Time is running out for Chief Sustainability Officers (CSOs) to weigh in on proposed changes to the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol for Scope 2 emissions. The hot-button issue: Should companies be required to match their clean energy purchases to their hourly consumption, rather than annually, within tighter market boundaries?
Having spent 25 years in the voluntary clean energy purchasing sector, I know it’s crucial for major energy buyers to focus on supplies that decarbonize the entire grid, not just their own facilities.
Potential Impact of the Proposed Changes
Most energy experts and users are against the mandatory hourly and geographical matching. Why? Because it could hike domestic energy rates by 26%, increase clean energy prices for businesses to discouraging levels, and, worst of all, raise greenhouse gas emissions instead of lowering them.
A study found that removing market boundaries for corporate clean energy sourcing could save 1.7 billion tons of CO2 over 15 years and generate $85 billion in investments in developing economies.
Preserving Current Definitions
The first step for CSOs is to oppose any changes to the definitions and goals of the market-based method (MBM). The current definitions of location-based and market-based methods are clear and have supported clean energy markets for over a decade.
The GHG Protocol was right in creating these two perspectives. Organizations often have little flexibility to change the electricity consumed by their facilities, but they can use their purchasing power to support clean energy projects elsewhere, often on more polluting grids.
