This is Perseus’ programme’s response to the GHG Protocol’s Scope 2 Public Consultation. Perseus unlocks access to finance that reduces emissions by automating sustainability reporting for every SME business in the UK. This response is compiled on behalf of the Perseus members.
Please note that throughout this consultation, Icebreaker One uses the terms Open, Shared and Closed data as defined here.
If you have any questions about our submission or require clarifications please do not hesitate to contact us via policy@ib1.org. We have omitted questions which we did not answer.
Consultation response:
18. Please provide any feedback on the proposal to refine the definition of scope 2, to emphasize its role within an attributional value chain GHG inventory and clarify that scope 2 must only include emissions from electricity generation processes that are physically connected to the reporter’s value chain, excluding any emissions from unrelated sources?
This response is on behalf of the Perseus programme’s member organisations. Perseus aims to unlock access to finance that reduces emissions, by automating sustainability reporting for every SME business in the UK. Perseus operationalises one granular use case focusing on the sharing of 30-minute electricity consumption data, which is combined with corresponding 30-minute local grid carbon intensity readings to calculate assurable monthly GHG emissions (See Perseus’ emissions calculations: https://registry.core.sandbox.trust.ib1.org/scheme/perseus/process/emissions-calculations/2025-10-23). The consumption data is sourced from SMEs with either a) a single business premise and a single, unshared smart meter, or b) an account with Perseus member Energy Data Provider that can provide half-hourly electricity consumption data.
We welcome the GHG Protocol’s efforts to update the Scope 2 guidance. As the grid decarbonises, the current annual, market-wide accounting framework is increasingly insufficient for capturing the reality and complexity of electricity consumption. Perseus is currently UK focused and requires 30-minute electricity consumption and local grid carbon intensity granularity, however, we encourage the protocol to globally require reporting organisations to use the best possible available data.
The proposal to restrict sourcing to the same “deliverable market boundary” rightly addresses the disconnect where companies claim emission reductions from grids they do not physically use. However, boundaries must be pragmatically defined.
Perseus member companies note that restricting procurement to narrow pricing zones could strangle market liquidity and prevent companies from supporting high-impact projects in adjacent, interconnected grids where decarbonisation is necessary. The final standard should explicitly allow for procurement across recognised interconnected power pools (e.g., EU-wide) rather than strictly enforcing narrow pricing zones.
19. Please provide any feedback on the proposal to clarify the LBM definition to reflect scope 2 emissions from generation physically delivered at the times and locations of consumption, with imports included in LBM emission factor calculations where applicable?
As Perseus uses location-based method emissions calculations, we will only comment on LBM changes.
The proposal to refine the Location-Based Method by prioritising a hierarchy of “Local” and “Hourly” data over national annual averages is scientifically sound. It correctly identifies that grid carbon intensity varies significantly by time and place. The administrative burden of the proposals may affect different business structures in quite different ways, potentially introducing new costs to distributed business with sites that are geographically dispersed. We suggest that the potential for an element of aggregation is considered. For example, this could mirror the ESOS model where a relevant proportion of the portfolio is surveyed and information is then extrapolated to the rest of the portfolio.