ADR0028: deprecation of property characterizationFactors ; addition of new property characterizationFactorsSources

[zeitgeist]

We propose a tech specs changes after consultation with and a decision by the methodology working group.
A change to the property characterizationFactors is necessary to make it possible to express the usage of more than 1 set of characterization factors.

Summary of this ADR:

1. characterizationFactors is deprecated
2. new property characterizationFactorsSources is added which has the same "syntax" as CarbonFootprint's property secondaryEmissionFactorSources ; i.e. this property is a list (array) of tuples name and version

h/t to @raimundo-henriques for authoring this

[bhadley]

small typo: "will be removed in version 3.0" (not "on")

[bhadley]

@raimundo-henriques Why the addition of "of the largest relative share"? Especially given the attribute would be deprecated, why this addition?

[bhadley]

Joy and I reviewed but still had a few questions - let's use the cross functional sync tomorrow to quickly revise together!

[bhadley]

Per consensus vote in Tech WG Feb 14, 2024, this ADR achieved a majority vote (90%, 10 responding organizations). We now invite the broader PACT community to comment if any concerns with moving forward with approval of this ADR (especially those who couldn't attend the working group) by 21 February.

[FlorianAJ]

“There is only one organization which does relevant alignment between institutions on this and who publishes these reports (IPCC). All other real reporting initiatives follow those publications, because the IPCC is a community of virtually all GWP relevant research institutions in the world. So if you (as a calculation tool prider or reporting company) don’t want to be expelled from the community, you better use that as a basis. One could argue, that it should be added, that carbon feedbacks should be part of this object (Ture or False). That would be the only other reasonable info apart from AR5 or AR6.

This proposal does therefore not create an additional benefit (there are no other values, except potentially in the future AR7). But it has several drawbacks

1. It is another mapping issue
2. We used to have a value list (of acually a list with no alternatives except AR7), now we have a free text. And we neeeeed to get away from free text fields, otherwise we can put everythng into the comments right away.
3. The data model is not compatibel with CX or TFS anymore.
4. Solutions have to find a way of dealing with PCFs, coming in with a value, they can’t interprete, because we used to have a value list, now it is a free text)  message boxes or warnings, if “Name” is not equal to “AR”
5. Even with all these inconveniences and related cost, we still don’t know if carbon beedbacks are included or not (1 kg Methane =30kg CO2e or 1g Methane =38 kg CO2e)
6. the receiving party has no idea what to do with PCF it is states both AR5 and AR6 or at worst addiontally "IPCC Emission report V6" or whatever string it is. I want to know what my supplier's data base used or what his LCIA-Method used!

[bhadley]

In the February 14 Tech Working Group, the original proposal of the ADR (to replace with a dictionary of characterizationFactorSources with attributes "name" and "version") was voted to reach consensus (#46 (comment)) However, following this vote we heard feedback from the community (specifically @FlorianAJ #46 (review) ) expressing dissent. As we define consent as a general agreement characterized by the absence of sustained opposition, we recognized the importance of taking Florian's input into consideration. Therefore we revise the propose to address Florian's feedback, namely the new proposal has the following advantages over the previous proposal:

Advantages:

• Specifically requires use of IPCC, which effectively (as you point out) is the source of truth for characterization factors
• Specifies clearly the “value list & format” for the strings, specifically a string with format AR$VERSION$

Disadvantages:

• If in the future additional information should be included regarding the characterization factor information (for example info regarding carbon feedbacks) this will require a breaking change (the previous format, i.e. dictionary would not have required a breaking change)

We will now take this revised proposal back to the Tech WG on March 13 for (hopefully) a final consensus vote and confirm no sustained opposition is raised.