MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402857739 · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143791

Does the purchase of voluntary renewable energy certificates lead to emission reductions? A review of studies quantifying the impact

2024· review· en· W4402857739 on OpenAlexaff
Lissy Langer, Matthew Brander, Shannon M. Lloyd, Dogan Keles, H. Damon Matthews, Anders Bjørn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cleaner Production · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions
KeywordsRenewable energyLead (geology)TurnoverEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsBusinessEnvironmental scienceEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conditions under which companies can report their use of renewable electricity are currently under scrutiny for their effectiveness in reducing overall emissions. We contribute to the debate by reviewing the eight techno-economic modelling studies that quantify their impact on emissions. For the five energy system modelling studies that provide their output data, we use a set of synthesis indicators to compare the extent to which different modelled REC purchase conditions resulted in additional renewable energy generation (REG) and emission reductions relative to a counterfactual without a REC market. Our results suggest that assuming the implementation of recent government policies, annual volumetric and emissions matching do not lead to significant emission reductions relative to a counterfactual without a REC market. This is because investments are almost exclusively made in the cheapest available renewable energy resource, thereby cannibalising market-driven projects that would also have been built without a REC market. On the other hand, we find that hourly matching (with PPAs involving local and new RE generators) leads to significant reductions in system emissions. We discuss the sensitivity of individual study results to modelling and policy assumptions and highlight potential pitfalls in study design. Our findings can inform ongoing discussions about how companies should account for their electricity-related emissions and the conditions under which renewable fuels are produced. • Annual matching leads to negligible emission reductions compared to a no RECs case. • Hourly matching (with local new RE PPAs) reduces system emissions. • Energy system models can assess the emissions impact of REC purchase conditions. • Renewable generation is a better measure of additionality than renewable capacity. • Not considering modelling assumptions can lead to misleading policy recommendations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.360
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.062 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cleaner ProductionSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207