Koi allows users to select a GHG intensity scenario to use for modeling a technology’s baseline and solution. The specific scenarios available for selection vary by impact model but generally fall into one of three broad categories:

1. Static intensities that reflect the lifecycle emissions of systems today. In this "business as usual" scenario, the solution and/or the baseline emissions intensity remains the same each year of the analysis.

2. Dynamic intensities (exploratory) that reflect future scenarios where the emissions intensity changes according to current trajectories and/or anticipated policies.

3. Dynamic intensities (normative) that reflect future scenarios where the emissions intensity changes to achieve specific targets (e.g., Net Zero).

Static Intensities

Koi’s static intensities are typically derived from LCA literature or database findings for a conventional system. The solution GHG intensity may be directly studied in the primary literature or inferred from intervention points within the conventional system. The sources and methods used to quantify each lifecycle are documented in the description of the scenario and the model references.

A user can determine if the baseline and/or solution GHG intensity is static by scrolling to view the GHG intensity chart at the bottom of the Per Unit tab.

In the example below, the solution GHG trace is static while the baseline is dynamic. The mouse hovers over the solution data for the year 2033 to display the value at that point in time.

Dynamic Intensities

Koi’s dynamic intensities are typically derived from a static intensity with a normative or exploratory trend applied. This results in a model that is both high-resolution—meaning it depicts the system’s value chain by phase and GHG contribution—and dynamic, meaning the system’s total GHG intensity changes over time.

Koi’s high-resolution GHG intensity data has lifecycle phase granularity.

The plot below contains a dynamic baseline and solution GHG intensity. The decline is modeled to reflect the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)’s Absolute Contraction Approach, with a 4.2% annual reduction rate needed to limit warming to 1.5°C.

Most Koi impact models start with default normative dynamic intensities that follow the SBTi Absolute Contraction Approach. This provides a reasonable trajectory for the future before additional manual research is done to determine industry-specific trends. This is consistent with how companies are staging their decarbonization approaches as well. From the SBTi:

“The Absolute Contraction Approach (ACA) is a one-size-fits-all method that ensures that companies setting targets deliver absolute emissions reductions in line with global decarbonization pathways. This is the approach the vast majority of companies setting science-based targets choose. And two-thirds of the targets approved by the SBTi in 2020 used the ACA method to set targets limiting global warming to 1.5°C.”

Models may have exploratory dynamic intensities available for selection as well. These data are generally industry- or technology-specific, such as the SBTi FLAG target for beef or the EU ETS benchmark for synthesis gas. These data provide a more granular forecast for the conventional value chain.

*Note that Koi also includes low-resolution, dynamic baselines, such as the industry-level targets set by regulatory and compliance frameworks. All baseline intensities can be searched independently of their associated impact models using the baseline search functionality.

Selecting the Appropriate GHG Scenarios

Koi researchers set impact model defaults to result in conservative and plausible avoided emissions outcomes. The alternative GHG intensities available for selection are determined based on plausible outcomes, data availability, technology-specific considerations, industry context, and Koi research area prioritization. Many Koi impact models start with four GHG intensities available:

1. Static baseline (conventional value chain with business-as-usual)

2. SBTi-aligned baseline* (dynamic improvements in the conventional baseline to limit warming to 1.5°C)

3. Fully additional solution* (solution intervention in baseline value chain + dynamic SBTi-aligned value chain)

4. Static solution (solution intervention in baseline value chain)

*Typical intensities selected for impact modeling defaults

It is important to select the GHG intensities that align with the impact model use case. Some general guidelines for deciding this are outlined below.

When to use dynamic intensities:

• Models with time horizons beyond 10 years

• Models where conservatism is prioritized

• Models of industries/technologies that have demonstrated progress towards Net Zero

When to use static intensities:

• Models with time horizons of 10 years or less

• Models where the conventional technology is not expected to decarbonize significantly

• Models where the conventional industry/technology is off-track for meeting Net Zero goals

• Models where it is unknown or unclear if the conventional technology is on track for Net Zero

• Models where accuracy of today’s impacts is prioritized over model conservatism

When to use a mix of static and dynamic intensities:

If it is unclear whether the solution value chain would also realize the conventional system's GHG decline, it is recommended that the solution is modeled with the static intensity while the baseline is modeled with the dynamic intensity. This approach assumes the solution has specific intervention points that result in efficiencies compared to today’s value chain but acknowledges that the conventional technology may improve in ways that the solution cannot. This will yield the most conservative avoided emissions result (e.g., the least beneficial future for the climate solution).