SBTi’s new Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 gives companies a credible, practical path to act on value chain electricity emissions. Here’s why that should have a major impact on your scope 3 decarbonization strategy—and what your team should do now.
With the release of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard (CNZS) Version 2.0 on June 11, 2026, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) explicitly recognizes the use of energy attribute certificates (EACs) to address emissions from electricity consumption not only in scope 2, but across the value chain in scope 3. This is one of the most consequential changes in the standard and opens the door to direct procurement of EACs to address scope 3 emissions through approaches similar to the one detailed in our November 2025 whitepaper, Unlocking Clean Electricity in the Value Chain.
The problem V2.0 solves
Emissions from electricity consumption are typically a major component of value chain emissions, frequently comprising 10-50% of scope 3 emissions for 3Degrees’ clients. Electricity emissions show up in a number of scope 3 categories, such as use of sold products and purchased goods and services, and at nearly every layer of the value chain from raw materials extraction to end-of-life treatment. Despite a well established playbook for addressing scope 2 emissions from electricity consumption, companies have historically had fewer levers available to address emissions from value chain electricity usage, often limited to supplier engagement and product energy efficiency improvements.
What changed under CNZS V2.0
SBTi’s CNZS V2.0 explicitly allows companies to apply the same tools they have used to address scope 2 emissions to address scope 3 emissions from electricity, unlocking a powerful new lever to achieve scope 3 SBTi targets.
A few provisions make this concrete:
The standard devotes a section (4.3) to electricity consumption, explicitly calling out how EACs can be used to meet SBTi targets for both scope 2 and scope 3. Where “activity level” actions to decarbonize electricity consumption are not feasible, action at the “activity pool level” (i.e., procuring market instruments from within the activity pool) is permitted for making progress towards both scope 2 and 3 targets. Criterion 31.1 explicitly defines eligible market instruments, such as unbundled EACs and (virtual) power purchase agreements (V)PPAs.
Recognizing that organizations have imperfect insight into electricity consumption in their value chain, SBTi allows organizations under criterion 30.2 to define activity pool boundaries more broadly for scope 3 in certain situations. For scope 2 and for electricity usage in scope 3 where the location of electricity consumption is known, companies must define activity pools based on deliverability regions (i.e., they must match electricity consumption with EACs from the same deliverability region). However, when the location of scope 3 electricity consumption is not known, they may define activity pools more broadly and match value chain electricity usage with EACs from wider geographies (e.g., nationally or regionally). This added flexibility for certain situations in scope 3 aligns conceptually with the geographic flexibility afforded under 3Degrees’ November 2025 guide on the topic.
SBTi published a separate policy explaining that companies with targets validated under V1.0 of their standard are eligible to apply the target implementation innovations (such as activity pools and market instruments) introduced in V2.0. That means that you do not need to re-validate your target under V2.0 to start taking advantage of these changes.
Criterion 30.5 introduces a “legacy clause” that allows EACs from long-term contracts in place before February 2027 to be considered deliverable in the same activity pools that the EACs were applied to before February 2027. This ensures that highly impactful contracts such as VPPAs will continue to count towards companies’ SBTi targets, even if they had previously been used to address all electricity consumption in a country rather than just electricity consumption within the same deliverability region as the project.
SBTi defines activity level actions as…
directly targeting the emissions sources reflected in GHG inventories. For example, reducing electricity usage or installing rooftop solar would be considered activity level actions.
Activity pools are shared systems of activities that serve the reporting entity, such as electric grids. Procuring EACs from within the same electric grid as the reporting entity’s operations is one example of activity pool level action.
Why this should impact your strategy
- Scope 3 decarbonization is challenging, and procuring EACs – be that through (V)PPAs, electricity suppliers, or the unbundled EAC market – is a well developed muscle for many companies. Scaling that procurement to address value chain electricity consumption could be one of the most cost-effective ways to progress towards scope 3 SBTi targets. It may also provide a clear line of sight to achieving scope 3 targets that had previously felt beyond reach, given how large of a lever direct procurement of EACs for the value chain can be as a percentage of total scope 3 emissions.
- As more companies like Google, Meta, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Mars, and others have incorporated direct procurement of EACs into their scope 3 strategies, we have also seen a trend towards companies focusing on electricity emissions that are unlikely to be addressed by other members of the value chain. For example, use of sold products by consumers is a major emissions source for many technology companies, and until now organizations have only been able to address it through improvements in their products’ energy efficiency and supporting public policies conducive to the general greening of the grid. Now, companies can directly procure EACs in the geographic regions where their products are used to address those emissions and claim progress towards their SBTi targets. While direct procurement could be applied across scope 3 – as Mars has executed – a practical place to start can be procuring EACs for electricity usage that is unlikely to be addressed by other actors in the value chain.
What is still unknown
With this new standard from SBTi, companies should feel confident that taking direct procurement action to address scope 3 emissions from electricity usage will count towards their SBTi targets. That said, further guidance may be useful in addressing certain implementation hurdles such as:
The new SBTi standard does not detail how organizations should estimate electricity consumption in the value chain. In the absence of more detailed guidance from SBTi, we recommend that organizations consider the detailed hierarchy of approaches (e.g., drawing on emissions factors, LCAs, and other data sources) laid out in our guide. Notably, it seems safe to assume that primary data on electricity usage in the value chain is not a prerequisite to take action as the standard explicitly allows organizations to directly procure EACs to address electricity usage in unknown locations in the value chain.
When the location of value chain electricity usage is unknown, the standard states that companies may use national “or other appropriate regional boundaries” to define an activity pool. This assumes though that the company has some knowledge of the geography where electricity is consumed, even if it does not know the precise location. Our guide details approaches companies may take to justify the identification of geographies where electricity is consumed in the value chain when precise locations are not known definitively.
Without an explicit definition of “other appropriate regional boundaries” from SBTi, companies have limited guidance on how to define activity pools in situations where the location of scope 3 electricity usage is unknown. We would suggest that they consider in these situations several options for defining activity pools: (1) using national boundaries only, (2) based on regions of international grid interconnection or power pools (e.g., those laid out in the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s Scope 2 Public Consultation), (3) based on broader regional boundaries that enable more impactful procurement as defined in our guide, or (4) based on other definitions the organization can reasonably justify.
What your team should do now
Given what we now know from SBTi, there are a few no-regrets steps that your team can take:
Estimate the share of your scope 3 emissions attributable to electricity, and identify which categories—purchased goods and services, transportation, leased assets, use of sold products—carry the most emissions from electricity.
Determine consumption volumes and the locations involved, using reasonable, transparent assumptions where value chain visibility is limited. Consider the approaches laid out in our guide for how to navigate these assumptions.
Evaluate (V)PPAs, unbundled EACs, and other mechanisms with an eye toward impact and system-level benefits. To the extent feasible, finalize long-term contracts prior to the February 1, 2027 legacy clause deadline.
Align your inventory treatment, EAC tracking, and documentation with V2.0’s integrity criteria so your claims will withstand third-party validation, considering tools such as 3Degrees’ Meridian .
Get in touch
3Degrees helps organizations translate evolving standards into strategy—from quantifying value chain electricity emissions to designing and executing high-impact clean energy procurement. If you’re preparing for CNZS V2.0 and want to build a credible scope 3 electricity strategy, our team can help you move from question mark to action plan.
1. SBTi has not yet explicitly defined deliverability regions, but is likely to align with the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s forthcoming deliverability region definitions under its updated scope 2 standard.
