Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
With an increasing shift away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources within the European Union (EU), photovoltaics (PV) are projected to see substantial growth with estimates of nearly 600 GWp of capacity by 2030. As the use of PV technology continues to expand, the European Commission has introduced various policy instruments, enabling consumers to make informed choices. Among those, the Ecodesign directive 2009/125/EC sets a carbon footprint threshold as a minimum qualification for the European market to cut out the least sustainable PV modules. For this directive, the methodological guidelines for the complex carbon footprint calculation of PV modules are under development. To this end, this analysis compares the two methodologies, namely Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) and the Ecodesign adaptation of Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) , emphasizing the implications of choosing one over the other for the PV industry. This study illustrates how varying parameters, like module lifetime, degradation rate, and purchased renewable electricity certificate allowance limit, stemming from the differing methodological approaches can influence the carbon footprint calculation. Apart from the strengths and weaknesses of each methodology, this article emphasizes the need for globally harmonized standards to ensure consistency in evaluating the carbon footprint of PV modules. The observations made in this study should be considered not just for Ecodesign directive but for any such market regulation policy like the recently passed EU Net Zero Industry Act or the EU Ecolabel for PV modules. It underlines the significance of choosing a transparent and fair approach to ensure the credibility of carbon footprint labels and meet the EU's decarbonization objectives successfully, propelling the transition toward a more sustainable energy landscape.
Khan et al. (Sat,) studied this question.