Resources

A comprehensive meta-analysis of over 200 independent resources reveals that 67% of rigorous academic research rejects mandatory hourly matching as the best approach for decarbonization.

An open letter signed by 31 leading grid experts representing 11 top academic institutions disputes the claim that 24/7 hourly matching is the only effective path to decarbonization.

A May 2025 survey revealed that nearly 80% of corporate clean energy buyers lack confidence in their ability to source electricity under proposed tighter geographic boundaries, warning of a market exit that threatens to freeze new clean energy project financing.

A January 2025 study by WattTime found that investing in renewable energy projects across the Global South can yield 2x to nearly 3x greater climate benefit vs. renewables projects in countries of the Global North, multiplying the avoided emissions benefit of renewable energy investment.

The clean energy world is buzzing about "hourly matching" (the idea that companies should prove the megawatt-hours of clean energy that they buy matches their consumption hour-by-hour, in the same grid-region). At first glance, it looks like an improved standard for sustainability, but as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP) weighs new rules, a chorus of leading experts is sounding the alarm that this will do more harm than good than good. 

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP) has proposed counting only clean energy that is hourly matched to load in its upcoming Scope 2 carbon accounting revisions.  While hourly matching is a well-intentioned attempt to make sure clean power purchases are rigorous, it rewards procurement that looks good in the newspaper but doesn’t necessarily reduce carbon, and can block clean energy investments where they’re needed most. Let’s look at a couple real-world examples that would become more commonplace if the GHGP pushes hourly matching.

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP) is proposing a major revision to its carbon accounting standards. The “new rule”, known as hourly matching (or with 100% matching commonly referred to as ‘24/7 CFE’), would require companies to match their clean energy purchases to their consumption within the same hour and the same geographic grid region. This creates a gap for the huge share of companies whose annual regional energy load falls between 10 GWh and 250 GWh. They are “caught in the middle” - too big to be exempt from the rules, yet too small on their own to fund the most effective clean energy projects. 

The Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHGP) recently closed its public consultation on Scope 2 revisions. While we wait for the official release of all submissions, a few organizations have already publicized their positions and are beginning to paint a picture of public response. 

Retail energy costs in the US have been increasing, up 23% in the last 5 years, pushed steadily higher primarily by macroeconomic inflation and aging distribution infrastructure. One of the few forces pulling down on prices has been the rapid expansion of low cost solar and wind power. The US has added 164 GW of wind and solar power capacity in the last 5 years, equivalent to the total generation capacity of France or Canada.

An interactive dataset of more than 220 Scope 2 accounting resources from 150 unique organizations, tracking peer and non peer reviewed research, white papers, regulatory public comments, reports, news articles and more.

An interactive dataset of consultation responses and statements from multiple sectors, tracking public sentiment toward the mandatory hourly matching revisions proposed for Scope 2 accounting.

The clean energy world is stuck in a fight over greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting. Advocates of annual renewable energy matching, hourly matching, and consequential accounting increasingly treat each approach as mutually exclusive—sometimes even accusing one another of greenwashing or deception. But these approaches can coexist. Learn more.