Potentials and pitfalls around green claims of e-fuels: insights from an exploratory case study
This study uses a hypothetical e-methanol case to investigate (1) how accounting requirements of different policy regimes affect the accuracy of inventory emissions, and (2) how these reported values compare with emissions estimated under an impact-based accounting perspective.
Jan 20, 2026
Julien Lavalley
With the current GHG Protocol and international regulations, companies can offset their emissions using so-called Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) without demonstrating deliverability (temporal and spatial matching) or additionality (new renewable capacity). This is problematic, as it can lead to inaccurate claims and ineffective mitigation.
This new paper, of which Electricity Maps' Julien Lavalley is a co-author of, uses a hypothetical e-methanol case to investigate, from the perspective of an individual producer:
• How accounting requirements under different policy regimes affect reported (inventory) emissions, and
• How these reported values compare with emissions estimated using an impact-based accounting perspective.
The study is using Electricity Maps data, and re-using our hourly residual mix methodology.
Key findings:
• Hourly energy matching provides the most accurate and credible claims Scope 2 inventory claims
• Non‑additional RECs can overstate decarbonisation claims and, in some cases, result in carbon intensities higher than those of the fossil reference fuel
• Impact‑based accounting can reveal global emissions reductions, but these cannot be attributed at firm level and should not replace inventory accounting
Read the Open Access paper here for free: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ae358f
With the current GHG Protocol and international regulations, companies can offset their emissions using so-called Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) without demonstrating deliverability (temporal and spatial matching) or additionality (new renewable capacity). This is problematic, as it can lead to inaccurate claims and ineffective mitigation.
This new paper, of which Electricity Maps' Julien Lavalley is a co-author of, uses a hypothetical e-methanol case to investigate, from the perspective of an individual producer:
• How accounting requirements under different policy regimes affect reported (inventory) emissions, and
• How these reported values compare with emissions estimated using an impact-based accounting perspective.
The study is using Electricity Maps data, and re-using our hourly residual mix methodology.
Key findings:
• Hourly energy matching provides the most accurate and credible claims Scope 2 inventory claims
• Non‑additional RECs can overstate decarbonisation claims and, in some cases, result in carbon intensities higher than those of the fossil reference fuel
• Impact‑based accounting can reveal global emissions reductions, but these cannot be attributed at firm level and should not replace inventory accounting
Read the Open Access paper here for free: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ae358f
With the current GHG Protocol and international regulations, companies can offset their emissions using so-called Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) without demonstrating deliverability (temporal and spatial matching) or additionality (new renewable capacity). This is problematic, as it can lead to inaccurate claims and ineffective mitigation.
This new paper, of which Electricity Maps' Julien Lavalley is a co-author of, uses a hypothetical e-methanol case to investigate, from the perspective of an individual producer:
• How accounting requirements under different policy regimes affect reported (inventory) emissions, and
• How these reported values compare with emissions estimated using an impact-based accounting perspective.
The study is using Electricity Maps data, and re-using our hourly residual mix methodology.
Key findings:
• Hourly energy matching provides the most accurate and credible claims Scope 2 inventory claims
• Non‑additional RECs can overstate decarbonisation claims and, in some cases, result in carbon intensities higher than those of the fossil reference fuel
• Impact‑based accounting can reveal global emissions reductions, but these cannot be attributed at firm level and should not replace inventory accounting
Read the Open Access paper here for free: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ae358f
With the current GHG Protocol and international regulations, companies can offset their emissions using so-called Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) without demonstrating deliverability (temporal and spatial matching) or additionality (new renewable capacity). This is problematic, as it can lead to inaccurate claims and ineffective mitigation.
This new paper, of which Electricity Maps' Julien Lavalley is a co-author of, uses a hypothetical e-methanol case to investigate, from the perspective of an individual producer:
• How accounting requirements under different policy regimes affect reported (inventory) emissions, and
• How these reported values compare with emissions estimated using an impact-based accounting perspective.
The study is using Electricity Maps data, and re-using our hourly residual mix methodology.
Key findings:
• Hourly energy matching provides the most accurate and credible claims Scope 2 inventory claims
• Non‑additional RECs can overstate decarbonisation claims and, in some cases, result in carbon intensities higher than those of the fossil reference fuel
• Impact‑based accounting can reveal global emissions reductions, but these cannot be attributed at firm level and should not replace inventory accounting
Read the Open Access paper here for free: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ae358f
