Dear Ms. Khalaf,
We appreciate the focus on carbon accounting in your recent article "Big Tech's bid to rewrite the rules on net zero.” We are writing to correct certain inaccuracies and ensure Emissions First is accurately shown.
Our focus is transparent and precise measurement of corporate actions to accelerate grid decarbonization. Any suggestion that our approach is "a way to rig the rules so the whole ecosystem can obfuscate what they are up to" is a misunderstanding. For example, 50 MW of clean energy capacity in a dirtier grid like West Virginia has a greater climate benefit than 100 MW in a cleaner grid like California, yet current sustainability metrics encourage the opposite. EFP recommends correcting these disincentives by measuring energy emissions using the best available data to improve carbon accounting and drive more targeted corporate action.
Second, the article overlooks common ground between EFP and 24/7 proponents. Both agree that the value of clean energy depends on the electricity it’s displacing, and the importance of tracking the timing and location of energy generation. EFP additionally supports “stamping” each megawatt-hour with its specific carbon impact rather than solely focusing on the hourly energy volume. A company pursuing 24/7 can also verify its carbon impact through these more granular emissions measurements - the approaches are not mutually exclusive.
Third, we want to make clear the type of geographic flexibility EFP supports. While local sourcing of clean energy is important for community investment and reducing regional emissions, companies operating in relatively clean grids or regions with limited procurement options should have some flexibility to direct their resources to grids in greater need of decarbonization. A recent Baringa study highlighted the benefits of this approach.
Lastly, the article incorrectly suggests that EFP members, notably Amazon and Meta, are disproportionately trying to influence the Greenhouse Gas Protocol revisions. Specifically, the two meetings mentioned in the article were also attended by several proponents of hourly matching, and a paper advocating for hourly matching was presented at the NREL-hosted workshop. That workshop aimed to foster healthy discussion and collaboration among proponents of these different approaches - something your article’s framing undermines.
The carbon accounting standards discussed in the article have driven billions of dollars in investments and are crucial to debate and refine. While our strategies may differ, we believe proponents of all approaches share the goal of improving these standards to more rapidly decarbonize global grids.
Sincerely,
The Emissions First Partnership