Neil Fisher’s Post

Today, Clean Air Task Force has released two papers on greenhouse gas emissions accounting that I've had the pleasure to co-author. Modernizing how we report emissions associated with electricity use is essential for companies to measure and track their contributions towards a sustainable, decarbonized power grid! Find the papers here: https://lnkd.in/gawDV5BH

The passage of #California Senate Bill 253 will have implications for over 5,000 companies required to report their greenhouse gas #emissions starting in 2026 for FY 2025. Read more in our latest article about why companies doing business in California with more than $1 billion in revenue will need to pay more attention to the GHG protocol: https://bit.ly/49B235m

#Businesses frequently create or accept sets of guidelines that form the foundation for their environmental information reporting. The following GHG accounting and reporting guidelines for the #petroleum sector are derived from the GHG Protocol (WRI/WBCSD, 2004). 🎯 From the initial release of these Guidelines, GHG accounting and reporting methods have developed further and gained greater traction. On the other hand, the #fundamental ideas of GHG accounting and reporting have not altered much. The following guidelines ought to serve as the foundation for GHG accounting and reporting: ☑️ Relevance — Establish parameters that accurately represent users' demands for decision-making as well as the organizations' GHG emissions. ☑️ Completeness — Include all sources and activities of greenhouse gas emissions within the designated operational and organizational boundaries. Any specific exclusions ought to be justified and declared. ☑️ Consistency — Employ standardized techniques and measurements to enable significant cross-temporal comparisons of emissions. Any modifications to the data, procedures, or any other time series components should be openly documented. ☑️ Transparency — Apply a comprehensive audit trail to support your factual and logical discussion of all pertinent topics. Give due credit to the sources of the #data and calculating techniques, and disclose any assumptions that were made. ☑️ Accuracy — As far as can be determined, make sure that estimates of GHG #emissions are systemically neither above nor under actual emission levels, and that uncertainties are defined and minimized as much as is practical. Make sure that enough precision is attained so that consumers can decide on the veracity of the reported #greenhouse gas information with confidence. Petrodatycs® OGCI (Oil and Gas Climate Initiative)

#ghgaccounting GHG Accounting is an important area where you can be asked some really interesting questions on your experience with it. While the specific questions may vary, here are 10 common and important ones related to GHG accounting which candidates face in one form or the other. 1. Can you explain the concept of greenhouse gas emissions and their significance in environmental accounting? 2. What methodologies or standards do you use for calculating and reporting greenhouse gas emissions? 3. How do you differentiate between Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 3 emissions, and why are these distinctions important? 4. Can you provide examples of direct and indirect emissions within each scope? 5. How do you ensure data accuracy and reliability in greenhouse gas accounting processes? 6. What are some common challenges or limitations encountered in greenhouse gas accounting, and how do you address them? 7. Have you been involved in setting emission reduction targets for organizations? If so, how do you determine these targets and measure progress towards them? 8. How do you stay updated on evolving regulations and best practices in greenhouse gas accounting? 9. Can you discuss the role of offsets and carbon credits in greenhouse gas accounting, and any associated challenges or considerations? 10. Have you had experience with verifying or auditing greenhouse gas emissions data? If so, can you describe your approach and any key findings or recommendations from previous engagements? #sustainability #sustainabilityreporting #ghgemissions #ghgprotocol #carbonemissions

Myth busting! Are corporate Scope 3 emissions far greater than Scopes 1 or 2? How many times have you seen someone claim “Scope 3 accounts for the vast majority of corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions”? Frequently, they will cite a CDP questionnaire summary report stating that Scope 3, on average, accounts for 75% of reported corporate GHG emissions from all Scopes. This belief is used to argue that greater attention should be placed on Scope 3 emissions in corporate GHG inventory reporting. I argue that this justification is flawed. To understand the exact nature of the flaws, we have to understand the differences between what Scopes 1, 2, and 3 are attempting to quantify and how. Continue reading in our latest GHG experts blog... https://lnkd.in/gjw-MeeC #ghgprotocol #valuechainemissions #scope3 #carbonfootprint #carbonaccounting #ghgaccounting

A must read for all who perform a carbon foootprint/GHG accounting using GHG Protocol.

Assessing Carbon Accounting in Coal Power Plants: A Comprehensive Guide Accurately calculating and understanding the carbon footprint of coal power plants is crucial for mitigating climate change and ensuring transparency. Here's a breakdown of how to assess carbon accounting in coal power plants: Methodologies: There are several methodologies for carbon accounting in coal power plants, each with its own advantages and limitations. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol) provides a widely recognized framework with different tiers based on data availability: Tier 1: Uses emission factors (e.g., kg CO2 per ton of coal) published by reputable sources like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is the simplest but least accurate method, suitable for preliminary estimates. Tier 2: Uses plant-specific data on fuel consumption, electricity generation, and emission factors derived from measurements or fuel analysis. This offers improved accuracy. Tier 3: Employs continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for real-time data and detailed modeling, providing the most accurate but resource-intensive option. Key Steps: Define the scope: Specify the boundaries of your assessment, including direct emissions from fuel combustion, indirect emissions from electricity generation, and potential upstream or downstream activities. Choose the methodology: Select the tier based on your data availability, resources, and desired accuracy. Collect data: Gather necessary data like fuel consumption, electricity output, emission factors, plant efficiency, and any relevant upstream/downstream activities. Calculate emissions: Use formulas and emission factors specific to your chosen methodology to calculate CO2 emissions for each relevant stage. Document and report: Clearly document your methodology, data sources, calculations, and assumptions. Report your findings transparently, following established standards like the GHG Protocol. Real-world Examples: China's New Tool: The GHG Protocol developed a tool for Chinese coal plants, accounting for various data availability scenarios and accommodating combined heat and power (CHP) systems. EU Emissions Trading System (ETS): Power plants in the EU participate in the ETS, requiring them to monitor and report their emissions according to strict guidelines. Sources: GHG Protocol: https://lnkd.in/gMUPhxtc IPCC Emission Factors: https://lnkd.in/gtaU8b-n China's Coal Plant Tool: https://lnkd.in/gsVT-uQu EU Emissions Trading System: https://lnkd.in/g3b_EDsX

I agree with the main point of this statement at the end of Michael Gillenwater's recent piece - "What is then needed—and missing in existing corporate GHG reporting and disclosure—is not more focus on Scope 3 reporting, but instead, a set of accounting rules and a new reporting framework for quantifying and aggregating the impact of a company’s meaningfully ambitious value chain interventions." Yes - companies need to be focused on ambitious value chain interventions and they need better ways to meaningfully show the impact of these interventions to their stakeholders. Stakeholders want to have confidence that those interventions are reducing climate risk and emissions. We should consider how new frameworks can do this. Not a myth though - for the majority of companies, the most impactful interventions are in their value chain. That is what scope 3 tells us. We don't need a new approach to scope 3 - scope 3 is already doing the job it was designed to do. We need less focus on trying to make scope 3 (and scope 1 and 2) align to a set of accounting rules that aren't built around the goal of managing climate. I can understand intellectually that making employee commuting have the same boundary timeline as use of sold products is more consistent accounting, but this does not move the needle to help us better address climate change. What we need is more companies using scope 3 to understand the risks and opportunities for interventions in their value chain, and then developing and implementing a transition plan to actually do the interventions. We do not need a complete redo of scope 3 to do this - let's focus on the intervention piece and leave scope 3 to fill its important role as a tool to identify hot spots and areas of interventions. We may have thought at one point scope 3 could have been a tool for both - but it hasn't panned out that way. These need to work together, of course, but they don't need to be one framework. It will be very difficult and complicated to accomplish that and frankly, we don't have the time.