Is it feasible to apply hourly matching to the calculation of Scope 2 emissions?
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a widely-used international standard for measuring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions, is undergoing its first major revision in a decade. This revision aims to address the current challenges in the system, particularly the problem of double or triple counting clean energy and the issue of electricity deliverability.
The 24/7 framework, a leading proposal for updating the scope 2 market-based method, suggests matching clean energy attributes to electricity consumption on an hourly basis within a given market boundary. This approach includes time matching and narrower geographic boundaries for procurements, but it fails to account for large and growing intra-regional transmission challenges that modern grids face.
Last year, companies globally contracted a record 68 gigawatts of clean electricity, with 21.7 GW in the United States alone. However, the implementation of the 24/7 framework could potentially make carbon accounting less accurate if it does not find a way to prevent potential double counting of emissions using available and accessible data.
Under the 24/7 proposal, a clean MWh generated in one region may be considered appropriately location-matched, even if it cannot physically be delivered to another region due to transmission congestion. This raises concerns about double counting, as the same clean energy attribute could be counted twice or even thrice if it passes through multiple congested transmission lines.
Current discussions on revising the Scope 2 market-based method focus on enabling a simplified and more accurate linkage between clean power supply and the operational demand of companies. Proposals include enhanced tracking mechanisms, certificate retirement rules, and improved market-based accounting frameworks to ensure clean energy claims are uniquely and correctly attributed to end users.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol's technical working group is considering these proposals to increase accuracy in electricity-sector emissions allocation. The problem of double or triple counting clean energy in the current system overstates the benefits of a company's clean energy procurement and understates the emissions impact of the company's operations.
For a more detailed explanation of the double and triple counting issue, see the article by Roger Ballentine, president of Green Strategies Inc., and Patrick Falwell, vice president of Green Strategies, Inc., published on SSRN. The authors emphasise the need for a more accurate system to better reflect true emissions impacts and take into account real-world considerations such as deliverability and eliminating double counting issues.
It is crucial that the GHGP revision process aims to be more accurate to support the transition to a cleaner energy future. Without these changes, the GHGP revision process risks introducing new complexities and feasibility challenges with 24/7 that could slow the pace of clean energy development.
The opinions represented in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of our website or any of its staff.
