DOI: https://doi.org/10.61435/jbes.2026.20022

Carbon Intensity Boundary Bias in Power Sector: The CO₂ Emission Factor based on Transaction Metering Point configuration

1Electrical Power Engineering, Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia

2Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia

Received: 21 Apr 2026; Published: 20 May 2026.
Editor(s): H. Hadiyanto
Open Access Copyright (c) 2025 The Author(s). Published by Centre of Biomass and Renewable Energy (CBIORE)
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Carbon intensity in the power sector is subject to a systematic bias, not due to the actual calculation
of emissions, but to how electricity generation is measured. Accurate measurement of carbon intensity is crucial for greenhouse gas (GHG) accounting, carbon pricing mechanisms, and ESG performance assessments in the electricity sector. The reliability of these carbon intensity measurements depends heavily on how we define the system boundary. This definition is not clearly stated in popular reporting frameworks. The method of identifying transaction point measurement (TPM) configurations based on delivered energy is a major source of bias that is often overlooked when calculating CO₂ emission factors. By using data from coal-fired independent power producers (IPP), this research was evaluated CO₂ emission factor calculations under three energy measurement boundary scenarios: gross production, grid-based net production, and contracted energy
delivered. The results of these three energy measurement boundary scenarios show an increase in the emission factor from 0.470 to 0.499 kg CO₂/kWh, even though total CO₂ emissions remain the same. This indicates that measurement boundaries can alter reported carbon intensity. This finding reveals hidden variability in carbon calculations. These differences are not caused by the actual carbon emissions generated, but rather by the method used to measure the energy delivered. Although seemingly minor, this inconsistency can significantly affect carbon pricing and ESG reporting methods. By correctly positioning the TMP configuration as a key element in carbon intensity, this research enhances understanding of the uncertainties involved in determining emission factors for carbon intensity reporting.

Note: This article has supplementary file(s).

Fulltext |  Research Instrument
Summary Energy generation in 2024
Subject net energy generated, gross energy generated, power plant
Type Research Instrument
  Download (54KB)    Indexing metadata
 Research Instrument
Emission recorded by CEMS for SISPEK in 2024
Subject emission factor, CEMS, SISPEK
Type Research Instrument
  Download (647KB)    Indexing metadata
 Research Results
Carbon Intensity Boundary Bias in Power Sector - The CO₂ Emission Factor based on Transaction Metering Point configuration_R1
Subject Revision 1
Type Research Results
  Download (2MB)    Indexing metadata
 Research Results
Carbon Intensity Boundary Bias in Power Sector - The CO₂ Emission Factor based on Transaction Metering Point configuration_R1
Subject Revision 1
Type Research Results
  Download (2MB)    Indexing metadata
Keywords: boundary, bias, carbon intensity, emission factor, Transaction Metering Point (TMP)

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Articles
Language : EN
Recent articles
Why Are Battery Electrolytes Feared? A Battery Scientist’s Perspective on Public Perception, Risk, and Responsibility Evaluation of The Adulticidal Efficacy of Etofenprox as Insecticide for Houseflies (Musca domestica) Comparative Analysis of Soil Microbial Biomass in Oluyole and New Garage Industrial Areas, Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria Carbon Footprint Analysis of Waste Generation and Electricity Consumption at Mangkang Market, Indonesia Environmental–Energy Nexus in Tropical Commercial Buildings More recent articles
  1. Alexander Barón. (2025). Transactional Model of Electrical Energy Based on Emerging Technologies. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management, 10(55s), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.52783/jisem.v10i55s.11528
  2. Bertolini, M., Duttilo, P., & Lisi, F. (2025). Accounting carbon emissions from electricity generation: A review and comparison of emission factor-based methods. Applied Energy, 392, 125992. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.APENERGY.2025.125992
  3. Che, Z., Cheng, S., Zhang, W., Xing, Y., & Su, W. (2026). Operational optimization for joint carbon emissions reduction and SO2 removal in semi-dry flue gas desulfurization. Energy Conversion and Management, 353, 121171. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2026.121171
  4. Chen, Z., Amani, A. M., Yu, X., & Jalili, M. (2023). Control and Optimisation of Power Grids Using Smart Meter Data: A Review. Sensors, 23(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/s23042118
  5. Chuang, X., Li, L., Zhu, L., Wei, M., Qiu, Y., & Xin, Y. (2025). The design of a real-time monitoring and intelligent optimization data analysis framework for power plant production systems by 5G networks. Energy Informatics, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42162-025-00487-8
  6. Dudjak, V., Neves, D., Alskaif, T., Khadem, S., & ... (2021). Impact of Local Energy Markets on the Distribution Systems: A Comprehensive Review. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv …, June
  7. Eleonora, C., Michela, S., Lorenzo, H., BENINI, & Serenella, S. (2019). Global environmental impacts: data sources and methodological choices for calculating normalisation factors for LCA. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT, 24(10), 1851–1877. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01604-y (online)
  8. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). GHG Emission Factors Hub. Epa
  9. https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ghg-emission-factors-hub
  10. Fangping Gao, M. L. (2023). Study on Electricity Settlement Mechanism Considering Competitiveness of Electricity Markets. Applied Mathematics and Nonlinear Sciences, 8(2), 3383–3392. https://www.sciendo.com
  11. Filonchyk, M., Peterson, M. P., Yan, H., Zhou, L., Zhang, L., He, Y., & Yang, S. (2026). Global greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 228, 108808. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2026.108808
  12. Heinonen, J., Ottelin, J., Ala-Mantila, S., Wiedmann, T., Clarke, J., & Junnila, S. (2020). Spatial consumption-based carbon footprint assessments - A review of recent developments in the field. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120335. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120335
  13. IEA. (2025). Electricity Market Design: Building on strengths, addressing gaps. 116. https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-market-design International Energy Agency. (2023). CO₂ Emissions in 2023. International Energy Agency, 24, 22. www.iea.org
  14. IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change: Frequently Asked Questions. 1–23
  15. IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2019). Chapter 2 General Guidance and Reporting. 1–50
  16. ISO 14064, 2018. (2018). Specification with guidance at the organization level for quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas ( ISO 14064:2018 - Part I). 2018. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:14064:-1:en
  17. Khamisu, M. S., & Paluri, R. A. (2024). Emerging trends of environmental social and governance (ESG) disclosure research. Cleaner Production Letters, 7, 100079. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLPL.2024.100079
  18. Larsen, H. N., & Hertwich, E. G. (2009). The case for consumption-based accounting of greenhouse gas emissions to promote local climate action. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 791–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2009.07.010
  20. Lee, K. M., & Lee, M. (2021). Uncertainty of the Electricity Emission Factor Incorporating the Uncertainty of the Fuel Emission Factors. Energies, 14, 5697. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14185697
  21. Li, Y., Yang, X., Du, E., Liu, Y., Zhang, S., Yang, C., Zhang, N., & Liu, C. (2024). A review on carbon emission accounting approaches for the electricity power industry. Applied Energy, 359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.122681
  22. Liddle, B. (2018). Consumption-based accounting and the trade-carbon emissions nexus. Energy Economics, 69, 71–78. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2017.11.004
  23. Liu, Z., Ciais, P., Deng, Z., Lei, R., Davis, S. J., Feng, S., Zheng, B., Cui, D., Dou, X., Zhu, B., Guo, R., Ke, P., Sun, T., Lu, C., He, P., Wang, Y., Yue, X., Wang, Y., Lei, Y., … Schellnhuber, H. J. (2020). Near-real-time monitoring of global CO2 emissions reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature Communications, 11(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18922-7
  25. Molly Caldwell, Natalia Alayza, & Gaia Larsen. (2022). Paying for the Paris Agreement. World Resource Institute, 1–80. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.46830/wrirpt.21.00150
  26. Peraturan Menteri Energi Dan Sumber Daya Mineral No : 03 Tahun 2007 Tentang Aturan Jaringan Sistem Tenaga Listrik Jawa-Madura-Bali, Pub. L. No. No. 03 Tahun 2007, Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral Republik Indonesia 1 (2007)
  27. Peraturan Menteri Energi Dan Sumber Daya Mineral Republik Indonesia No. 20 Tahun 2020 Tentang Aturan Jaringan Sistem Tenaga Listrik (Grid Code), Pub. L. No. Peraturan Menteri ESDM No. 20 Tahun 2020, Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral Republik Indonesia (2020)
  28. Prabowo, B., & Dalimi, R. (2026). Evaluation of Coal-Fired Power Plant Emission Reduction in Indonesia in Line with the Indonesian Government ’ s Roadmap Towards Net Zero Emissions 2060. Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health, 5(4), 317–331
  29. Schneider Electric. (2023). Accelerating to Accelerating to net-zero emissions. World Business Council for Sustinable Development, 29 Novermber 2023, 1–6. https://www.wbcsd.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Accelerating-to-net-zero-emissions.pdf
  30. Sharaf-Addin, H. (2024). Towards Net-Zero Carbon Emissions: A Systematic Review of Carbon Sustainability Reporting based on GHG Protocol Framework. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 24, 100516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100516
  31. Srivastava, R. P., Kumar, S., & Tiwari, A. (2024). Continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) in India: Performance evaluation, policy gaps and financial implications for effective air pollution control. Journal of Environmental Management, 359, 120584. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2024.120584
  32. Tian, Z. H., & Yang, Z. L. (2016). Scenarios of carbon emissions from the power sector in Guangdong Province. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8090863
  33. Tukker, A., Pollitt, H., & Henkemans, M. (2020). Consumption-based carbon accounting: sense and sensibility. Climate Policy, 20(sup1), S1--S13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1728208
  34. World Bank. (2025). State and Trends of Carbon Pricing. In International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank Group. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-2255-1
  35. Yang, C., Yao, T., Shiming, D., & Jiang, W. (2025). Carbon emissions accounting and uncertainty analysis in campus settings: A case study of a university in Sichuan, China. PLOS ONE, 20
  36. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321216

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.

echo '
https://journals.aesop-planning.eu/ https://jurnal.pgsd.unipol.ac.id/ https://superbilisim.com.tr/ https://journal.pubalaic.org/
';