How Greentruth's QETs Align to GHG Reporting Frameworks

GHG reporting frameworks alignment is the central question for any ESG, sustainability, or disclosure team running a multi-framework program — and Greentruth's Quantified Emissions Tokens (QETs) are designed so that a single underlying record can feed every major one: GHG Protocol, SBTi, The Climate Registry, OGMP 2.0, ISO 14064-3, ISO 14067, CSRD ESRS E1, and IFRS S2. This page is the framework map: how each QET type maps to each framework, where the alignment is most developed, and what QETs explicitly do not do under any of them.

GHG reporting frameworks alignment, in one paragraph. QETs are fuel- or electricity-attribute certificates (or, for QET-CCS, a CCS attribute certificate), verified to ISO 14064-3 reasonable assurance and retired on the EarnDLT registry to anchor a specific claim. Framework-aligned exports are produced from the same retired token, mapped to the version of each framework in force at retirement. QETs are not offsets, not carbon credits, and do not transfer Scope 1 emissions between parties — distinctions that matter across every framework.

What a QET is in the first place

GHG reporting frameworks alignment, in practice, is a many-to-many problem: multiple token types, multiple frameworks, multiple framework versions in flux. Across the QET family, four token types map to the frameworks reporters actually file against. The matrix below summarizes where each token is most useful inside each framework:

The matrix matters because it captures something the audit-side conversation cares about: a single token's attributes are designed to feed multiple framework exports rather than forcing the reporter to maintain parallel data systems.

For the foundational QET overview

The GHG Protocol is the de facto global accounting standard for corporate emissions and the framework most other frameworks reference. QETs feed three documents in the family:

• Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard. The Scope 1 / Scope 2 / Scope 3 architecture itself.
• Scope 2 Guidance. The market-based method, where QET-ELEC retires irrevocably on-chain as the contractual instrument.
• Scope 3 Standard, Category 3 (Fuel- and Energy-Related Activities). Where QET-NG and QET-RNG provide producer- and pathway-specific carbon intensities in kgCO₂e/MMBtu — and where the downstream GasTrace product generates verified Scope 3 Category 3 EACs at the GREET default tier for free.

The full GHG Protocol explainer

GHG Protocol Corporate Standard

The SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard (CNZS) treats deep value-chain abatement as the primary work and neutralization with durable removals as the residuals layer. Three QETs feed abatement; one feeds neutralization:

• Abatement layer. QET-NG for Scope 1 CI and Scope 3 Category 3; QET-RNG for fossil fuel substitution, with biogenic CO₂ accounted separately under CNZS V1.3 criterion C11; QET-ELEC for market-based Scope 2.
• Neutralization layer (residuals only). QET-CCS for durable CDR at the residual share that cannot be abated.

CNZS V2.0 was put out for second consultation in November 2025; Greentruth's methodology architecture is versioned so QET exports map to the CNZS version in force at retirement.

The full SBTi explainer

How CDR fits the residuals layer

SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard

The Climate Registry's General Reporting Protocol (GRP) is the long-running US methodology for voluntary and sub-national GHG reporting. QETs feed it as inventory inputs and supporting documentation; QET-RNG is the most-developed alignment, mapping directly to three sections of the GRP:

• GRP §D-7 — fuel-attribute documentation.
• GRP §D-15 — Steam and Heating eligibility.
• GRP §B-7 — biogenic emissions accounting.

The other QETs feed the framework with the same retire-once, methodology-versioned, verifier-stamped record structure, though their section-level alignment is less developed than QET-RNG's.

The full TCR explainer

How biogenic emissions accounting works

The Oil and Gas Methane Partnership 2.0, administered by UNEP IMEO, defines the five-level methane reporting framework that the EU Methane Regulation references as an equivalence anchor for imported natural gas. QET-NG's EU compliance extension is designed for Level 4 and Level 5 reporting — paired with the EEMDL Protocol (UT Austin Energy Emissions Modeling and Data Lab) for source-level vs. site-level reconciliation, and ISO 14064-3 reasonable assurance for verification under Article 8 of the EU Methane Regulation.

In US-only reporting lanes outside the EU compliance extension, QET-NG anchors to NGSI Protocol v2.0, the OGCI Reporting Framework, and ONE Future v6.2023 instead — with OGMP 2.0 layered in only where EU-bound supply requires it.

The full OGMP 2.0 explainer

The full QET-NG methodology

The ISO 14064 series and ISO 14067 are the verification anchors that sit beneath every other framework on this page. Two specifically matter for QETs:

• ISO 14064-3 (reasonable assurance). Every QET — across NG, RNG, ELEC, and CCS — is verified to ISO 14064-3 reasonable assurance by an accredited third-party verifier whose identity is stamped on the token as the verifier of record.
• ISO 14067 (product carbon footprint). Provides the methodological lens for treating QETs as fuel- or electricity-attribute inputs into product carbon footprint disclosures.

ISO 14064-1 (organizational GHG inventories) and ISO 14064-2 (project-level GHG accounting) are adjacent references; they do not sit directly underneath QET methodologies but are commonly invoked by verifiers in support of corporate-level inventories.

The full ISO alignment explainer

The disclosure-side frameworks operating in parallel to the accounting frameworks above are the EU's CSRD ESRS E1 and the ISSB's IFRS S2. Both expect machine-readable, audit-defensible emissions data with traceable methodology lineage — exactly the structure a QET carries by design.

• CSRD ESRS E1. Each QET's attribute set (geography, methodology version, verifier of record, MRV tier, biogenic carve-out) translates directly into ESRS E1 line items, with framework-aligned exports produced at retirement.
• IFRS S2. ISSB-aligned reporting under IFRS S2 draws on GHG Protocol methodology; QET exports feed the same accounting backbone.

Greentruth's downstream Scope 3 Category 3 product, GasTrace, is built to feed both frameworks — at scale and at no cost for the GREET-default tier — for the roughly 5,000 US reporters under California SB 253 and the ~50,000 EU entities expected under CSRD from H2 2026.

A new class of public Energy Attribute Certificate frameworks has emerged in the market, designed to formalize what a credible CCS attribute certificate or time-based electricity attribute certificate should carry. QETs are structured so their attributes can satisfy these emerging frameworks — purely as portability, not as partnership or affiliation:

• CCS-EAC frameworks — for the carbon capture and storage attribute. One public example is the NorthBridge CCS Energy Attribute Certificate Standard (October 2025). Another example is the internal CCS-EAC framework expectations major corporate procurement programs have published. A QET-CCS carries the attribute structure these frameworks contemplate.
• T-EAC frameworks — for the time-based electricity attribute. Hyperscaler data center operators have begun publishing their own T-EAC framework expectations (Google's published framework being one well-known public example) and using those expectations as procurement criteria. A QET-ELEC carries the attribute structure those frameworks contemplate, with EnergyTag-compatible hourly granularity.

Citing these is not a claim of partnership, affiliation, or current use. They are illustrative reference points for what a credible attribute certificate is expected to be assembled around.

EnergyTag hourly matching standard

A QET is not an offset, not a carbon credit, and does not transfer Scope 1 emissions between parties. It is a fuel- or electricity-attribute certificate (or, for QET-CCS, a CCS attribute certificate). It substantiates a specific verified physical unit and the buyer's retirement anchors a single claim against the buyer's own inventory. Every framework above treats QETs as inputs to abatement, market-based accounting, or (for QET-CCS) residual neutralization — not as instruments that net Scope 1 across the value chain.

Three corollaries that apply to every framework on this page:

• Voluntary carbon market integrity initiatives that govern offsets and credits do not govern QETs. The relevant integrity frame is the framework-specific anchor — GHG Protocol Scope 2 Quality Criteria, CNZS criteria, GRP sections, OGMP 2.0 levels, ISO 14064-3 reasonable assurance.
• A QET retirement is not a target. It is the input that substantiates a reported number. The target — under SBTi or any other framework — is the trajectory the company has validated.
• Methodology versioning matters. Each token records the methodology and reference dataset versions used, so framework exports map to the version of each framework in force at the time of retirement. Frameworks evolve; the underlying token record is portable across versions.

For ESG / disclosure teams · For corporate sustainability teams · How retirement anchors the claim