What Is Electricity Matching? (Geographic and Temporal)

Electricity matching is the practice of aligning electricity consumption with the cancellation of Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs), either annually or in real time. As of early 2026, this is a pressing topic in corporate sustainability, recently revitalised by the GHG Protocol's 2026 consultation and the proposed changes circulating as a result.

Whilst it depends on the reporting and procurement standard being practised, most of the renewable claims that companies are making today rest on annual accounting: total eligible certificates purchased must equal total consumption across a twelve-month window. Increasingly, we're observing a push towards more precision, both on a temporal (known as granularity) and geographic scale. This article will take a look at temporal matching, progress onto geographic matching, explore what the future holds for both topics, then conclude with how Soldera approaches these entangled topics with procurement teams in 2026.

What Is the Difference Between Annual and Hourly Electricity Matching?

Hourly matching seeks to close the gap between claim and physical reality. Rather than matching generation against consumption via EACs across a full year, it requires any EAC usage to prove that a carbon-free source was actually operating during each hour of metered consumption. Under annual accounting, a supplier can purchase summer solar certificates to cover winter night-time consumption; the grid does not care, and neither do existing compliance frameworks.

The practical divergence is significant, and academics are now pointing towards granularity as a more legitimate and effective scope 2 decarbonisation approach. Results from models of targeted temporal procurement are striking, suggesting that hourly matching can reduce system-level emissions more effectively than annual accounting at comparable cost.

‍What Are the Emerging Academic Headlines on Hourly Matching?‍

Here's where reports from TU Berlin, Princeton, and the IEA share views:

• Annual matching doesn't eliminate attributed emissions from fossil-heavy hours
• Hourly matching creates high-precision price signals for dispatchable clean generation
• Hourly matching reduces system-level emissions, not just the buyer's energy-related emissions
• Hourly matching creates additional incentive for new clean capacity buildout
• Low quality unbundled certificates frequently lack provable additionality
• The cost premium for hourly matching falls sharply with an EAC portfolio of broader technological origin
• Sub-100% hourly targets still deliver better outcomes than annual matching
• The transition is structural, not a niche preference of early-adopter buyers
• Certificate platforms with granular capabilities are a prerequisite for hourly matching to work.

However, as EACs are a market influenced by policy, let's also look at one of the strongest regulatory signals we have on the topic: genuine institutional precedent. The EU has already codified this granular direction: Until 2030, renewable hydrogen (RFNBO) production must be matched with renewable electricity on a monthly basis, and from 2030, RFNBO producers need to demonstrate hourly temporal correlation between the electricity they use and renewable electricity generation.

This clear institutional nod in the granular direction (including GHG protocol deliberation on hourly matching - to be discussed) is causing a stir: forcing registries, metering infrastructure, and certificate issuance systems to pay closer attention to the possibility of granular timestamps. Movement on this topic isn't confined to hydrogen: ambitious market leaders in corporate energy accounting frequently look to follow established best-practices where they can find them, even if they are in a different sector altogether. For instance, Google has been actively discussing T-EACs since the start of the decade, and are actively using them in their procurement plans.

What Is Geographic Matching in Renewable Energy Certificates?

We've now familiarised ourselves with discussion surrounding when generation and EAC cancellation ought to occur. Geographic matching addresses where.

In Europe, thanks to the AIB Hub, a corporate consuming electricity in any AIB country can retire certificates issued in another AIB country and file a fully compliant Scope 2 market-based claim. Due to full AIB membership overlap, even Icelandic GOs can be cancelled in mainland Europe. However, the market created its own filters to avoid these cases: as when an AIB transfer occurs between two parties in locations with real-world grid connectivity, this has become informally known as procuring and cancelling "AIB-Grid-Connected" certificates - but that's an additional market-driven selector and not yet a hard regulatory requirement. The primary takeaway is that enhanced locality is already a procurement variable that the market selects for, so Icelandic GOs aren't a popular choice.

Currently, procurement schemes like RE100 require certificates to originate from the same market boundary, meaning there is a consistent regulatory framework alignment on the instrument being transacted alongside real-world physical interconnectivity. In their credible claims paper, RE100 write that "transactions that are both international and intercontinental are not usually appropriate unless there is physical interconnection". RE100 thus effectively codifies the informal "AIB-Grid-Connected" mentality, as it considers AIB member countries within the European Single Market to be Europe's market boundary, excluding, among others:

• Iceland (no grid connection to mainland Europe)
• Poland (independent, not yet AIB certificate system)
• The UK (uses REGOs, not GOs, where mutual recognition ended at the start of 2021).

Further calls to tighten geographic matching revolve around even stricter rules for regional sourcing and cancelling. That could be a bidding zone (as formalized by ENTSO-E) or a standard national boundary, provided a plausible real-world connection exists for the consumption being matched. The reasoning is simple: a certificate cancelled between local, physically connected counterparties better aligns with what is actually flowing between meters and is more likely to contribute to healthier price discovery (due to large GO exporters like Norway not being able to export to the entirety of Europe, diluting prices). This provides better producer incentives, causing enhanced "additionality" when purchasing via likelihood of new grid buildout (as seen via the lens of the energy transition).

Will the GHG Protocol's Revision Impact Temporal and Geographic Matching?

It's likely, but everything is speculative at this point. The GHG Protocol's proposed Scope 2 revision, published for consultation in October 2025, is heavily discussing hourly, tracked generation as the norm. It's targeted for finalization by end of 2027, introducing proposals that impact both geographic and temporal matching. On the temporal side, the GHG Protocol is deliberating on allowing T-EACs as a valid market-based contractual instrument for Scope 2 reporting.

As for geographic matching, contractual instruments will likely need to be sourced from generation plausibly deliverable to the relevant grid region - in Europe, those boundaries are expected to map to national registry jurisdictions or possibly bidding zones, though no specifics are confirmed yet, with proposals about "price-based" proxy zones also circulating. These price-based zones could see similarly priced zones (e.g, <5% delta) considered mutually deliverable. Importantly, and with potential to be impactful for price: cross-border GO flows from the Nordics into higher-emission importing markets, currently compliant, may not continue exactly as they do now.

How Do I Factor Geographic and Temporal Matching Into My Procurement?

For us, it's pretty clear that getting both dimensions right is a data and accounting challenge at its core. As a UN 24/7 CFE Compact signatory, Soldera is equipped to support verifiable 24/7 carbon-free energy initiatives, and research cited earlier shows that hourly matching requires robust granular certificate tracking infrastructure. That's exactly what platforms like Soldera can provide, thanks to the volume of data we are already managing across both sides of the market. Turning generation and consumption data into EAC workflows is our area of expertise.

As for the geographic angle, half of the challenge is the existing fragmented bureaucracy imposed by countless government registries. Soldera's integration-focused approach has resulted in connections to every major EAC registry worldwide, underpinning an intuitive approach to procurement, cancellation, and export-ready documentation from just a single platform. For companies managing certificates across European jurisdictions, local matching is achievable already: upload your consumption data, and within minutes, receive quotes for verified cancellation statements in any jurisdiction - minus the operational overhead of managing each registry independently. If you're exploring granular matching, sign up to our platform for conventional EAC procurement and management, and get in touch to assess your specific granular procurement needs.