Corporate greenhouse gas inventories, guarantees of origin and combined heat and power production – Analysis of impacts on total carbon dioxide emissions

Abstract The Greenhouse Gas Protocol ‘Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard’ (Corporate Standard) and the EU frameworks of guarantees of origin (GO) and emissions disclosure of energy carriers are intended to inform decision-making and reduce GHG emissions. This study analyses how decisions on purchases of electricity and district heating and decisions on combined heat and power (CHP) production are incentivised by the Corporate Standard and EU frameworks. It also analyses how the EU frameworks relate to CO2 emissions reductions through CHP production. Using a consequential CO2 assessment method for comparison, the study shows that purchasing decisions supported by the Corporate Standard or the GO scheme can increase total CO2 emissions. It also shows that the Corporate Standard and EU frameworks can counteract CHP production and its contribution to CO2 emissions reduction. We recommend that consequential GHG assessment methods be used for emissions reduction decisions, including when designing policy instruments aimed at emissions reduction.

[1]  Lena Nordenstam,et al.  Considering investment resources when assessing potential CO2 reductions of CHP - a case study , 2017 .

[2]  M. Brander Transposing lessons between different forms of consequential greenhouse gas accounting: lessons for consequential life cycle assessment, project-level accounting, and policy-level accounting , 2016 .

[3]  D. Lescot,et al.  Residual Mix Calculation at the Heart of Reliable Electricity Disclosure in Europe—A Case Study on the Effect of the RE-DISS Project , 2015 .

[4]  Louise Trygg,et al.  Energy conservation measures in buildings heated by district heating – A local energy system perspective , 2010 .

[5]  M. Gillenwater,et al.  Creative accounting: A critical perspective on the market-based method for reporting purchased electricity (scope 2) emissions , 2018 .

[6]  Jennifer N. Brass,et al.  Global Expansion of Renewable Energy Generation: An Analysis of Policy Instruments , 2017 .

[7]  F. Creutzig,et al.  Using Attributional Life Cycle Assessment to Estimate Climate‐Change Mitigation Benefits Misleads Policy Makers , 2014 .

[8]  M. Brander Comparative analysis of attributional corporate greenhouse gas accounting, consequential life cycle assessment, and project/policy level accounting: A bioenergy case study , 2017 .

[9]  Evangelos Tzimas,et al.  Background Report on EU-27 District Heating and Cooling Potentials, Barriers, Best Practice and Measures of Promotion , 2012 .

[10]  Björn G. Karlsson,et al.  Stockholm CHP potential--An opportunity for CO2 reductions? , 2007 .

[11]  J. A. M. Hufen Cheat Electricity? The Political Economy of Green Electricity Delivery on the Dutch Market for Households and Small Business , 2016 .

[12]  F. Ascui,et al.  The Attributional-Consequential Distinction and Its Applicability to Corporate Carbon Accounting , 2015 .

[13]  David Pennington,et al.  Recent developments in Life Cycle Assessment. , 2009, Journal of environmental management.

[14]  Sven Werner District Heating and Cooling , 2013 .

[15]  Sven Werner,et al.  District heating and cooling in Sweden , 2017 .

[16]  M. Sotos GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance , 2015 .

[17]  Martin Kumar Patel,et al.  District heating in the Netherlands today: A techno-economic assessment for NGCC-CHP (Natural Gas Combined Cycle combined heat and power) , 2013 .

[18]  M. Mulder,et al.  Contribution of green labels in electricity retail markets to fostering renewable energy , 2016 .

[19]  Torgeir Ericson,et al.  Matching policy and people? Household responses to the promotion of renewable electricity , 2013 .