White Paper Issues and Options for Benchmarking Industrial GHG Emissions

The report examines the methodology for constructing industrial GHG benchmarks, focusing on the trade-offs between sector-wide and product-specific aggregation, the inclusion of indirect emissions, and the selection of benchmark ambition. It analyzes specific sectors present in Washington—including aluminum, cement, chemicals, food processing, glass, pulp and paper, and steel—and evaluates data sources, noting that mandatory reporting rules are the most promising but that a broader geographic cohort beyond Washington is necessary for robust benchmarks. The document concludes by proposing paths for the Washington State Department of Ecology to implement these benchmarks depending on the ultimate policy context.

• Industrial processes and energy use contribute over 20% of direct greenhouse gas emissions both globally and within Washington State.
• The choice of benchmark ambition—whether based on average, better-than-average, or top-performing facilities—varies by policy goal; in regulatory and voluntary programs, the benchmark level directly determines the amount of GHG abatement.
• Broad aggregation (sector-wide benchmarks) provides industry with maximum flexibility to reduce emissions but may disadvantage smaller, older manufacturers unable to upgrade capital stock.
• In cap-and-trade systems, a 'one product, one benchmark' approach is identified as the best method to preserve the carbon price signal to individual firms.
• Including indirect emissions (such as purchased electricity) in benchmarks is critical for voluntary and regulatory programs to prevent facilities from simply shifting emissions to the electricity sector.
• Combined heat and power (CHP) systems can be inadvertently discouraged by benchmarks based only on direct emissions, as CHP increases on-site direct emissions while reducing overall system emissions.
• Physical output (e.g., tons of product) is generally preferred as a normalizing unit over input or monetary values because it links directly to technology performance and avoids price-driven distortions.
• Mandatory GHG reporting rules are expected to be the best data source for benchmarking, though data for the 2010 year would not be available until March 31, 2011.

APA

Stockholm Environment Institute (2010). White Paper Issues and Options for Benchmarking Industrial GHG Emissions. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/Economics_of_climate_policy/sei-benchmarkingwawhitepaper-10.pdf

Chicago

Stockholm Environment Institute. White Paper Issues and Options for Benchmarking Industrial GHG Emissions. 2010. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/Economics_of_climate_policy/sei-benchmarkingwawhitepaper-10.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Stockholm Environment Institute |title=White Paper Issues and Options for Benchmarking Industrial GHG Emissions |date=30 June 2010 |url=https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/Economics_of_climate_policy/sei-benchmarkingwawhitepaper-10.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{stockholmenvironmentinstitute2010white, author = {{Stockholm Environment Institute}}, title = {{White Paper Issues and Options for Benchmarking Industrial GHG Emissions}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2010}, month = jun, url = {https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate-mitigation-adaptation/Economics_of_climate_policy/sei-benchmarkingwawhitepaper-10.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }