Insight into GHGP thinking on market based reporting
Posted: 7 November, 2023. Written by Jesse Scharf
The GHGP have published a summary of the responses they received to their survey on Scope 2 reporting (electricity use).- See PDF below.
We recommend all those interested in market-based reporting of biomethane (Scope 1) read the executive summary and we have copied some key passages below;
- “a key goal of the update is to harmonize and align with accounting rules developed by major regulatory and voluntary disclosure and target-setting programs and initiatives.”
- GGCS assessment - the current SBTi call for evidence is a key process.
- “Respondents strongly urged the GHG Protocol to coordinate closely with voluntary target- and goal-setting programs such as the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) and regulatory developments which mandate climate-related disclosures, including the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)”
- GGCS assessment - we are pleased to see this feedback has been taken on board
- “a large volume of feedback suggested that the GHG Protocol should consolidate its requirements across all these documents, i.e., scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 into a single document to streamline accounting and reporting.”
- GGCS assessment - the rules on market based reporting on Scope 2 will be consistent with the rules on Scope 1 (gas use)
- “Updating dual reporting requirements: There was significant feedback representing multiple perspectives on the usefulness, appropriateness, implementation, and overall results of the dual reporting requirement. Some respondents recommended maintaining dual reporting with various modifications to the location-based and/or market-based methods, while other respondents suggested that only one of the two methods should be required. Support for the location-based approach emphasized that it appropriately represents emissions throughout the reporting entity's value chain. Support for the market-based approach emphasized that it is necessary to account for purchased energy attribute claims, which may differ from the actual energy flow in the grid. Many respondents proposed improvements to the location- and/or market-based methods. Some favored more specific requirements. Others preferred maintaining flexibility while supporting interpretation or adaptation by other emissions reporting and/or targetsetting programs”
- GGCS assessment - there is no consensus regarding market-based and location-based reporting. It's as important as ever that industry puts across its view and ensures that key decision makers are aware of the benefits of market-based reporting in driving additional biomethane production.