{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"analysis_type":["technical briefing"]},"warnings":[]},"total":{"value":21,"relation":"eq"},"page":2,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?analysis_type=technical+briefing&page=2","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"wri-001710","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/wri-001710","title":"Aligning Emissions Reporting Process & Data","publisher":{"name":"World Resources Institute","organization":"world-resources-institute"},"document_type":"briefing","language":"en","date_published":null,"source_url":"https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/uploads/cpc-workstream-aligning-emissions-reporting-processes-data.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The document outlines the friction between utility and customer GHG reporting, specifically regarding the lack of standardized platforms and the treatment of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). It advocates for the use of supplier-specific emission factors over outdated average factors and highlights The Climate Registry's (TCR) Electric Power Sector Protocol as a best practice, while noting its failure to provide guidance on REC accounting.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"wri-001710#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Several systemic disconnects exist between customer and utility emissions reporting, including the use of multiple reporting platforms, varying calculation methodologies for grid emission factors, and a lack of coordination in reporting timelines, which often results in both parties calculating factors concurrently.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"wri-001710#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Under the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, customers use location-based or market-based methods for Scope 2 emissions. The market-based method is preferred for reflecting supplier portfolio risks, but without supplier-specific factors, customers rely on average factors (such as eGrid) that are 3-4 years old.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"wri-001710#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Customers require supplier-specific emission factors that are territory-specific, account for both purchased and sold energy, separate biogenic carbon emissions, and provide clarity on whether associated RECs were retired in the same reporting year.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"wri-001710#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The Climate Registry’s (TCR) Electric Power Sector Protocol is considered a best practice because it accounts for both utility-generated and purchased power, offering a Single System Average Metric (Option A) or three specific supplier metrics for wholesale, special power, and retail deliveries (Option B). However, it does not provide guidance on REC accounting.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"wri-001710#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Utilities are employing different strategies to meet customer needs: the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) uses a load-specific approach based on a cost-of-service model, while MidAmerican Energy and Xcel Energy are testing a system average approach that retires RECs on behalf of all customers based on total annual renewable generation.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"wri-001710#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["Scope 2","electricity generation"],"geography_discussed":[],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy analysis","technical briefing"]}]}