With the United Nations’ COP26 event in full swing, climate change and the term net-zero have become increasingly popular terms in global headlines. Building on this recent momentum, we thought it would be diligent to share some guidelines and best practices for how to create and structure net-zero targets. In the following blog post, we will outline what makes a good net-zero target to allow you to better understand and judge the commitments that governments around the world have been making before and during the COP proceedings:
Net-zero goals tie back to the crucial Paris Agreement of 2015. Of the 191 Parties that agreed to the Paris Agreement, a total of 131 countries have now adopted, announced or are considering net zero targets, covering about 73% of global emissions.
While net zero is a critical longer-term goal, steep emissions cuts – especially by the largest greenhouse-gas emitters – are imperative in the next 5 to 10 years in order to keep global warming to no more than 1.5 °C and maintain a livable climate for future generations.
The Climate Action Tracker has developed a method for evaluating government net zero targets: it is applicable only to net zero targets set by national governments, not other subnational or non-state actors, especially corporations, whose different emissions boundaries and, in many cases, reliance on creative accounting methods to claim net zero, warrant special attention.
Climate Change news has identified ten key elements to assess whether a net zero target’s scope, architecture, and transparency meet what is define as good practice. They are as follows:
With these ten key elements in mind, you should now be able to identify the good net-zero targets from the bad. We hope you found this article helpful and insightful, and we look forward to posting more COP26 and climate change related blog content in the near future.
Missed a Peak on July 19th, 2019? We didn’t. pTrack™ was able to accurately predict the peak by taking into consideration reaction to IESO data. Consumers who relied solely on IESO estimates would have missed the peak day since the peak hour was inaccurately projected by the IESO peak tracker.
As the GA cost pool is decreasing year over year, the decision to either opt-in to Class A or Class B needs to be more thought out. Decreasing GA cost pool means that the amount of potential savings is also reduced, so only customers who can hit all 5 peaks and curtail cheaply will reap the full benefit of being Class A.
With the increased number of ICI participants and embedded energy resources like generators and battery storage coming onto the grid, predicting the top 5 coincident peak hours is increasingly difficult. Read on to learn why AI is a necessity for predicting the Top 5 Peaks.