SBTi’s 2026 Update: Your Guide to EAC Procurement and Scope 2 Target Implementation Under CNZS V2.0

SBTi’s Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 has now been released.

Published on 11 June 2026 after a flurry of activity and speculation in May, it finally delivers the clarity on market direction that corporate sustainability and procurement teams need to cut through all of the noisy market commentary that has been floating around.

The draft-stage intrigue was mostly about whether hourly matching would become a mandatory element of V2, and whilst hourly matching has a place in the new release, SBTi has honed in more on deliverability and generator age, outlining a semi-optional, recognition-based approach for hourly matching . Overall, for Scope 2 reporting, the new final standard is stricter than Version 1.

Key SBTi Materials Referenced Within

• To read the full SBTi CNZS v2, the PDF can be found here .
• The previous version, CNZS v1.3.1, can be found here.
• Whilst this article will focus exclusively on changes to market-based Scope 2, a full transition guide can be found here .

Repositioning of EACs under SBTi - Category Shift Towards “System Contribution”.

We’ll get to rules-based changes, but firstly, let’s look at how EACs are being subtly repositioned within SBTi into a new category of “system contribution” claims, and think about what this means for the market overall. Quickly, some background on how SBTi lets companies formulate Scope 2 targets. There are now two target-setting options for Scope 2, and they are not mutually exclusive - corporates can do both:

• Low-carbon electricity (LCE) alignment targets: increasing the percentage of LCE used.
• Scope 2 absolute emissions-reduction targets: reducing Scope 2 absolute emissions.

Previously: Under V1.3.1, EACs sat within a familiar market-based Scope 2 setup: companies were able to choose a location- or market-based accounting approach to set and track performance against Scope 2 science-based targets, provided the same approach was used consistently. RECs (now broadened to EACs in v2 terminology) were described as instruments that, when they met the quality criteria set by the GHG Protocol, could reduce Scope 2 market-based emissions.

Now: CNZS v2.0 materially changes the language around renewable and low-carbon electricity (LCE) claims.

• Location-Based Only for Emissions Reduction:
  Market-based emissions reduction isn’t a thing anymore - conceptually, not the right way to describe EAC-backed Scope 2 target progress. SBTi grounds emissions-reduction targets in the physical GHG inventory , and location-based emissions factors form the basis for Scope 2 absolute “emissions-reduction” calculations. Grid-electricity backed by EACs does not alter the physical GHG inventory in the same way that a reduction in energy consumption or behind-the-meter LCE consumption would.
• Low-Carbon Electricity Alignment Targets:
  Rather, EACs are used to progress low-carbon-electricity (LCE) alignment targets within Scope 2, increasing the percentage of LCE used, contracted (e.g. via PPA) or matched on a pathway. The only “claim” that can be made from EAC-backed grid-electricity procurement are new “system-contribution” claims - unrelated to emissions reduction claims.

“System-contribution” is a move away from the emissions reductions narrative that sustainability teams were able to craft in the previous CNZS (v1). It’s somewhat unclear what impact this will have on market sentiment:

• Pro - Recognition of Transitionary Function:
  Where EACs are being deployed, their use is being explicitly recognised as a contribution towards system change. This is how EACs are currently viewed by many, so recognition by a major organisation is a positive step.
• Con - Less Explicitly Emissions Reductions Framed:
  EACs are no longer the basis for saying “we reduced our Scope 2 emissions”, because SBTi target ambition will now be grounded in the physical inventory and location-based figures.
• Overall:
  SBTi approaches the topic fairly and pragmatically, finding a clear home for EACs as a transitionary tool within their CNZS v2. Now, moving onto the specifics of what has changed in the latest SBTi release…

What has changed in SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 for Scope 2 procurement?

• TOTAL SCOPE 2 COVERAGE:
  In V1, companies were required to set targets to cover 95% of Scope 1 and 2 emissions. In V2, companies must set targets to cover 100% of scope 2 emissions independently from their Scope 1.
• NEW DEVICE (GENERATOR) AGE REQUIREMENTS:
  The facility age cap is now 15 years. In V1, there was no generator age limit for EACs . In V2, facilities must have been commissioned or repowered within the 15 years preceding the period of electricity consumption. This represents a push towards additionality, using market mechanisms to help the viability of new deployments.
• LOW-CARBON (E.G. NUCLEAR) EACs NOW POTENTIALLY ELIGIBLE:
  V2.0 now uses “low-carbon electricity”, including renewables, nuclear, and electricity generation fitted with CCS. Naturally, with regard to eligible EAC usage, this does not remove the buyer’s difficulty to find a certificate scheme that would be able to issue and retire non-conventional EACs in the first place. The 15-year generator-age rule is especially topical for nuclear, because many plants fall outside this eligible age window.
• NEW DELIVERABILITY RESTRICTIONS:
  Electricity consumption can only be matched with market instruments sourced from the same deliverability region ( defined below) as where the consumption occurs. Put simply, EACs must come from the geographic area where electricity can physically flow to the point of consumption.
• THEREFORE, EXPLICIT LOCAL MATCHING:
  Broad cross-market matching becomes much harder to justify - companies can no longer easily use EACs or GOs from elsewhere in Europe (or another wider market) unless they meet one of the specific exceptions defined by SBTi (mostly relating to provable transmission rights between interconnected areas).
• MANDATORY HOURLY REPORTING FOR CONSUMPTION OVER 10 GWh WITHIN ACTIVITY POOLS:
  Large companies (those within SBTi’s Category A ) consuming 10 GWh or more of electricity per year, within a single activity pool (defined as the deliverability regions serving your electricity consumption), face new requirements. When reporting, they must present, and assure, the percentage of their consumption that was hourly-matched with low-carbon generation.
• OPTIONAL RECOGNITION FOR HOURLY MATCHING :
  Version 1 had no requirements for hourly-matching. In V2, SBTi has introduced an optional Scope 2 hourly-matching recognition programme based on what percentage is voluntarily hit. Different tiers of hourly consumption can earn public recognition on the SBTi Dashboard under the Scope 2 Hourly Matching recognition programme . Companies need to also indicate to SBTi whether they intend to participate. The tiers, without any names, are as follows:

Recap - Does SBTi V2.0 make hourly matching mandatory for corporate renewable electricity claims?

The plain answer: no. SBTi V2.0 mandates Category A companies to calculate and report hourly matching performance in their end of cycle assessment, but recognition is optional (reporting is mandatory, procurement is not). SBTi has created an optional recognition programme for companies that reach stronger hourly thresholds, but nowhere does CNZS v2 ever say that non-hourly matching fails.

Why the focus on deliverability?

SBTi incorporates GHG accounting aspects in the Corporate Net-Zero Standard from the GHG Protocol - in our case, the Scope 2 Guidance . This matters for EACs because SBTi’s revision is mirroring how the GHG Protocol is set to impact geographic matching in Europe , which will see phased implementation between 2028–2030 . SBTi is effectively asking companies to think in geographic terms (electricity activity pools and deliverability regions), rather than broad, unbundled certificate markets that, for a long time, have been very conveniently liquid and lacked a meaningful tether to local consumption.

Importantly, SBTi has left room for targeted revisions after the GHG Protocol process concludes - V2.0 explicitly footnotes that “targeted revisions” to definitions of deliverability regions will be considered upon conclusion of the GHG Protocol revision process. The final publication of the GHG Protocol’s Scope 2 standard is targeted for late 2027, so until then, I’d treat the definition we have as something to work with now, because it is highly aligned with the GHG Protocol’s revised direction.

Deliverability Region: (CNZS V2, p.84)
A geographical area throughout which all sources of electricity generation connected to a synchronous grid can reasonably be expected to serve sources of electricity consumption connected to that grid.

A deliverability region balances the following aspects of an area in the electricity system: (i) synchronous grid boundaries; (ii) transmission congestion; and (iii) regional connectivity (adapted from GHG Protocol, 2025).

When should you take action? The SBTi Timeline

We’re always hesitant to post timelines (see our final section). Nevertheless, here’s the timeline laid out exactly as it will affect real-world EAC procurement:

• 11th June 2026 :
  The new standard is now published and supporting materials will follow. Note that existing V1 targets and 2026 procurement are unaffected.
• 1st October 2026 :
  V2 validation resources are due to be published by SBTi - these constitute the materials that companies need to submit. From here, you’ll know exactly how SBTi expects you to format your response to meet the criteria they have already made public.
• 1st February 2027 :
  Validations under V2.0 officially open. Companies can start validating their alignment with SBTi targets under V2.0 from this date.
• 31st January 2028 :
  V1.3.1 validations close, marking the end of that version of the Corporate Standard.
• 1st February 2028:
  This is the “hardest” deadline, as it is when V2.0 becomes mandatory for all new submitting companies. By this point, SBTi likely expects participants to have adjusted their processes in preparation for the new standard.

This Market Rewards Preparedness

Timelines matter, but every time we post a timeline for a standard change, we notice that the EAC buyers we talk to immediately start running procrastination calculations in their head.

Don’t make this mistake. Ideally, you’re getting well ahead on mapping your consumption against deliverability regions, assessing if you must provide calculations on hourly-matching, and given the new push to local requirements, working out if your EAC procurement channels provide locally-routed cancellations and device-level documentation.

As for price movements:
It’s very much up in the air exactly how SBTi’s deadlines and local procurement constraints will impact market dynamics, but if the already-present annual reporting scramble is anything to go by, you’ll do well to have robust systems in place in advance if any demand squeezes occur.

Get started:
This is where Soldera fits naturally, because sustainability officers that are managing international energy consumption shouldn’t end up fighting messy Scope 2 workflows on top of SBTi’s stricter Scope 2 rules. Ditch broker emails, and end-of-year evidence chasing. Instead, choose one platform for:

• Global EAC volumes: A single hosted account with worldwide EAC registry access (no accounts needed).
• Locally compliant cancellations : As deliverability requirements set in, those using non-local cancellation loopholes are set to face considerably more scrutiny.
• Deep market access: The volumes of 4,000+ producer sites under the hood, powering your procurement.

Soldera is ready for SBTi’s update to EAC procurement, and we hope to extend this readiness to you. Book a demo to learn more about how we can support your SBTi goals.