7.4 Lessor Accounting for Emissions From Leased Assets
Like lessees, lessors have to consider their consolidation approach
and type of lease to properly account for GHG emissions from leased assets.
Correctly identifying these factors will prevent and avoid double counting. For more
information about consolidation approaches, see Chapter 2. For more information about lease
classifications (which companies are advised to determine in a manner consistent
with their audited financial statements), see Section
7.1 and Deloitte’s Roadmap Leases.
The table below, which is adapted from Table A.2 of the Scope 3 Standard, presents
various considerations for lessors related to the classification of GHG emissions
from leased assets into Scopes 1, 2, and 3.
Consolidation Approach Used
|
Type of Leasing Arrangement
| |
---|---|---|
Finance/Capital Lease
|
Operating Lease
| |
Equity share or financial control
|
Case A: Lessor does not have ownership or financial
control. Therefore, GHG emissions associated with fuel
combustion and the use of purchase electricity are accounted
for in Scope 3, Category 13 (downstream leased assets).
|
Case C: Lessor has
ownership and financial control. Therefore, GHG emissions
associated with fuel combustion are accounted for in Scope
1, and those associated with the use of purchased
electricity are accounted for in Scope 2.
|
Operational control
|
Case B: Lessor does not have operational control.
Therefore, GHG emissions associated with fuel combustion and
the use of purchased electricity are accounted for in Scope
3, Category 13 (downstream leased assets).
|
Case D: Lessor does not have operational control.
Therefore, GHG emissions associated with fuel combustion and
the use of purchased electricity are accounted for in Scope
3, Category 13 (downstream leased assets).5
|
As illustrated in the table above, if a reporting company is the lessor in an
operating lease as defined in the Scope 3 Standard and uses the equity share or
financial control approach (Case C), it would account for (1) the direct GHG
emissions from the leased asset in Scope 1 and (2) the indirect GHG emissions from
the leased asset that are associated with the use of purchased electricity in Scope
2. This is because the lessor has accounting ownership and financial control of the
asset.
As further illustrated in the table above, if a reporting company is
the lessor in a finance/capital lease and uses the equity share or financial control
approach (Case A) or the operational control approach (Case B), or is the lessor in
an operating lease and uses the operational control approach (Case D), the reporting
company is not considered to have accounting ownership, financial control, or
operational control of the asset. Accordingly, the reporting company would record
both the GHG emissions that are an output from the leased asset and the GHG
emissions from the leased asset that are associated with the use of purchased
electricity in Scope 3, Category 13. This is because in Cases A, B, and D of
Table 7-2 (which
correspond to Cases A, B, and D of Table 7-3), the lessee has accounting ownership
or control of the leased asset and would therefore report the same GHG emissions in
Scopes 1 and 2, respectively, rather than Scope 3.
Connecting the Dots
The lessee accounting illustrated in Table 7-2 is the
inverse of the lessor accounting illustrated in Table 7-3. For example, the lessee’s
lack of accounting ownership and financial control in Table 7-2, Case C,
means that the lessor in the same arrangement does have accounting ownership
and financial control (see Table 7-3, Case C). Therefore, whereas the lessee
in the arrangement would account for the GHG emissions related to the leased
asset in Scope 3, Category 8 (upstream leased assets), the lessor in the
arrangement would account for those emissions in Scopes 1 and 2. Similarly,
in each of Cases A, B, and D of Table 7-2, whereas the lessee would
generally account for the GHG emissions related to the leased asset in
Scopes 1 and 2, the lessor would generally account for those emissions in
Scope 3, Category 13 (downstream leased assets).
A lessor’s chosen organizational boundary may affect whether the lessor reports
direct GHG emissions from the leased asset and indirect GHG emissions from the
leased asset that are associated with the use of purchased electricity in (1) Scopes
1 and 2, respectively, or (2) Scope 3. For example, the lessor in an operating lease
that applies the operational control approach (Table 7-3, Case D) generally does not
operate the leased asset it owns and therefore typically does not implement its
operating policies with respect to the asset (i.e., the lessee has full operational
control). Since the lessor does not control the asset from an operational
standpoint, direct GHG emissions from the leased asset and indirect GHG emissions
from the leased asset that are associated with the use of purchased electricity
would be excluded from the lessor’s Scope 1 and Scope 2 inventories and included in
its Scope 3 inventory.
Although a lessor in Table 7-3, Case D, would generally report GHG
emissions from the leased asset in Scope 3, Category 13, such a lessor may report
those emissions in Scopes 1 and 2 if it can demonstrate that it has operational
control over the leased asset, in which case the lessor must disclose the background
and reasoning that support its conclusion. This treatment is consistent with lessee
accounting for leased assets. As noted in Section 7.3, if a lessee in an operating lease
that applies the operational control approach concludes that it does not have
operational control over the leased asset and therefore reports emissions related to
the leased asset in Scope 3 instead of Scopes 1 and 2, the lessee must disclose the
background and reasoning that support its conclusion.
For further illustration, consider
Example 9, Case C, in ASC 842-10-55-117 through 55-123:
ASC 842-10
Example 9 — Contract for
Energy/Power . . .
Case C — Contract
Contains a Lease
55-117 Customer enters into a
contract with Supplier to purchase all of the power produced
by an explicitly specified power plant for 10 years. The
contract states that Customer has rights to all of the power
produced by the plant (that is, Supplier cannot use the
plant to fulfill other contracts).
55-118 Customer issues
instructions to Supplier about the quantity and timing of
the delivery of power. If the plant is not producing power
for Customer, it does not operate.
55-119 Supplier operates and
maintains the plant on a daily basis in accordance with
industry-approved operating practices.
55-120 The contract contains a
lease. Customer has the right to use the power plant for 10
years.
55-121 There is an identified
asset. The power plant is explicitly specified in the
contract, and Supplier does not have the right to substitute
the specified plant.
55-122 Customer has the right
to control the use of the power plant throughout the 10-year
period of use because:
-
Customer has the right to obtain substantially all of the economic benefits from use of the power plant over the 10-year period of use. Customer has exclusive use of the power plant; it has rights to all of the power produced by the power plant throughout the 10-year period of use.
-
Customer has the right to direct the use of the power plant. Customer makes the relevant decisions about how and for what purpose the power plant is used because it has the right to determine whether, when, and how much power the plant will produce (that is, the timing and quantity, if any, of power produced) throughout the period of use. Because Supplier is prevented from using the power plant for another purpose, Customer’s decision making about the timing and quantity of power produced, in effect, determines when and whether the plant produces output.
55-123 Although the operation
and maintenance of the power plant are essential to its
efficient use, Supplier’s decisions in this regard do not
give it the right to direct how and for what purpose the
power plant is used. Consequently, Supplier does not control
the use of the power plant during the period of use.
Instead, Supplier’s decisions are dependent on Customer’s
decisions about how and for what purpose the power plant is
used.
In the example above, Supplier can only use the power plant to
deliver the specified output on Customer’s terms. Customer determines whether and, if so, when the power
plant is used, as well as what amount of output the power
plant will produce. Because Customer obtains substantially all of the economic
benefits from the power plant (an identified asset) and has the right to direct its
use, the contract contains a lease. Under the assumption that Supplier applies the
operational control approach and has determined the lease to be an operating lease,
Supplier, as the lessor, would report the GHG emissions related to the power plant
in Scopes 1 and 2 instead of Scope 3 since the facts of the example indicate that
Supplier has operational control.
7.4.1 Changes in Scope for Assets Out on Lease
Lessors may have circumstances in which assets are not leased out for the entire
reporting period. Such circumstances require an assessment of how the GHG
emissions related to such assets are reflected when the assets are out on lease
and when they are not out on lease, as illustrated in the example below.
Example 7-7
Company A, which has a calendar year-end, uses the
operational control approach to establish its
organizational boundary for the reporting of GHG
emissions. Company A owns Asset X. It reports direct GHG
emissions from the use of Asset X in Scope 1 and the
indirect GHG emissions from Asset X associated with the
use of purchased electricity in Scope 2.
During 20X1, A enters into an operating lease for Asset X
(i.e., as the lessor) that commences on April 1, 20X1,
and results in the lessee’s obtaining operational
control over Asset X. Accordingly, applying the
operational control approach, A now needs to report the
GHG emissions from Asset X as Scope 3 emissions. In
general, entering into a lease is not a significant
structural change, and the change in the classification
of the GHG emissions from the leased asset is reflected
from the lease commencement date (i.e., April 1,
20X1).
However, in some circumstances, entering
into a lease may represent a significant structural
change. In such cases, A would recalculate GHG emissions
for the reporting year 20X1 by reflecting the change in
scope of GHG emissions effective from January 1, 20X1
(i.e., the beginning of the reporting year). (See
Section 4.1.3.2.1.) When evaluating
whether the lease of Asset X results in a significant
structural change, A would apply its established
recalculation policy and significance threshold for
evaluating structural changes (see Section
4.1.3.1) and may consider, among other
factors:
- The industry in which A operates.
- How central Asset X is to the operations of A.
- The amount of GHG emissions associated with Asset X relative to the total GHG emissions reported by A.
Footnotes
4
See footnote 2.
5
Sometimes, a reporting company that leases an asset
to another entity in an operating lease may be able
to demonstrate that the reporting company (lessor)
does have operational control over the leased asset,
especially when operational control is not perceived
by the lessee. In such a case, the reporting company
may report GHG emissions from fuel combustion in
Scope 1 and those associated with the use of
purchased electricity in Scope 2 as long as the
decision is disclosed and justified in the public
report.