1 of 18

Metrics and methodologies in support of ICT policies for a low carbon economy SMART

2010/0079 - LOT 1: metrics and methodologies related to anthropogenic greenhouse

gas emissions and energy end-use for ‘social systems’: cities and companies

Carbon Trust Advisory

Final Study Report

13 January 2012

Ref. Ares(2012)321679 - 19/03/2012

2 of 18

Executive Summary

Introduction

The EC Information Society and Media Directorate-General appointed Carbon Trust Advisory to

produce a database of methodologies and metrics used to measure the energy-use or GHG

emissions from Cities and Companies, with reference to the ICT sector. Our research involved a

review of third party work, internet-based research into existing methodologies and interviews with

experts in the field. We created a classification and assessment framework to record relevant

information about each methodology and assess their relative merits.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) / World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBSC)

GHG Protocol Corporate Standard is the key defining methodology for Company reporting and the

principles it established have been adapted for City-based measurement.

Company reporting

For Company reporting, mandatory measurement is required to comply with carbon reporting

legislation e.g. the US Environmental Protection agency (EPA) Reporting Rule, statutory emissions

trading schemes e.g. the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) and other carbon

pricing mechanisms e.g. the UK Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC).

Such mandatory reporting focuses on Scope 1 and 2 emissions only. Voluntary reporting schemes

also exist and often extend reporting to Scope 3 emissions e.g. the Carbon Disclosure Project, and

broader environmental aspects, e.g. the Global Reporting Initiative. The most regulated of these is

the International Organisation for Standardisation ISO 14064-1: Specification with Guidance at the

Organization Level for Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals.

City reporting

There is no mandatory City-level reporting. Early efforts focused on public sector operational

emissions e.g. the Low Carbon Cities programme in the UK. Later methodologies have assessed

emissions associated with a geographical boundary using production-based, e.g. the Covenant of

Mayor‟s Baseline Emission Inventory, or consumption-based approaches, e.g. the Capital

Consumption study by BioRegional and the London Sustainable Development. However, most

common approach observed is a hybrid that measures emissions within City boundaries, plus key

cross-boundary emissions including electricity, infrastructure services and critical supply chain

operations. The key global standard is the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

(ICLEI) International Local Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP).

ICT reporting

From an ICT perspective, methodologies for Companies reporting can be applied to ICT Companies,

and specific sector guidance is being developed that will support Scope 3 reporting. We did not find

existing methodologies that measure emissions from ICT in the context of a City, although there are

opportunities to influence the development of reporting frameworks to be able to capture this. Work

is in progress by the ITU-T developing the L.1400 series of Recommendations relating to the

environmental impact of ICT.

ICT tools

The ICT sector provides tools to support measurement efforts, e.g. open source databases of

emissions factors. For Cities, tools have been developed on a bespoke basis although some

footprinting tools exist, e.g. DECoRuM and the Greenhouse Gas Regional Inventory Protocol (GRIP)

energy emissions scenario tool. For Companies, mandatory reporting schemes provide tools e.g. the

EU ETS uses an Excel-based template and Australia‟s NGER uses bespoke software OSCAR, as do

some voluntary programmes e.g. the US Climate Registry‟s Climate Registry Information System

(CRIS). Many organisations report against multiple methodologies.

3 of 18

Contents

1. Introduction to the study............................................................................................... 4

1.1. Background .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2. Objectives ................................................................................................................ 4 1.3. Scope ...................................................................................................................... 5

2. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 6

2.1. Development of the framework ................................................................................... 6 2.2. Research .................................................................................................................. 7 2.3. Assessment .............................................................................................................. 7

3. Findings ...................................................................................................................... 8

3.1. Companies Summary ................................................................................................. 8 3.2. Cities Summary ........................................................................................................ 9 3.3. Implications for ICT ................................................................................................. 10 3.4. Further Research .................................................................................................... 12

4. Appendices ................................................................................................................ 13

4.1. Appendix A – Database ............................................................................................ 13 4.2. Appendix B – Governmental sources .......................................................................... 14 4.3. Appendix C - Glossary ............................................................................................. 16 4.4. Appendix D - References .......................................................................................... 17

Tables

Table 1: Classification framework

Table 2: Assessment framework

4 of 18

1. Introduction to the study

1.1. Background

In 2008, the European Union set targets to reduce emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels and

to improve energy efficiency by 20%, by 2020. To help achieve these targets, the European

Commission (EC) is promoting the role of ICT (Information and Communications Technologies) in

improving energy efficiency.

Energy use by ICT equipment and services represents about 8% of electrical power and 2% of

carbon emissions in the EU (Bio Intelligence Service 2008) and ICT-enabled improvements in

buildings and construction, transport logistics and energy end-use could save about 15% of total

carbon emissions by 2020 (GeSI 2008).

However, there are multiple initiatives ongoing worldwide to provide the tools (methodologies,

metrics and data-sets) to measure and report Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and energy end-

use, and there is no agreed framework to measure the performance of the ICT sector.

In 2009, the EC recommended that the ICT sector should implement common methodologies to

measure its environmental performance by the end of 2011 (EC 2009). This includes the energy

use and GHG emissions of production processes, distribution, use and disposal of ICT products and

the delivery of ICT services.

The EC Information Society and Media Directorate-General appointed Carbon Trust Advisory to

produce a database of methodologies and metrics that are in use or currently under development,

with particular reference to the ICT sector. This homogeneous source of knowledge will provide

policy makers with the knowledge of „what is possible‟ to determine objectives, design programmes,

implement policies and compare and evaluate results across different policies and programmes.

1.2. Objectives

The objectives of the study were to:

1. Produce a user-friendly directory of methodologies and metrics relevant to the measurement,

reporting and verification of GHG emissions and energy end-use relating to Cities and

Companies (with applicability to ICT as technology/application and/or a sector) for the

following purposes:

1. To support the development of ICT tools that may be used to support or implement the

methodologies and metrics (e.g. data collection, data storage and data processing)

2. To provide methodologies and metrics relevant to ICT applications which offer an enabling

capability for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Cities (e.g. applications for

„smart cities‟ such as enhanced traffic and transportation management, smart building

management, and smart management of energy supply)

3. To provide methodologies and metrics specifically relevant to organisations in the ICT sector

(e.g. telecommunications providers, hardware suppliers, software suppliers).

2. Highlight potential further research opportunities

5 of 18

1.3. Scope

The scope of this study is limited by the following criteria:

GHG or energy-use focus – the methodologies / metrics have been used to measure, report or

verify GHG emissions (or carbon equivalent) or energy-end use (or energy efficiency).

Methodologies / metrics intended for the measurement of broader sustainability or other

environmental impacts have not been captured.

Applicable to Cities or Companies – the methodologies/metrics apply to:

o Cities and Towns (urban communities regardless of administrative or geographic

dimensions), or subsystems within Cities such as:

a. Electricity

Heat & industrial fuels

Industrial processes

Ground transport

o Companies and Organisations, or subsystems such as logistics and buildings. Lower-level

sub-systems such as projects and products have been excluded.

EU and OECD coverage – the methodologies/metrics are applicable across a broad coverage of

EU or OECD countries.

Current – the methodologies/metrics assessed are the latest version available and not

superseded by another methodology/metric.

6 of 18

2. Methodology

2.1. Development of the framework

Our preliminary research involved a review of published work that maps out the measurement and

reporting landscape (ERM 2010, Ernst & Young 2010, and JRC 2010). We used our knowledge of

methodologies to create a database structure that would capture key information. This was peer-

reviewed by Carbon Trust experts in product and corporate carbon footprinting and adjustments

were made to ensure it would be user friendly. The structure is set out below in Table 1.

Group Field Description

Identifier

Unique ID (Assigned reference) Unique database identifier

Name (Free text) Title of methodology/metric

Genera

l in

form

ation

Description (Free text) Short summary

Lead organisation

(Classification) Type: International/EU initiative/National agency/Regional agency/NGO/Standard-setter/Academia/Industry body/Corporate

(Free text) Name

(Free text) Address

(Free text) Website

Lead individual(s)

(Free text) Name

(Free text) Role and institution if differs to the lead

(Free text) Phone number

(Free text) Email

Region (Free text) Country or region of application, or global if no specific geography

Type (Classification): Methodology/Metric/Both: A methodology is guidance on how to measure carbon emissions or energy use; a metric provides data to be used for measurement (e.g. emissions factors)

Intended user (Free text) Qualification criteria for the targeted City or Company. This may include specified sectors, organisation size, sub-systems etc.

Nature of use (Classification): Mandatory/Voluntary/Research-only/Discontinued

Publication status

(Classification): Published/Proprietary/Restricted/Confidential/Under development

Indicates the availability of the methodology/metric; should be interpreted as: Published = freely available; Proprietary = available to all at cost; Restricted = only available to organisations that meet qualification criteria; Confidential = in use by a private organisation; Under development = as yet unpublished

Latest version (Free text) Date of version reviewed

Technic

al deta

ils

Main method (Free text) Overarching methodologies used, if applicable e.g. GHG Protocol

Energy or GHGs

(Classification) Energy/CO2/Kyoto GHGs/Non-Kyoto GHGs To note, the Kyoto GHG classification covers one or more of the six Kyoto gases; CO2 is separated because methodologies/metrics use this as a single indicator.

Activities (Free text) Activities covered, from which energy or GHGs are measured. This may be expressed as systems or subsystem e.g. transport, and may be required or optional.

Accounting principles

(Free text) Guidance concerning how energy or GHG emissions are accounted for. This may include the measurement approach to be used e.g. direct emissions or activity based measurement (bottom-up or top-down allocation), and what to include e.g. whether offsetting is acceptable.

Boundary def. (Free text) Guidance concerning what activities are to be included

Baseline (Free text) Guidance concerning the selection of a baseline year (or other period)

Data requirement

(Free text) Guidance on the type of data required to calculate a total energy or GHG emissions footprint using this methodology. May include data sources and how they should be used, the granularity of data required, and the time period over which it should be collected.

Output (Free text) Nature of the expected output from use of the methodology or metric. This may include format, issuing sequences/frequency, circulation, where published and how often

ICT S

pecific

s

ICT company emissions measurement

(Companies only) (Free text) Indication of whether the methodology can be used to measure corporate emissions of ICT companies

ICT-specific emissions measurement

(Free text) Indication of whether the methodology can be used to measure ICT-related emissions in other sectors

ICT enablement measurement

(Free text) Indication of whether the methodology can be used to measure enabling potential of ICT

Electronic Data Collection

(Free text) Guidance on the use of ICT to gather data.

Electronic Data Resources

(Free text) Resources provided by the methodology in electronic format. This may include sources of data e.g. emissions factors or benchmark indicators

Electronic Data processing or representation

(Free text) Tools and outputs provided by the methodology in electronic format. This may include calculators, the generation of reports that include tables, charts, texts etc. and other analytics.

Case studies (Free text) ICT-specific examples of the application of the methodology/metric, included within any guidance notes

Table 1: Classification framework

7 of 18

2.2. Research

To populate the database, we used the internet and academic online libraries to identify relevant

literature for detailed review, and interviews with experts in the field to capture methodologies

under development.

We prioritised likely sources. Governmental and intra-governmental bodies (see Appendix 2) have

environment, climate and energy policies and targets that form the top-down basis for the

development of methodologies and metrics e.g. for the purposes of emissions trading schemes.

Academic institutions, corporates and non-governmental organisations are also conducting work,

although we could not define a target list because of the diversity of their work. Key sources

included the World Resources Institute, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and

the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.

Two databases were used to capture information for Cities and for Companies separately, although

an identical structure was maintained for consistency. We also maintained a list of key sources

reviewed that did not yield relevant findings, and a list of relevant work that fell outside of the scope

of this work (i.e. methodologies and metrics relevant to ICT at a product or project level).

2.3. Assessment

We created an assessment framework to enable us to objectively assess each database entry using

scoring criteria. A scoring system of 1-5 was used, with differentials as set out in Table 2.

Assessment criteria

Notes (free text field)

A (5 points)

B (3 points)

C (1 point)

Maturity & longevity

(of measurement approach)

date of first draft, # revisions, testing, development & reviews, systems for on-going support, governance processes

Multiple revisions Broad stakeholder

consultation Subject to regular

reviews

1st version Limited

stakeholder consultation

Planned reviews but no schedules

In development Early stakeholder

testing

Uptake (of measurement approach)

Stakeholder participation - # Companies / Cities, Maximum feasible uptake rate

Widely recognised Extensive use (many

Companies / Cities) Incentives to promote

uptake (e.g. regulation, financial penalty)

Use by multiple Companies / Cities or niche groups

Use by single Companies / Cities

Ease & cost of use

(of measurement approach)

Availability of documents and tools, depth of analysis, need for training

Widely available & free of charge

Low resource demands

Software support tools

Detailed guidance Reporting platform

Medium resource demands

Some systems investment required

Generic support documents / tools

High resource demands

High systems investment required

No documents / tools to support

Comparability (of reported output)

Consistency with other schemes, and of results for different users

Comparable between different Cities / Companies

Compatible with other methodologies / metrics

Annual measurement periods

Comparable between Cities in a given country / Companies in give sector

Repeated measurement periods

Specific to a given Company / City

Single measurement period

Transparency & robustness

(of reported output)

Verification system, assumptions, common data sources

Sets out reporting principles

Sets minimum standards

Uses recognised data sources

Subject to verification process

High level assumptions

Recommended standards

Verifiable output

No verification possible

High uncertainty No standards

Carbon Trust Assessment

Assessment will summarise key strengths and weaknesses and give rating based on the above (e.g. score out of 25)

Table 2: Assessment framework

8 of 18

3. Findings

The main deliverable for this project is the database of metrics/methodologies for the measurement

of GHG emissions and energy use for Companies and Cities, presented as Appendix A to this report.

The summaries below provide an overview of the methodologies (sections 3.1 and 3.2) and the

implications for ICT (section 3.3). These summaries are intended to provide the reader with an

introduction to the database.

3.1. Companies Summary

We identified 41 methodologies for Companies. The first and most significant international standard

for measuring GHG emissions is the World Resources Institute (WRI) / World Business Council for

Sustainable Development (WBCSD) GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, published in 2001. This

established basic terminology, such as the division of emissions sources into scope 1, 2 and 3, and

the notion of establishing reporting boundaries and a baseline for performance measurement.

Our study found that subsequent methodologies are based on these core principles. For example,

the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) adopted the GHG Protocol Corporate

Standard as the basis for ISO 14064-1: Specification with Guidance at the Organization Level for

Quantification and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Removals in 2006. The Carbon Trust

Standard in the UK builds further on this by requiring organisations to manage their emissions and

achieve a reduction.

Methodologies are used to support measurement and reporting schemes. These can be classified as

mandatory or voluntary:

Mandatory schemes that support government efforts to reduce GHG emissions. can be further

classified by type:

a. Emission reporting legislation e.g. the US Environmental Protection agency (EPA) Reporting

Rule, France‟s Bilan Carbone, the Australian National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act

2007 (NGER) and Quebec‟s Regulation respecting mandatory reporting of certain emissions

of contaminants into the atmosphere

b. Emission reporting and reduction legislation e.g. Alberta‟s Specified Gas Reporting Regulation

c. Statutory emissions trading schemes, including cap and trade schemes e.g. the European

Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), the NSW Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme and

Tokyo’s Cap and Trade Program.

d. Other carbon pricing mechanisms e.g. the UK Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy

Efficiency Scheme (CRC), Australia‟s Clean Energy Plan

These schemes could also be classified according to whether they target energy generators (the

largest schemes such as the EU ETS and the EPA Reporting Rule) Or energy consumers (schemes

such as the NGER and the CRC)

Voluntary schemes that help Companies to measure and manage their emissions can be

classified by purpose:

e. Ensuring consistency through detailed guidance on measurement e.g. the EPA‟s Climate

Leaders Inventory Guidance.

f. Increasing transparency and setting best practice for reporting e.g. the Carbon Disclosure

Project and the US Climate Registry‟s general and industry-specific protocols.

Expanding measurement and reporting beyond the company boundary and incorporating

carbon reporting in a broader sustainability context e.g. the Global Reporting Initiative.

9 of 18

3.2. Cities Summary

Measurement and reporting of GHG emissions at a City level is less well developed than for

Companies, with no mandatatory standards. This reflects the inherent difficulties involved with the

measurement of emissions from multiple sources controlled and operated by large number of

different actors within the City boundaries, and the complex relationship with emission sources

beyond the City boundaries (defined as Scope 3 emissions). However, there are two key

oranisations working in this area: the Covenant of Majors and the International Council for Local

Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).

Methodologies to support measurement and reporting schemes can be classified as local government

bounded, production-based or consumption-based:

Local government bounded approaches are similar to Company measurement and reporting,

although covers a broader set of emissions due to the wider sphere of control that local

governments have e.g. street lighting. Such measurement supports the development of

strategies to reduce emissions in sub-sections of Cities. There are a number of case studies,

including the Low Carbon Cities programme in the UK.

Production-based approaches includes all emission sources within the geopolitical boundary.

IPCC Guidance for national greenhouse gas inventories recommends this „territorial‟ approach,

which reduces the risk of double counting and focuses government efforts on emission sources

within their control (e.g. through the implementation of relevant policies). This approach can be

been applied at City level. The closest example is the Covenant of Mayor’s Baseline Emission

Inventory methodology which calculates CO2e due to energy use only (although there is an option

to include Scope 3 emissions associated with the production of that energy outside the City).

Consumption-based approaches calculate the emissions associated with fuels, products and

services used by the City, and therefore includes emission sources that are beyond the City

boundary (net of emissions from products and services exported). We are not aware of any

bottom up consumption-based approaches that have used detailed Lifecycle Assessment (LCA)

data, but there are a number of examples where proxy data has been used to disaggregate

national data. For example, The Capital Consumption study by BioRegional and the London

Sustainable Development Commission used economic analysis to analyse material flows in and

out of the capital.

Hybrids of production and consumption approaches, which measure emissions within City

boundaries plus key cross-boundary emissions, is the most common approach we have observed.

A number of academic studies (e.g. Ramaswami, 2011 and Hillman and Ramaswami, 2009) have

set out methodologies that articulate which emission sources should be included( The ICLEI

International Local Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Protocol (IEAP) uses a hybrid

approach. It recommends that emissions are reported from four categories: energy (including

emissions from electricity consumption, heating and industrial fuel use, ground transport, and

aviation and marine transport); industrial processes and product use; AFOLU (agriculture,

forestry and other land use change); and waste.

There are standards under development that are likely to also use a hybrid approach, although it is

not possible to confirm this. These include the ICLEI and C40 Global Standard on Greenhouse Gas

Emissions from Cities, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/World Bank International

Standard, the Siemens Green City Index and the CDP Cities programme.

10 of 18

3.3. Implications for ICT

In assessing the relevance of these methodologies for the ICT sector, we have considered the extent

to which the methodologies identified can be used to measure GHG emissions or energy use related

to ICT, or its enabling impact.

Which methodologies measure ICT company GHG emissions and energy use?

Methodologies for Companies are not sector specific, with a few exceptions such as the EU ETS, and

can therefore be applied to ICT Companies. The ITU-T is currently working on the L.1400 series of

Recommendations related to the environmental impact of ICT specifically. The L.1420

Recommendation (“Methodology for energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions impact

assessment of Information and Communication Technologies in organizations”) has recently been

issued for comment by ITU-T members.

Which methodologies measure ICT-related GHG emissions or energy use in other sectors?

GHG emissions or energy use from ICT in companies in other sectors requires measurement at the

level of the products and services deployed. There are a number of initiatives by ETSI (TC EE), GHG

Protocol (ICT Sector Guidance), IEC (TC111), and the ITU-T (Study Group 5) that are currently

developing methodologies related to the environmental impact ICT products. Whilst this is strictly

outside the scope of this report, they are included in the database in Appendix A.

Which methodologies measure ICT-related GHG emissions or energy use in cities?

We have not identified methodologies specific to the measurement of ICT-related GHG emissions or

energy use in cities. However, we have not identified any drivers for segregating ICT from

electricity emissions at a city-level.

Which methodologies measure the enablement effect of ICT?

The enablement effect of ICT relates to its potential to reduce the GHG emissions of other systems.

There are two documents providing methodologies for the enablement effect of ICT plus work in

development by the GHG Protocol (ICT Sector Guidance). These are the GeSI report (September

2010) “Evaluating the carbon-reducing impacts of ICT - An assessment methodology”, and Part II of

the ITU-T Recomendation L.1410 (Consented September 2011). These initial efforts are too early to

have widespread adoption and require further development to become established.

What are the other implications of measuring and reporting for ICT?

ICT tools are required to support the collection and processing of data, including data resources to

reduce the resource burden and improve the comparability of results. We are not aware of any

methodologies that make explicit use of enhanced data capture (e.g. via smart metering) although

many tools do now automate the calculation of emissions using activity data manually added and in-

built emissions factors. The sophistication of the tool depends on the requirements of the

methodology it supports.

For Companies, mandatory reporting schemes require data to be collected for all relevant emission

sources and presented in a verifiable output. The EU ETS adopted an Excel-based template, whilst

other regions use bespoke software e.g. the Online System for Comprehensive Activity Reporting

(OSCAR) for Australia‟s NGER and the Emissions Collection and Monitoring Plan System (ECMPS) for

the US EPA Mandatory Reporting. The Excel approach minimises the implementation cost for

companies, but bespoke software makes it easier to record emissions to an appropriate standard.

A number of voluntary programmes are also supported by electronic tools, including the US Climate

Registry‟s Climate Registry Information System (CRIS), the Carbon Disclosure Project annual

questionnaire and the Global Reporting Initiative Performance Indicator search function.

We have not identified tools that support Companies that need to measure and report their

emissions using multiple frameworks. For example, many Companies that are part of mandatory

11 of 18

emissions trading schemes also opt to report into the Carbon Disclosure Project. Nonetheless, we

expect commercial enterprise carbon accounting systems to move in this direction (including

harmonisation with financial reporting frameworks). A number of studies have reviewed the current

market (e.g. Groom Energy 2010 and Verdantix 2010).

For Cities, tools are also available to simplify the calculation of carbon footprints by providing

assumptions and proxy data. Examples include geographic information system (GIS) toolkits such

as DECoRuM, ICLEI‟s CACP Software, the CO2 Calculator, ECORegion and the Greenhouse Gas

Regional Inventory Protocol (GRIP) energy emissions scenario tool. However, many tools are

developed on a bespoke basis for individual City projects.

Electronic resources are available to support both Company and City measurement and reporting.

Conversion factors to convert fuel consumption and other activity data into emissions are published

electronically by international organisations such as the IEA, the GHG Protocol and Ecoinvent, and

by national government departments such as the UK Department of Environment Food and Rural

Affairs and the Australian Department of Climate Change. There are also a number of open source

databases that facilitate economic-based analysis (e.g. Open IO, a research project of the

Sustainability Consortium (used for product footprinting but can be aggregated at Company or City

level).

12 of 18

3.4. Further Research

We recommend that further research is conducted to enable DG INFSO to make informed policy

decisions about energy-use and GHG emissions measurement for ICT:

Software packages for calculating energy use and emissions. Research should seek to

understand methodologies already recognised by software developers who have an

appreciation for their feasibility and commercial application. For example, in 2010 Verdantix

published a report entitled „Green Quadrant Carbon & Energy Management Software 2010

(Global)‟ comparing 28 software applications.

(http://www.verdantix.com/index.cfm/papers/Products.Details/product_id/174/green-

quadrant-carbon-energy-management-software-2010-global-/-)

Initiatives to improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions through ICT. Research

should seek to understand ICT sector initiatives and their intended impact on GHG emissions

or energy consumption. This case-study based approach should be used to look at the

development of methodologies starting from the viewpoint of activities for which the impact

needs to be measured.

Experiences using the key frameworks. Research should seek to understand practical

implications for Cities and Companies, including addressing gaps in coverage, overcoming

difficulties applying the frameworks (e.g. for particular sectors) etc.

13 of 18

4. Appendices

4.1. Appendix A – Database

Please see the accompanying Excel workbook: „ECSMART2010 0079 - Appendix A 21 12 2011.xls‟

14 of 18

4.2. Appendix B – Governmental sources

Country Name Relevant Links

International

UN Environment Programme, International Telecommunication Union, International Energy Agency, Organisation for Economic Policy & Development

EU Thematic for the Urban Environment (FP6)

Austria Council on Climate Change http://www.accc.gv.at/

Austria Energy Agency http://www.eva.ac.at/(en)/index.htm

Austria Regulator http://www.e-control.at/portal/page/portal/ECONTROL_HOME

Austria Science and Transport http://www.bmukk.gv.at/

Austria Verbena Austrian Energy Power Grid http://www.verbund.at/cps/rde/xchg/internet/hs.xsl/index.htm

Belgium Federal Environment Ministry http://www.health.fgov.be/

Belgium Flemish Regulation for Electricity & Gas http://www.vreg.be/en/index.asp

Bulgaria Ministry of Economy, Energy & Tourism http://www.mi.government.bg/eng/

Bulgaria Ministry of Environment http://www.moew.government.bg/index_e.html

Cyprus Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources & Environment http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/

Cyprus Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Tourism http://www.mcit.gov.cy/ Czech Republic CEPS http://www.ceps.cz/indexen.asp

Denmark Energy Authority http://www.ens.dk/

Denmark Regulator http://www.energitilsynet.dk/english/

Estonia Ministry of Economic Affairs & Communications http://www.mkm.ee/overview/

Estonia Ministry of Environment http://www.envir.ee/?set_lang_id=2

Finland Fingrid http://www.fingrid.fi/portal/suomeksi

France Ministry of Economy, Finance & Industry http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie

Germany Federal Network Agency http://www.bundesnetzagentur.de

Germany Energy http://www.bmwi.de/BMWi/Navigation/energie.html

Greece Regulatory Authority for Energy http://www.rae.gr/

Greece Research Agency http://www.gsrt.gr/default.asp?V_LANG_ID=2

Hungary Energy Centre http://www.energycentre.hu/

Hungary Energy Office http://www.eh.gov.hu/

Ireland Eirgrid http://www.eirgrid.com/EirgridPortal/

Ireland Energy Regulator http://www.cer.ie/

Ireland Sustainable Energy Ireland http://www.sei.ie/

Italy Department of Energy http://www.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/

Latvia Ministry of economics http://www.em.gov.lv/em/2nd/?cat=30166

Latvia Ministry of environment http://www.vidm.gov.lv/

Lithuania Ministry of Energy http://www.enmin.lt/en/

Lithuania Ministry of environment http://www.am.lt/VI/en/VI/index.php

Luxembourg Service de l'Energie de l'Etat http://www.etat.lu/SEE/

Malta Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs http://www.mrra.gov.mt/

Malta Environment and planning authority http://www.mepa.org.mt/home?l=1

Malta Regulator http://www.mra.org.mt/

Netherlands Electricity Grid Operator http://www.tennet.nl/

Netherlands Gas Grid Operator http://www.nvnederlandsegasunie.nl/index.htm

Netherlands Regulator http://www.dte.nl/nederlands/home/index.asp

Poland National Energy Conservation Agency http://www.kape.gov.pl/EN/index.phtml

Poland Polish Foundation for Energy Efficiency http://www.fewe.pl/a-start.htm

Portugal Electricity grid operator http://www.ren.pt/

Portugal Regulator http://www.erse.pt/vPt/Entrada/

Romania Ministry of Environment http://www.mmediu.ro/vechi/departament_mediu_en/climate_change.htm

Slovakia Ministry of Economy http://www.economy.gov.sk/uvod/1s

Slovenia Ministry of Environment & Spatial Planning http://www.arso.gov.si/en/

15 of 18

Spain National Commission of Energy http://www.cne.es/cne/home2_english.jsp?id_nodo=3

Spain Ministry of Industry, Tourism & Trade http://www.mityc.es/en-US/Paginas/index.aspx

Sweden Svenska Kraftnät http://www.svk.se/

Sweden Ministry of Enterprise, Energy & Communications http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2067

UK BIS http://www.bis.gov.uk/

UK DEFRA http://www.defra.gov.uk/

UK DECC http://www.decc.gov.uk/

UK National Grid http://www.nationalgrid.com/

US Dept of Energy http://www.energy.gov/

US Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.doe.gov/

US Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/

US Regulator http://www.ferc.gov/

Canada Environment Canada http://www.ec.gc.ca/

Canada National Energy Board http://www.neb.gc.ca/

Australia Department of Climate Change & Energy Efficiency http://www.climatechange.gov.au/

Japan Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry http://www.enecho.meti.go.jp/english/index.htm

Brazil n/a

Chile n/a

Iceland Ministry of Industry, Energy & Tourism http://www.nea.is/

Iceland Environment Ministry http://english.ust.is/

Israel Ministry of National Infrastructures http://www.mni.gov.il/mni/en-US/Energy/EnergyGeneral/

Israel Ministry of Environment http://www.sviva.gov.il/bin/en.jsp?enPage=e_homePage

Korea Ministry of Knowledge Economy http://www.mke.go.kr/language/eng/policy/Epolicies_04.jsp

Korea Ministry of Environment http://eng.me.go.kr/

Mexico Ministry of Energy http://www.sener.gob.mx/

Mexico Ministry of Environment http://www.cambioclimatico.gob.mx/

New Zealand Electricity Commission http://www.electricitycommission.govt.nz/

New Zealand Gas Industry Company http://gasindustrycompany.co.nz/

New Zealand Market Operator http://www.nz.m-co.com/

Norway Water Resources & Energy Directorate http://www.nve.no/en/

Switzerland Electricity Grid Co-ordinator http://www.etrans.ch/

Switzerland Regulator http://www.weko.admin.ch/

Turkey Electricity Grid Operator http://www.teias.gov.tr/

Turkey Energy Market Regulatory Authority http://www.emra.org.tr/

Turkey Ministry of Transport http://www.ubak.gov.tr/

Turkey State Statistical Institute http://www.die.gov.tr/ENGLISH/index.html

16 of 18

4.3. Appendix C - Glossary

The following definitions of key terms are used in our research

ICT (Information and Communication Technology)

A combination of manufacturing, trade and services industries that capture, transmit and display

data and information electronically (1998 OECD)

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/34/37/2771153.pdf

This is based on the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities,

Rev.3. The principles underlying the definition are:

For manufacturing industries, the products of a candidate industry:

Must be intended to fulfil the function of information processing and communication

including transmission and display.

Must use electronic processing to detect, measure and/or record physical phenomena or

control a physical process.

For services industries, the products of a candidate industry:

Must be intended to enable the function of information processing and communication by

electronic means.

Cities

As the research results should be relevant to the undertaking of the Covenant of Mayors, we will

define a City as the territory of a typical Covenant signatory for the purposes of the

measurement of GHG emissions / energy-use.

The Baseline Emissions Inventory defines the scope of activities to be included based on the

final energy consumption data, i.e. what is consumed by the final end-users (incl. electricity,

heat/cooling and fuel) within the boundaries of the local authority. Local energy production can

also be included in the inventory if the Sustainable Energy Action Plan introduces actions related

to it (e.g. development of PVs, wind power, district heating or Combined Heat and Power).

http://www.eumayors.eu/index_en.html

As such, we will exclude emissions from marine transport, aviation and agriculture.

Methodologies / metrics

Our research captures sets or systems of methods, principles and rules for accounting for GHG

emissions and energy-use. This may be in the form of, for example, strategies, policies, and

regulatory frameworks which include accompanying guidance such as the selection of a

reporting boundary and the use of emission factors.

Metrics are the output of the use of a methodology (e.g. tCO2 per capita). Our research

investigates methodologies used to arrive at such metrics.

17 of 18

4.4. Appendix D - References

Bio Intelligence Service (2008) “Impacts of Information and Communication Technologies

on Energy Efficiency” EC DG INFSO, September 2008, Available:

http://www.ifap.ru/library/book373.pdf

EC (2009) " COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION on mobilising Information and

Communications Technologies to facilitate the transition to an energy-efficient, low-carbon

economy” C(2009) 7604 final, Brussels, 9th September 2009 Available:

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/sustainable_growth/docs/recommendati

on_d_vista.pdf

ERM (2010) “Company GHG Emissions Reporting – a Study on Methods and Initiatives”

(ENV.G.2/ETU/2009/0073), Revised Final Report, October 2010

Ernst & Young (2010) “Product Carbon Footprinting – a study on methodologies and

Initiatives”, Final report, Carbon Trust (unpublished), July 2010

GeSI and the Climate Group (2008) “SMART 2020: Enabling the low carbon economy in

the information age” Available:

http://www.smart2020.org/_assets/files/02_Smart2020Report.pdf

Groom Energy (2010) “The 2011 Enterprise Energy and Carbon Accounting (EECA)

Software Market A Buyers Guide”. Available:

http://www.groomenergy.com/files/eeca_report_summary.pdf

Hillman, T and Ramaswami, A (2009) “Greenhouse Gas Emission Footprint and Energy Use

Benchmarks for Eight U.S. Cities” Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 44, No. 6, 2

May 2010 (available: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es9024194)

JRC (2010) “Existing Methodologies and Tools for the Development and Implementation of

Sustainable Energy Action Plans (SEAP)” EUR 24309EN – 2010, European Communities,

2010

http://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/covenantofmayors/ReqNo_JRC56513_Existing_

Methodologies_and_Tools_for_the_Development_and_Implementation_of_Sustainable_En

ergy_Action.pdf

Ramaswami, A., Chavez, A., Ewing-Thiel, J., Reeve, K. E. (2011) “Two Approaches to

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Foot-Printing at the City Scale” Environmental Science and

Technology, 26 April 2011 (available:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es201166n)

Ramaswami, A., Hillman, T., Janson, B., Reiner, M., Thomas, G. (2008) “A Demand-

centered, Hybrid Life-Cycle Methodology for City-Scale Greenhouse Gas Inventories”.

Environmental Science and Technology 42 (17), 6456–6461, 25 July 2008 (available

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es702992q)

Trucost (2010) “Environmental Disclosures: The third major review of environmental

reporting in the Annual Report and Accounts of the FTSE All-Share companies” The

Environment Agency, 2010

Verdantix (2010) “Green quadrant carbon and energy management software”.

Available:http://www.verdantix.com/index.cfm/papers/Products.Details/product_id/174/gr

een-quadrant-carbon-energy-management-software-2010-/

18 of 18

With thanks to the following:

Graham Sinden (Carbon Trust Institute)

James Keirstead (Imperial College)

Ronald Piers de Ravershoot (Joint Research Centre)

Pavel Misiga (DG Environment)

Imola Bedo (DG Environment)

Sven Damman (DG Energy)

Jan Franke (Eurocities)

Michael Klinkenberg (Eurocities)