Energy Procurement & GHG Protocol: What's Changing

The GHG Protocol is reshaping how organisations report energy consumption and emissions – and many are scrambling to understand what that means for procurement strategy. edie's refreshed Jargon Buster tackles the terminology that matters: the difference between scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions; how renewable energy credits work; what "additionality" actually means in carbon accounting; the mechanics of power purchase agreements; and why your current procurement approach may no longer satisfy incoming reporting standards.

This matters because the Protocol's updated guidance will tighten definitions around what counts as "renewable" or "low-carbon" energy. Claims that were acceptable last year – vague references to "green energy" or bundled RECs – won't cut it under the new framework. Organisations will need to specify: which scope the energy covers, whether offsets are involved, whether the energy source is genuinely additional to the grid, and which verification standard applies.

The piece signals a broader shift. Energy procurement is no longer a cost-centre decision. It's now a reporting and risk decision. Companies choosing between grid electricity, on-site generation, PPAs, and carbon offsets face real trade-offs in how those choices look under scrutiny from investors, regulators, and auditors. Greenwashing risk rises sharply if procurement claims don't align with Protocol definitions.

What's not yet clear: how fast will large procurement managers actually move to align with these standards? And will supply constraints in renewable energy markets leave many organisations with procurement options that don't match their reporting ambitions?

The A-Z of Energy Procurement: Defining and explaining changes to energy markets and reporting

Report This Content