This study examines the deviation between the official static emission factor (EFstatic) used for Scope 2 reporting in Türkiye and hourly dynamic emission factors (DEF), and tests whether the static factor can be reconstructed retrospectively from publicly available data. The 26,304-hour dataset for 2022–2024 includes unlicensed generation, which is exempt from licensing under EMRA regulations, and is reconciled with TEİAŞ statistics at source level. For the 2024 working hours, the total deviation from EFstatic,2022 is −13.7% (a negative value means that the static factor overstates working-hour emissions; plausible range −12.7% to −16.7%). According to the Shapley decomposition, temporal resolution contributes R2 = −6.9% and the grid change within the two-year publication lag R3 = −5.3%, while the order-independent method-and-scope component is R1 = −2.2%. The backtests show that, because source emission coefficients are revised in each vintage and reconstruction errors vary between years, the static factor cannot be derived reliably and consistently from publicly available data. Within the scope of this study, the findings indicate that improving the accuracy of Scope 2 reporting requires both hourly resolution and more timely publication of the official factor, whereas the method-and-scope deviation is removed by neither.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ulutas et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: