Who Pays? Consumer Attitudes to the Growth of Levies to Fund Environmental and Social Energy Policy Objectives Prashant Vaze and Chris Hewett About Consumer Focus

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Who Pays? Consumer Attitudes to the Growth of Levies to Fund Environmental and Social Energy Policy Objectives Prashant Vaze and Chris Hewett About Consumer Focus Who Pays? Consumer attitudes to the growth of levies to fund environmental and social energy policy objectives Prashant Vaze and Chris Hewett About Consumer Focus Consumer Focus is the statutory Following the recent consumer and consumer champion for England, Wales, competition reforms, the Government Scotland and (for postal consumers) has asked Consumer Focus to establish Northern Ireland. a new Regulated Industries Unit by April 2013 to represent consumers’ interests in We operate across the whole of the complex, regulated markets sectors. The economy, persuading businesses, Citizens Advice service will take on our public services and policy-makers to role in other markets from April 2013. put consumers at the heart of what they do. We tackle the issues that matter to Our Annual Plan for 2012/13 is available consumers, and give people a stronger online, consumerfocus.org.uk voice. We don’t just draw attention to problems – we work with consumers and with a range of organisations to champion creative solutions that make a difference to consumers’ lives. For regular updates from Consumer Focus, sign up to our monthly e-newsletter by emailing [email protected] or follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/consumerfocus Consumer Focus Contents Executive summary .................................................................................................... 4 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 8 Background ............................................................................................................... 8 The big challenges of the energy policy debate ................................................. 8 Research objectives of the Who Pays? programme .......................................... 9 2 Studies commissioned by Consumer Focus .................................................. 10 3 Policy context and existing studies .................................................................. 15 Current situation ..................................................................................................... 15 Previous work ......................................................................................................... 15 4 How much do consumers and taxpayers currently pay? ............................ 18 Consumer levies – past, present and future ...................................................... 18 The three decades ................................................................................................. 20 Trends in consumer funding over the three decades ....................................... 23 5 Consumer attitudes to environmental and social levies .............................. 25 Question 1 – Is the public willing to pay environmental and social levies on energy bills? ................................................................................ 26 Question 2 – What should be the priorities when using the revenues? ........ 33 Question 3 – Is the balance of contributions between consumer, energy companies and tax-payer right? ............................................................ 39 Question 4 – Who are the winners and losers? ................................................ 40 Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 46 Glossary ...................................................................................................................... 47 Annex 1: Methodology of Accent Deliberative Research ................................ 48 Annex 2: Methodology of MVA Stated Preference research ........................... 53 Who Pays? 3 Executive summary This report synthesises findings from four research Achieving environmental and social projects that comprise Consumer Focus’s Who outcomes Pays? programme. These four projects collectively Since the 1990s funding of environmental and detail energy customers’ historic and future social programmes has shifted away from financial contributions to energy policy goals subsidising nuclear decommissioning liabilities to and their views about having to make these funding programmes to install energy efficiency, contributions. The research made use of actual renewable energy and support for the fuel poor. and proposed UK schemes on energy efficiency, By 2020, there will have been substantial growth low carbon generation and social tariffs. in the amount of customer levy funded support relative to 2000. Policy makers face some major challenges in the energy market today. These four reports develop Customers broadly support this agenda of information on the customers' perspective on support for vulnerable customers, renewable these challenges. energy and energy efficiency. Most people either support, or see as inevitable, the building of new ● Achieving environmental and social nuclear, but there is little support for its subsidy. outcomes: What are customers’ views on how best to decarbonise our energy system and Consumers’ views on energy are not uniform and address affordability? can also be quite nuanced. The public would ● Fairness and efficiency: What is the fairest like to see more support for vulnerable groups way to collect the costs of capital investment especially households with older or disabled and government programmes from customers, members. There is less support for subsidising shareholders and taxpayers? young families, people on low incomes, or ● Trust: What would be the best way to establish those who are unemployed. There is inherent trust in the energy market? support for renewable energy and this support strengthens after consumers have been through Engagement: What is most likely to drive ● the deliberative workshop process; where they customer engagement in the energy market? are provided with information about the different ● Affordability: What can the Government do generation technologies. Consumers support about fuel poverty? subsidies for specific technologies like off-shore and to a lesser extent on-shore wind and are While the Who Pays? programme did not set out interested in seeing the money being spent to provide all the answers to these challenges, it cost effectively. There was less support for on- has provided useful evidence which Consumer shore wind in Scotland where the technology Focus believes should steer policy in some clear is more prevalent than in Wales and England. directions. There is support for community energy schemes – but there remain doubts, especially for urban We summarise our findings as follows. customers, about whether this is a viable option in their area. Consumer Focus 4 Views on customer bill financed energy efficiency There was mixed evidence about whether are mixed: a warm home is regarded as a customers supported an increase in the amount basic right and subsidies to the fuel poor were that they should contribute – the online vote and supported. This is not true of subsidies for high private digital vote suggested an acceptance, cost measures like solid wall insulation that will be but the deliberative workshops suggested there supported through Energy Company Obligation were significant affordability issues for many. The (ECO) or for high cost renewables like solar PV online research provided customers with some on homes. A prevailing question was why should contextual information on renewable energy, energy customers, in general, support such energy efficiency and affordability before they were improvements that accrue to the few, especially asked to choose between energy plans. People’s the affluent few? willingness-to-pay increased with their income and the amount of energy they consumed, suggesting Fairness and efficiency that a more progressively structured levy would also be more acceptable to consumers. Currently, social and environmental levies are around 7 per cent of the average bill, broadly at the same levels as they were 20 years ago. In There was substantial hostility to the carbon floor the decade 2000 to 2010 the share of funding price and auctioned European Union Emissions through bills fell and the proportion funded by the Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) revenues being tax-payer rose. The current policy is to greatly retained by Government. Consumers regarded increase the customers’ contribution to costs these as ‘stealth taxes’. There was clear public through the introduction of ‘carbon taxes’1 and support for these tax revenues to be used to pay increase the share of electricity generation that for some of the energy challenges. is aided by a price support mechanism. Since the liberalisation of the energy markets in the Overall consumers believe more of the money late 1990s there is no mechanism to control or being raised from consumer levies needs to be regulate the amount of profits being earned by devoted to supporting vulnerable groups. This generators or suppliers. Price regulation only could be done by broadening the reach of the exists in the monopoly network businesses. Warm Home Discount (WHD), or by ensuring more of the energy efficiency investment is Both of the consumer research projects revealed targeted to the homes of the fuel poor. Structuring people’s acceptance of customer levies, the levies in a more progressive way would also particularly when presented alongside the social be popular. Allowing companies to pass on the and environmental benefits they will deliver. But levies as a flat rate to all consumers is the least people see it as crucial that companies
Recommended publications
  • Carbon Price Floor Consultation: the Government Response
    Carbon price floor consultation: the Government response March 2011 Carbon price floor consultation: the Government response March 2011 Official versions of this document are printed on 100% recycled paper. When you have finished with it please recycle it again. If using an electronic version of the document, please consider the environment and only print the pages which you need and recycle them when you have finished. © Crown copyright 2011 You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. ISBN 978-1-84532-845-0 PU1145 Contents Page Foreword 3 Executive summary 5 Chapter 1 Government response to the consultation 7 Chapter 2 The carbon price floor 15 Annex A Contributors to the consultation 21 Annex B HMRC Tax Impact and Information Note 25 1 Foreword Budget 2011 re-affirmed our aim to be the greenest Government ever. The Coalition’s programme for Government set out our ambitious environmental goals: • introducing a floor price for carbon • increasing the proportion of tax revenues from environmental taxes • making the tax system more competitive, simpler, fairer and greener This consultation response demonstrates the significant progress the Coalition Government has already made towards these goals. As announced at Budget 2011, the UK will be the first country in the world to introduce a carbon price floor for the power sector.
    [Show full text]
  • CES Working Paper 07/00 RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES
    CES Working Paper 07/00 RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES Author: Tim Jackson ISSN: 1464-8083 RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES Tim Jackson ISSN: 1464-8083 Published by: Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, Guildford (Surrey) GU2 7XH, United Kingdom http://www.surrey.ac.uk/CES Publication date: 2000 © Centre for Environmental Strategy, 2007 The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and not of the Centre for Environmental Strategy. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the authors and the publishers cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials. This publication and its contents may be reproduced as long as the reference source is cited. ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION STUDY ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT Paper prepared as background to the Study Renewable Energy Sources March 1998 Dr Tim Jackson* and Dr Ragnar Löfstedt Centre for Environmental Strategy University of Surrey Guildford Surrey GU2 5XH E-mail: [email protected] The views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the thinking of the Royal Commission. Any queries about the paper should be directed to the author indicated * above. Whilst every reasonable effort has been made to ensure accurate transposition of the written reports onto the website, the Royal Commission cannot be held responsible for any accidental errors which might have been introduced during the transcription. Table of Contents Summary 1 Introduction 2 Renewable Energy Technologies
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Energy Bill: Pre–Legislative Scrutiny
    House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee Draft Energy Bill: Pre–legislative Scrutiny First Report of Session 2012-13 Volume III Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 24 May, 12, 19 and 26 June, 3 July, and 10 July 2012 Published on Monday 23 July 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Energy and Climate Change Committee The Energy and Climate Change Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department of Energy and Climate Change and associated public bodies. Current membership Mr Tim Yeo MP (Conservative, South Suffolk) (Chair) Dan Byles MP (Conservative, North Warwickshire) Barry Gardiner MP (Labour, Brent North) Ian Lavery MP (Labour, Wansbeck) Dr Phillip Lee MP (Conservative, Bracknell) Albert Owen MP (Labour, Ynys Môn) Christopher Pincher MP (Conservative, Tamworth) John Robertson MP (Labour, Glasgow North West) Laura Sandys MP (Conservative, South Thanet) Sir Robert Smith MP (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) The following members were also members of the committee during the parliament: Gemma Doyle MP (Labour/Co-operative, West Dunbartonshire) Tom Greatrex MP (Labour, Rutherglen and Hamilton West) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Roussely Report: Saving French Nuclear Industry with Outrageous Measures
    SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 | No. 715 ROUSSELY REPORT: SAVING FRENCH NUCLEAR INDUSTRY WITH ROUSSELY REPORT: SAVING FRENCH NUCLEAR INDUSTRY OUTRAGEOUS MEASURES WITH OUTRAGEOUS After France's failure to win the contract for four nuclear power MEASURES 1 plants in the United Arab Emirates, President Sarkozy ordered a OLKILUOTO BLOCKADE 2 report on the French nuclear industry. The outline of the Roussely report (named after Francois Roussely, a former EDF president), HAUNTED BY HISTORY: NUCLEAR NEW BUILD IN dated June 16, was made public –in French- by the Elysée Palace BRITAIN 4 on 27 July 2010 NUCLEAR ENERGY (715.6078) Sortir du nucleaire - In the the claims made by Areva, the merchant DECREASES WORLD report, author Francois Roussely of nuclear plants. Roussely points out the STABILITY AND INCREASES recognizes the scale of the problems inadequate performance of the French INEQUALITY 7 facing the French nuclear industry: lack nuclear reactors: “whereas global of export competitiveness, falling average nuclear plant availability has MORE PLUTONIUM DESTINED domestic load factor, delays and cost significantly increased during the last 15 FOR WIPP? 7 overruns in EPR construction projects. years, nuclear plant availability in France PROLONGING NUCLEAR has seen a marked decrease in the last POWER WILL HINDER French nuclear industry: disastrous few years.” RENEWABLES 8 economic and industrial results The failure of the EPR is such, according IN BRIEF 9 The Roussely report recognizes the scale to Roussely, that “it is the credibility, and of the setbacks experienced by Areva therefore the very existence” of the and EDF at the EPR reactor construction French nuclear industry which is at stake.
    [Show full text]
  • The Essential Guide to Small Scale Combined Heat and Power
    The essential guide to small scale February 2018 combined heat and power The answer to all your combined heat and power questions in one, easy to read guide... Centrica Business Solutions The essential guide to combined heat and power Contents What is combined heat and power? 4 • About Centrica Business Solutions • Introduction to combined heat and power • Combined heat and power applications • Fuel options • Benefits of combined heat and power Economics of combined heat and power 6 • Stages of feasibility • CHP quality index • CHP selection • Site review to determine actual installation costs Financing the CHP project 10 • Discount energy purchase (DEP) • Capital purchase scheme • Energy savings agreement (ESAs) Integrating CHP into a building 11 • Low temperature hot water systems • Steam systems • Absorption cooling systems CHP technology 12 • The equipment • E-POWER Typical case studies 15 • Alton Towers • Newcastle United • Royal Stoke University Hospital Glossary of terms 18 CIBSE accredited CPD courses 19 Useful contacts and further information 20 2 Centrica Business Solutions ThePanoramic essential Power guide in to action combined heat and power About Centrica Business Solutions With over 30 years’ experience, more than 3,000 units manufactured and an amazing 27 millions tonnes of CO2 saved by our customers, Centrica Business Solutions are the largest provider of small scale CHP units in the U.K. We understand the power of power. As new energy sources and technologies emerge, and power becomes decentralised, we’re helping organisations around the world use the freedom this creates to achieve their objectives. We provide insights, expertise and solutions to enable them to take control of energy and gain competitive advantage – powering performance, resilience and growth.
    [Show full text]
  • An International Comparison of Energy and Climate Change Policies Impacting Energy Intensive Industries in Selected Countries
    AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES IMPACTING ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES IN SELECTED COUNTRIES Final Report 11 JULY 2012 The Views expressed within this report are those of the authors and should not be treated as Government policy An international comparison of energy and climate change policies impacting energy intensive industries in selected countries FINAL REPORT 11 July 2012 Submitted to: Department for Business Innovation & Skills 1 Victoria Street London SW1H 0ET Submitted by: ICF International 3rd Floor, Kean House 6 Kean Street London WC2B 4AS U.K. An international comparison of energy and climate change policies impacting energy intensive industries in selected countries Table of Contents Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 17 1.1 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................. 17 1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE ............................................................................... 18 2. ELECTRICITY AND GAS MARKETS .............................................................. 20 3. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES TOWARDS KEY SECTORS IN EACH COUNTRY .................................................. 35 3.1 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 35 3.1.1
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Electricity Market
    HOUSE OF LORDS Select Committee on Economic Affairs 2nd Report of Session 2016–17 The Price of Power: Reforming the Electricity Market Ordered to be printed 8 February 2017 and published 24 February 2017 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords HL Paper 113 Select Committee on Economic Affairs The Economic Affairs Committee was appointed by the House of Lords in this session “to consider economic affairs”. Membership The Members of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs are: Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Lord Layard Lord Burns Lord Livermore Lord Darling of Roulanish Lord Sharkey Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Tugendhat Lord Hollick (Chairman) Lord Turnbull Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Baroness Wheatcroft Lord Lamont of Lerwick Declaration of interests See Appendix 1. A full list of Members’ interests can be found in the Register of Lords’ Interests: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/standards-and-interests/register-of-lords- interests Publications All publications of the Committee are available at: http://www.parliament.uk/hleconomicaffairs Parliament Live Live coverage of debates and public sessions of the Committee’s meetings are available at: http://www.parliamentlive.tv Further information Further information about the House of Lords and its Committees, including guidance to witnesses, details of current inquiries and forthcoming meetings is available at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords Committee staff The staff who worked on this inquiry were Ayeesha Waller (Clerk), Ben McNamee (Policy Analyst), Oswin Taylor (Committee Assistant) and Dr Aaron Goater and Dr Jonathan Wentworth of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. Contact details All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Economic Affairs Committee, Committee Office, House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Policy and Biomass
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory Global (International) Energy Policy and Biomass Ralph P. Overend National Renewable Energy Laboratory California Biomass Collaboration – First Annual Forum January 8th , 2004 Sacramento, CA. NREL/PR-510-35561 Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle • Bechtel Understanding Policy • Policies are applied against uncertain futures! • Can be – EXPLICIT as in having an “Energy Policy” •OR – IMPLICIT derived from the sum total of previous actions • Biomass Specific Policy – At the Intersection of several policies and jurisdictions • Energy • Environment • Land Use – Agriculture – Forestry – Rural Development • Urban •ZEN Rules – not having an Explicit policy can still be an Energy Policy! – However well meaning a policy – there is a law of unintended consequences World TPES 2000 (Total Primary Energy Supply = 448 EJ) • Food TPES – 2700 Cal/person/day 6% 2% – Popn. 6.1 Billion 6% • Source for Food TPES 35% –FAO.org 10% • Nuclear conversion – kWh = 10.8 MJ • Hydro conversion 19% –kWh = 3.6 MJ • source for fuel TPES (9700 22% Mtoe) – Iea.org Oil Coal N.Gas Biomass Food Nuclear Hydro Business as Usual - World Energy according to IEA WEO2002 • 2030 time horizon • TPES grows at 1.7%/a from 9179 – 15267 Mtoe – No shortage of traditional fossil fuel resources (see next slide) – Requires considerable investment > 17 T$ (2002) • About 1% of global GDP • 50% goes for infrastructure replacement • Electricity system needs about 10 T$ (50% in T&D) • Oil and Gas each about 3
    [Show full text]
  • CLIMATE JUSTICE: the International Momentum Towards Climate Litigation
    CLIMATE JUSTICE: The international momentum towards climate litigation Keely Boom, Julie-Anne Richards and Stephen Leonard CLIMATE JUSTICE: The international momentum towards climate litigation Keely Boom, Julie-Anne Richards and Stephen Leonard 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Paris Agreement is ground breaking yet contradictory. In an era of fractured multilateralism it achieved above and beyond what was considered politically possible – yet it stopped far short of what is necessary to stop dangerous climate change. In the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5C, yet the mitigation pledges on the table at Paris will result in roughly 3C of warming, with insufficient finance to implement those pledges. The Paris Agreement was widely acknowledged to signal the end of the fossil fuel era, yet it does not explicitly use the words ‘fossil fuels’ throughout the entire document, nor does it contain any binding requirements that governments commit to any concrete climate recovery steps. Now, citizens and governments are beginning to seek redress in court with ground breaking cases emerging around the world, in a whole new area of litigation, some of which can be compared with the beginnings of - and based on some of the legal precedents set by - legal action against the tobacco industry. Other new strategies are focused not only on private industry but on the sovereign responsibility of governments to preserve constitutional and public trust rights to a stable climate and healthy atmosphere on behalf of both present and future generations. Climate litigation has spread beyond the US into new jurisdictions throughout Asia, the Pacific and Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Responsibility Report 2007 Corporate Responsibility Report 2007
    Corporate Responsibility Report 2007 Corporate Responsibility Report 2007 Index Page number Welcome 2 Performance Summary 2007 3 Managing our Responsibilities Our Approach 6 Governance 7 Environment 8 Stakeholder Engagement 11 Scope 12 Benchmarking and Recognition 13 Our 12 Impacts 15 Provision of Energy 16 Health and Safety 25 Customer Experience 35 Climate Change and Emissions to Air 43 Waste and Resource Use 52 Biodiversity 62 Sites, Siting and Infrastructure 70 Employment Experience 75 Customers with Special Circumstances 88 Community 94 Procurement 107 Economic 113 Assurance Statement 116 Page 1 of 118 www.scottishpower.com/CorporateResponsibility.asp Corporate Responsibility Report 2007 Welcome 2007 was a landmark year for our business with the successful integration of ScottishPower and IBERDROLA. The new enlarged IBERDROLA Group ended 2007 as one of the worlds largest electricity companies by market capitalisation. Through the friendly integration, now successfully completed, we have reinforced our shared commitment to Corporate Responsibility. Our reporting year has been aligned to IBERDROLA so going forward we will be working on a calendar year basis. Achieving Scottish Business in the Community Large Company of the Year in 2007 was an important endorsement for ScottishPowers work and to our commitment to environmental and social issues. During 2007, we have announced significant investments in sustainable generation projects and environmental technologies; increased our 2010 target for delivery of wind energy projects in the UK to 1,200 MW and established partnerships that will help secure Scotlands place as the world leader in marine energy. In addition, we announced the UKs largest energy crop project and embarked on a major study into cleaner coal generation.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Energy Electrical Architecture
    Marine Energy Electrical Architecture Report 1: Landscape Map and Literature Review September 2015 Marine Energy Electrical Architecture PN000083-LRT-006 Document History Field Detail Report Title Marine Energy Electrical Architecture Report Sub-Title Report 1: Landscape Map and Literature Review Client/Funding CORE Status Public Project Reference PN000083 Document Reference PN000083-LRT-006 Prepared Revision Date Checked by Approved by Revision History by R0 April 2015 Alan Mason Stephanie Hay Rachel Hodges First Release August R1 Alan Mason Stephanie Hay Rachel Hodges Second Release 2015 Disclaimer: The information contained in this report is for general information and is provided by TNEI. Whilst we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, neither ORE Catapult nor TNEI make any representations or warranties of any kind, express, or implied about the completeness, accuracy or reliability of the information and related graphics. Any reliance you place on this information is at your own risk and in no event shall ORE Catapult or TNEI be held liable for any loss, damage including without limitation indirect or consequential damage or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from reliance on same. ORE Catapult Marine Energy Electrical Architecture PN000083-LRT-006 Contents 1 Executive summary ................................................................................................ 5 2 Introduction............................................................................................................. 8 3 MEC Overview......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance
    GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance An amendment to the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard AUTHOR Mary Sotos GHG PROTOCOL TEAM Pankaj Bhatia, World Resources Institute Cynthia Cummis, World Resources Institute Mark Didden, World Business Council for Sustainable Development Alex Kovac, World Resources Institute Josh Ryor, World Resources Institute Amanda Stevens, World Resources Institute Table of Contents 1 Introduction 4 2 Business Goals 14 3 Accounting and Reporting Principles 20 4 Scope 2 Accounting Methods 24 5 Identifying Scope 2 Emissions and Setting the Scope 2 Boundary 32 6 Calculating Emissions 42 7 Accounting and Reporting Requirements 58 8 Recommended Reporting on Instrument Features and Policy Context 66 9 Setting Reduction Targets and Tracking Emissions Over Time 74 BACKGROUND READING 10 Key Concepts and Background in Energy Attribute Certificates and Claims 78 11 How Companies Can Drive Electricity Supply Changes with the Market-Based Method 88 AppENDICES A Accounting for Steam, Heat, and Cooling 94 B Accounting for Energy-Related Emissions Throughout the Value Chain 96 Abbreviations 98 Glossary 99 References 108 Recognitions 111 1 Detailed Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 4 4 SCOPE 2 ACCOUNTING METHODS 24 1.1 The GHG Protocol 5 4.1 Approaches to accounting scope 2 25 1.2 The Corporate Standard’s 4.2 Emission rate approach 27 approach to scope 2 emissions 5 4.3 The decision-making value of each 1.3 Key questions on scope 2 accounting method’s results 28 and reporting 6 1.4 Purpose of this Guidance 7 5 IDENTIFYING SCOPE 2 EMISSIONS
    [Show full text]