Evaluating Proposed Spatiotemporal Matching for Scope 2 Market-based Accounting: emissions, cost, and policy tradeoffs for hourly matching and tighter geographic constraints

Abstract

Corporate voluntary electricity procurement represents a large share of clean energy investment, yet accounting rules for the electricity and associated emissions claims are contested. Whether tighter spatiotemporal constraints on carbon-free electricity would substantially reduce emissions or primarily raise compliance costs is unknown. Using an integrated capacity expansion model with flexible alternate scenarios of deliverability zones and policy contexts, this analysis suggests that across most scenarios, geographically narrower deliverability zones are associated with greater consequential emissions reductions along with higher EAC prices. National results show that in the Reference Technology scenario, the model preferentially deploys natural gas with CCS to meet new CFE demand. In the Limited Technology scenarios where natural gas with CCS is unavailable, wind and solar resources are deployed. Individual regions show varying costs of CO2 abatement under the scenarios, with the highest EAC prices occurring under Limited Technology assumptions and Fine spatial boundaries. This regional cost variation for CFE procurement could have implications for future load siting decisions or for which existing loads CFE will be procured to match. These findings highlight the importance of clearly defining deliverability zones in shaping both the emissions impact and cost of voluntary CFE procurement.