GHG Protocol Retreats on Hourly Matching After 82% Corporate Rejection

Only 12% of companies backed hourly matching. That figure, released by GHG Protocol alongside its consultation results, has effectively killed the mandatory version of the stricter Scope 2 reporting rules — at least for now.

The standards body confirmed it plans to delay mandatory application of the requirements that would force companies to match clean energy purchases to the time and location of their electricity consumption before claiming environmental benefit. The retreat follows a consultation that showed very low corporate support and warnings that the rules could depress participation in voluntary clean energy procurement markets.

What was proposed?

The revisions grew out of a Technical Working Group GHG Protocol launched in 2024 to overhaul the original Scope 2 guidance, which dates from 2015. A consultation on the draft changes opened in October 2025.

Two proposals sat at the center. The Hourly Matching proposal would require companies using contractual instruments to match them to electricity consumption hour by hour. The Deliverability proposal would require those instruments to come from renewable generation that can physically reach the same electricity market where the power is consumed.

The stakes are not small. Scope 2 covers emissions from purchased electricity, steam, heat and cooling. GHG Protocol notes that nearly 40% of global greenhouse gas emissions trace to energy generation, and half of that energy serves industrial or commercial entities.

How strongly did companies push back?

The numbers are unambiguous. On hourly matching, 12% of companies supported the rule; 82% registered low or no support. On deliverability, support reached 19%, with 71% opposed.

Respondents cited concrete concerns:

• 87% said hourly matching could discourage global participation in voluntary clean energy procurement markets.
• 86% flagged the reporting burden and cost.
• 87% said deliverability's narrower market boundaries would restrict investment in regions where renewable development could yield the greatest decarbonization impact.
• 72% said deliverability could push companies away from long-term agreements toward spot purchases.

The pattern is consistent. Buyers want credit for capital deployed where it decarbonizes most, not where the grid boundary happens to sit.

What replaces the strict rules?

GHG Protocol framed the responses as two competing theories of change. One camp holds that hourly matching and deliverability direct corporate demand toward clean generation at the times and places it is scarce, supporting grid decarbonization. The other argues that annual matching and broad geographic boundaries lower barriers, sustain a large market for energy attribute certificates, and channel more capital into global renewables.

The Scope 2 Secretariat responded with a two-method structure: Method 1 incorporating hourly matching and deliverability, Method 2 preserving current requirements.

The Independent Standard Board then proposed the operative compromise. Companies should use Method 1 for market-based Scope 2 reporting but may continue under Method 2 until a to-be-determined future date — provided they disclose which method they use. After that date, Method 1 becomes compulsory where data meeting quality criteria is available.

The word "should," in standards language, does a great deal of quiet work.

What happens next?

A further consultation on the revised Scope 2 proposals opens in Q2 2027. It will cover requirements for Scopes 1, 2 and 3, plus actions and market instruments, as part of the joint GHG Protocol–ISO Corporate Standard, which is anticipated in Q4 2028.

The unresolved question is the deadline itself. Until GHG Protocol names the date when Method 1 becomes mandatory, hourly matching remains a recommendation with an IOU attached.