what fraction of your money buys carbon. ## Who it fits | Investor | Fit | Why | | --- | --- | --- | | retail | well-suited | | | institutional | neutral | | | esg-saas-embedded | neutral | | | investors-seeking-returns | poor-fit | | ## Questions **What did the California DFPI order against Terrapass actually require?** The July 2, 2025 consent order found that from February 1, 2024 to March 30, 2025 Terrapass did not disclose that it retained, on average, 40% of each sales dollar for operating expenses and profit, a material omission under the California Commodity Law. Terrapass neither admitted nor denied it. The order told the company to desist and refrain, to remove the FAQ answer at issue and add disclosure language to its terms and California business agreements, and to pay $30,987.91 in pro rata partial refunds to 621 California consumers and $37,571.47 to nine businesses. An amended order on October 6, 2025 raised the business refunds to $56,821.79, $87,809.70 in total, after Terrapass self-reported one omitted customer. No penalty was imposed and no fraud was found. **Is Terrapass an investment platform for carbon returns?** No. Terrapass sells offsets and RECs as procurement products and retires offsets on behalf of buyers. It does not offer return expectations, tradable exposure, or resale mechanics. **Do buyers own carbon credits purchased through Terrapass?** In the standard model, no. Credits are retired on the buyer’s behalf and the buyer receives retirement evidence rather than custody of a transferable asset. **Does Terrapass operate a secondary market or allow resale?** No. Terrapass’s posture is immediate retirement; there is no secondary market, order book, or resale workflow for buyers. **What types of projects do Terrapass offsets support?** Terrapass portfolios include a mix of project types across avoidance and removal categories (e.g., nature-based and engineered projects). Specific composition can vary by product and over time. **How does Terrapass establish credibility for its offsets?** Terrapass emphasizes third-party registry verification and retirement through recognized standards. Buyers should still align purchases with internal claims policies and request composition/evidence details if scrutiny is expected. **Is Terrapass suitable for enterprise ESG reporting and audits?** It can be, but enterprise suitability depends on the evidence package, portfolio transparency, and contract terms. Buyers should validate deliverables against auditor requirements before scaling. **Can I buy removals-only offsets through Terrapass?** Terrapass generally positions a mixed portfolio approach. If your policy requires removals-only, you should confirm availability and request explicit composition details for the SKU you intend to purchase. **How should buyers think about pricing transparency?** Retail pricing is designed to be simple, but at scale buyers may need a breakdown of per-ton components, platform fees, and certification/audit costs to benchmark value and budget accurately. **What is the main risk in using retail offsets for public claims?** The main risk is claims defensibility under scrutiny: stakeholders may challenge project types, additionality narratives, permanence assumptions, or portfolio opacity even when registry verification exists. **What should a buyer request before making a public carbon-neutral claim?** Request a clear evidence package (retirement proof + registry links), portfolio composition snapshot, claims-language guidance, and any contractual remedies if credits become disputed or controversial. **Does Terrapass provide remedies if credits are disputed later?** Remedies are typically contract-dependent. For significant volumes or public claims, buyers should obtain written terms covering replacement/substitution/refunds and how disputes are handled. **How does Terrapass differ from API-first procurement platforms?** Terrapass emphasizes standardized retail purchase flows and subscriptions with retirement proof. API-first platforms tend to emphasize embedded procurement workflows, deeper attribution, and enterprise reporting integrations. **When should a buyer choose a durable removals + MRV platform instead?** Choose durable removals + MRV procurement when claims defensibility, durability segmentation, audit artifacts, and delivery governance matter more than simplicity and retail accessibility. **What is the cleanest way to use Terrapass in a serious climate program?** Use it as a supplement to real decarbonization: define an offset policy, choose products aligned to that policy, retain evidence, and avoid overclaiming beyond what the portfolio and documentation can support. ## Update history **September 25, 2026: Re-verification after the company disputed the profile: refund total restated to the amended order, the 40% finding stated as the order states it, REC price and review-sample figures corrected, the CEO named, and the company's audit and certification programs recorded** Terrapass wrote to AltStreet on September 25, 2026 stating that the profile contained inaccuracies, without naming them. AltStreet re-read every figure against the DFPI consent order of July 2, 2025, the amended consent order of October 6, 2025, the DFPI press release, live terrapass.com product pages, June and September 2026 Wayback captures, restitutionbrands.com and EDGAR. What held: the February 2024 acquisition by Restitution Brands LLC of Houston, the 2014 sale to Just Energy's JustGreen (May 21, 2014, per the company's release), the 2004 founding by Dr. Karl Ulrich and 41 Wharton students, the 287,656-tonne 2023 figure, the terms' 2024 example figures, the personal, business, Balanced Living, flight, wedding and WRC prices, the four registries, the single 2007 REGDEX filing and Just Energy's SEC record. What changed: (1) the refund figure: the July 2 order set $30,987.91 for 621 consumers plus $37,571.47 for nine businesses, $68,559 (the 'over $68,500' in DFPI's release); the amended order raised the business figure to $56,821.79 after Terrapass self-reported an omitted customer, $87,809.70 in total, and the review now states both; (2) the finding is stated as the order states it, 40% of each sales dollar retained on average in the order period, with the 30% and under-10% figures recorded in the order itself as prior averages, replacing the review's suggestion that the two metrics might be computed differently; (3) 'the industry's first state enforcement action' is narrowed to what DFPI said, its first action against a carbon credit seller for failing to disclose fees; (4) RECs are $8.00/MWh with a five-REC minimum, on the live page and the June 2026 capture, not about $15; (5) the six-review Sitejabber sample now sits at SmartCustomer at 2.8/5 and no review is newer than 2021, so it pre-dates the current owner; (6) the consent order is signed for Restitution Brands by David Meckley as CEO, so 'leadership not published' is limited to the company's websites; (7) the unverified 'Just Energy-era $10-13/tonne' comparison is dropped, since a 2022-era page on the site shows the same $7.99 per 1,000 lbs charged today; (8) the standards page's Puro.earth and Isometric, the Green-e Climate and Green-e Energy certified products with content labels, the Balanced Business plan price and the company's described annual independent accountant audit of purchases and retirements are added, with the note that no audit report is linked on the site. Scores are unchanged. **August 13, 2026: v2 rebuild: DFPI enforcement action and ownership chain become the headline findings** AltStreet's verification sweep surfaced two material facts absent from the prior review: (1) the July 2, 2025 California DFPI consent order against Restitution Brands LLC dba Terrapass — the first state enforcement action against a carbon credit seller — for failing to disclose average markups exceeding 40%, with $68,500+ in refunds to 621 California consumers and 9 businesses and mandated markup disclosure going forward (primary-sourced: DFPI press release and consent order); and (2) the full ownership chain, including the February 2024 acquisition by Restitution Brands LLC (Houston) from Just Energy following the latter's 2021 creditor-protection process. Also added: live pricing capture (~$16.51/t subscription, $16.99/t business), company-stated 2023 scale (287,656 tonnes), complaint-record checks (no standalone BBB profile; Sitejabber 2.3/5, six reviews), and rejection of an unverified third-party '43M tonnes cumulative' figure. No FTC action or class action naming Terrapass was found. ## Evidence appendix Platform website captured December 28, 2025. Firecrawl dossier + Enhanced synthesis **Highlights** - Retail/SMB purchase flows with standardized offset and REC products - Registry-verified positioning and portfolio-based project mix (avoidance + removals; nature-based + engineered) - Immediate retirement posture (no secondary market / no ownership workflow) - Public legal pages surfaced in dossier (terms/privacy), but enterprise remedies and pricing decomposition require direct verification **Primary source pages** - https://terrapass.com/ - https://terrapass.com/projects/project-overview/ - https://terrapass.com/projects/sustainable-living-projects/ - https://terrapass.com/about-us/terrapass-difference/ - https://terrapass.com/terms-and-conditions/ - https://terrapass.com/privacy/ - https://terrapass.com/portfolio-audits/ - https://terrapass.com/projects/standards/ - https://terrapass.com/business/green-e-certified/ - https://restitutionbrands.com/about-us - https://dfpi.ca.gov/press_release/dfpi-secures-over-68500-in-consumer-refunds-from-carbon-credit-dealer/ - https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Consent-Order-Restitution-Brands-LLC-dba-Terrapass.pdf - https://dfpi.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Amended-Consent-Order-Restitution-Brands-LLC-dba-Terrapass.pdf ## Related - Full review (HTML): https://altstreet.investments/platforms/reviews/terrapass - Every platform review: https://altstreet.investments/platforms/reviews - Methodology and scoring: https://altstreet.investments/platforms - Category hub: https://altstreet.investments/categories/carbon-climate-finance --- Source page: https://altstreet.investments/platforms/reviews/terrapass Machine index: https://altstreet.investments/llms.txt AltStreet reads what platforms, funds and issuers file with the SEC and what they tell investors, and publishes the difference. Figures are as filed or as captured on the date stated; nothing here is investment advice.