TECHNICAL
Example: What data should be collected in the tool? Source: Toovalu
Carbon Intensity metrics
This data can be made ‘public’ within the FTTH Council. n A range (minimum, maximum) of Theoretical HouseHold Connected per actor activity has then been determined by FTTH council experts.
Another benefit of the new metric is the fact that Carbon intensity of each activity can be summed so that the total represents the total Carbon emission per household of an entire FTTH link for a given year. The issue with this methodology is that the Scope 3 of different companies overlaps to a considerable extent and is then counted multiple times. This would lead to significant over-assessment. To avoid this, the Carbon Intensity tool defines which part of the Scope 3 shall be included and excluded for each type of members, so that overlap is reduced to almost zero. As an example, it had been decided that the emissions related to the use of OLT and ONT shall not be provided by the manufacturers, but by the ISP. The ISP has indeed a direct influence by selecting the equipments and a indirect influence by educating end users (helping them to decrease the electricity consumption of their setup box). In this way companies can provide the following information without giving away certain critical details: n Companies that don’t mind communicating CO 2 equivalent figures per product can share this as soon as those figures are aggregated and averaged n Alternatively, companies can share CO 2 equivalent per Theoretical HouseHold, which is referred to as ‘Carbon Intensity’. This information can’t be linked back to the business.
Carbon emissions are now being assessed according to the GHG protocol, and each organisation can start its journey to greater carbon sobriety. Of course, a large company will emit more than a small company, even if they are both manufacturing the same range of products. Comparing them makes no sense. Calculating a range of emission per product type could be meaningful if we look at the evolution of this range based on several players, over time. As mentioned previously, this can be achieved by dividing the carbon emissions of the entire organisation by the number of products sold, but the calculation would require sharing the volume of sold products, which is very sensitive and does not respect confidentiality legislation. To avoid this, a model which converts volumes of sold products into what has been named “Theoretical Households” was created with the FTTH Council D&O Committee. This model was implemented in a unique FTTH Council tool and provided to members, so that they could independently enter their carbon emissions and sold product volumes. Subsequently, the tool provides a Carbon Intensity value, given in a range of kg of CO 2 eq per Household. Those Carbon intensities are then aggregated by member type and averaged, so that it becomes impossible to know the volume of sold products per company.
Outcomes
Although the number of participating members was limited, we were still able to achieve the following sector outcomes: Building a single FTTH Connection and operating it, emits between 420 to 620kg CO 2 eq per Household. 42% is emitted by the IPS, 12% is emitted by the passive equipment, 4% is emitted by the active equipment and 42% is emitted by the roll out itself Limits of the model The main and significant GHG emission categories have been considered only once over the value chain, to prevent double counting. Nevertheless, some double counting may inadvertently occur in limited areas. Carrying out a carbon footprint via the GHG protocol is generally neither exhaustive nor very precise the first time, especially on Scope 3 and getting it right requires several years of maturity. The theoretical Home connected approach also leads to an accuracy level by a factor of 2-3.
98
Volume 46 No.2 MAY 2024
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online