On market-based vs. location-based reporting

This post is a summary of the Q&A on a Carbon+Alt+Delete webinar.

Q: Could you de-construct the basic criteria used to determine whether to use location- / market-based approach?

A: You should always report both on market-based & location-based.

Q: In which chapter of the GHG Reporting Standard can I find “Scope 2 dual reporting”?

A: All the details on dual reporting are in the " scope 2 guidance".

Q: Are AiB emission factors divided in scope 2 and 3 cat 3?

A: No, unfortunately AiB only gives scope 2 emissions.

Q: When using market-based approach: what emission factor should be used in countries that do not calculate their residual factor?

A: You should use the location-based as a default in the absence of residual mix factor.

Q: Regarding purchased heat emissions (district heating)- will they also be calculated using both location and market-based emission factors?

A: Yes (however there we see that mostly the same EF is used for MB and LB).

Q: Are AiB countries and the US/Canada the only allowed regions/countries to exchange energy attribute certificates to report lower scope 2 emissions?
A: No, in every country with some form of energy attribute certificates, companies should report both MB and LB.