GHG Protocol Scope 2 Plan Backs Two Market-Based Methods - ESG News

GHG Protocol Board Backs Two Scope 2 Methods, Phasing Companies Toward Hourly-Matched Claims

GHG Protocol Board Backs Two Scope 2 Methods, Phasing Companies Toward Hourly-Matched Claims

by ESG News Editorial Team • October 26, 2026

- Two-method framework: The ISB proposed a new hourly-matched method alongside the existing 2015 market-based rules. - Method 1 cut-off: After a date still to be set, market-based reporters shall use Method 1 where qualifying data exists. - Next milestones: A consolidated consultation is slated for Q2 2027, with a joint GHG Protocol-ISO standard due in Q4 2028.

GHG Protocol’s Independent Standards Board (ISB) has proposed two market-based methods for companies reporting scope 2 emissions. Method 1 would require hourly matching, deliverability and incrementality, while Method 2 keeps the 2015 Scope 2 Guidance rules. However, companies may use Method 2 only until a date still to be set. The proposals are due for consolidated public consultation in Q2 2027.

Under the ISB’s September 2026 direction, companies would report market-based emissions if data meeting quality criteria is available. Whether that reporting is required, recommended or optional is still open. Before the cut-off, companies should use Method 1 and shall disclose which method they apply.

Method 1 counts energy attribute certificates (EACs), which certify clean power output, only if they match hourly consumption. The certificates must also come from a grid region where the company uses power. Incrementality further limits claims to plants built within a set number of years. The update did not set the transition date, the incrementality window or the data quality criteria.

What Changed Since the Consultation

The consultation draft, open from October 20, 2025 to January 31, 2026, applied hourly matching and deliverability to all market-based claims. GHG Protocol said the 2015 method lets companies claim reductions from projects on grids disconnected from their operations. But feedback split between backers of hourly, local procurement and backers of annual matching across broad geographies. As a result, ISB members backed two methods with differentiated requirements and claims in July 2026.

Next Steps

The Scope 2 Technical Working Group (TWG) will develop proposed revisions at an in-person workshop. Deliverability, incrementality, feasibility and implementation timing are the key issues. The ISB must then approve the revisions before they enter consultation.

Who It Affects

- Market-based scope 2 reporters: After the cut-off, they shall use Method 1 if data meeting the quality criteria is available. - Buyers of annually matched or distant EACs: Purchases outside future rules may move to a GHG Impact Statement or non-GHG indicators under the Actions and Market Instruments (AMI) framework. - Scope 1 and 3 reporters: The Q2 2027 consultation will also cover proposed scope 1, scope 3 and AMI requirements.

The Stakeholders at a Glance

| Standard setter | GHG Protocol | | --- | --- | | Decision bodies | Independent Standards Board (ISB); Scope 2 Technical Working Group | | Proposal | Two scope 2 market-based methods with differentiated requirements and claims | | Method 1 | Hourly matching, deliverability and incrementality requirements | | Method 2 | 2015 Scope 2 Guidance rules, allowed until a to-be-determined date | | Applies to | Companies reporting scope 2 market-based emissions | | Consultation history | October 20, 2025 to January 31, 2026 | | Timing | Consolidated consultation Q2 2027; joint GHG Protocol- ISO standard Q4 2028 |