Updated Mission, Grid Intensity Guidance, and the Future of Adaptation & Resilience | January Community Meeting

The first Community Meeting of 2026 was an engaging session for Project Frame, bringing together our community of climate investors and practitioners to chart a course for the next two years. The meeting focused on sharpening Frame’s collective mission and diving deep into new technical guidance for quantifying grid emissions intensity.

A Sharpened Mission and Ambitious 2-Year Goals

Since 2021, Project Frame has developed a consensus-based, science-backed methodology for assessing forward-looking emissions impact. To maintain an approach that is both energizing and precise, Frame has updated its mission statement:

To accelerate the climate transition by creating community, alignment, and accountability in impact assessment for climate solutions investing.

Anna Goldstein, Chief Program Officer at Prime Coalition, emphasized this evolved mission, stating, “We are doubling down on our intention to cultivate community, because it’s the connections between each of you that will enable collective learning.” 

“Project Frame is not a regulatory body nor a standard setter,” she reminded the group. We are all here voluntarily to learn, share, and create resources, and that’s what we think is needed to push this entire field forward, despite the turmoil and headwinds.” 

Project Frame’s goals for 2026-2027 flow directly from this mission:

• Documenting Advanced Practices: Elaborate on the forward-looking emissions methodology for mitigation solutions by distinguishing between consensus-based starter practice and advanced frontier practice.

• Expanding to Adaptation & Resilience (A&R): Survey the landscape of adaptation & resilience (A&R) impact assessment resources and approaches to guide future methodology development.

Community Pulse: Including Adaptation & Resilience

Demonstrating Frame’s focus on co-learning and knowledge sharing, meeting attendees were invited to share feedback on including A&R in Project Frame’s scope. Participants expressed a mix of excitement and cautious pragmatism:

• Strong Trust: There is a deep appetite for Frame to tackle A&R, with many noting that if Frame doesn't define these standards, the field risks remaining fragmented or prone to "greenwashing".

• The "Metric Problem": Unlike mitigation’s universal CO₂e metric, A&R indicators are harder to tie to outcomes and risk "apples-to-oranges" comparisons.

• The Need for Boundaries: Community members emphasized the need for clear definitions to distinguish between climate resilience, supply chain resilience, and general financial risk management.

• Capital-fit Matters: Participants voiced concerns that although a venture might address A&R, venture capital may not be the most appropriate source of funding, suggesting a need for guidance on the roles of private capital and public or philanthropic funding.

• Resource Trade-offs: Some saw A&R as a way to reinforce urgency for mitigation , while others warned it can be used politically to undermine mitigation., Participants urged that any guidance should be carefully framed and that Frame should continue building consensus around mitigation solutions while expanding its scope.

As a next step, Project Frame will convene its first-ever Adaptation & Resilience Focus Group in February 2026, with the objective to determine if A&R should be formally categorized as a “Climate Solution” within Frame’s glossary and how to define its boundaries. 

Deep Dive: Quantifying Grid Emissions Intensity

The January Community Meeting primarily focused on a presentation regarding the recently published Grid Intensity Paper. While the paper represented a collaborative endeavor among various Frame community members, including Jessica Lajoie (Alberta Ecotrust), Michael Solomentsev (Palanquin Power), Jeanne-Mey Sun (JTNL Advisory), Emily Prebhihalo (Prime Coalition), and Anjali Deshmukh (Prime Coalition), co-authors Rick Cutright (Managing Director, Climate Investment) and Young-Jin Choi (Director of Impact & ESG, Vidia Equity) delivered the community presentation. We were privileged to host these long-standing supporters of and contributors to Project Frame as our guest speakers.

Rick Cutright, a key architect of his firm's impact measurement methodology and a primary author of Project Frame's forward-looking GHG impact assessment, commented on the complexity of the subject: "Electricity can be both the simplest thing to do an impact analysis on, as well as one of the most complicated things, depending on the situation. So it's really good to explore the space in our methodology.”

This paper introduces a structured approach for selecting the most appropriate GHG emissions intensity metrics when evaluating decarbonization solutions. The session highlighted several key takeaways from the paper:

• The Influence of Geography: Metric selection must correlate with the solution's deployment location. Analysts should move from using broad regional data towards highly localized or onsite generation factors as location specificity increases. For solutions deployed across multiple specific locations, the calculation must reflect each one.

• Considering the Solution's Lifetime: For both short- and long-lived assets, analysts need to account for future grid trends. This involves aligning with reputable forecasts (e.g., IEA, NREL) and utilizing sensitivity analysis to manage uncertainty. The focus should be on capturing overall trends, rather than attempting to predict exact future values.

• The Relevance of Time of Use: The impact of grid-related solutions is often classified by their time of use. The more time-sensitive the solution's effect, the more granular the required grid intensity data must be. The appropriate approach varies depending on whether the solution involves constant load, seasonal load, time-specific load, or energy-shifting effect types.

Young-Jin Choi, who has an extensive background in impact investing advisory and private equity, addressed a recent field development: “It's worth mentioning that there's been recent consultation by the GHG Protocol. They're now working on standards to support avoided emission estimates, and they also suggested using marginal emission factors.” 

“Make sure to consider the situation and materiality to decide whether you should consider marginal emissions factors compared to annual averages,” said Young-Jin.

Vidia Equity, represented by Young-Jin, submitted a response to the recent GHG Protocol public consultation, as did Prime Coalition, Climate Investment, and many other members of the Project Frame Community.

Access the full Grid Intensity Paper on the Project Frame website.

We will notify the Frame community about upcoming engagement opportunities in mitigation within the coming months.  

Thank you for your sustained commitment to transparency and rigor in climate solutions investing. We are enthusiastic about the evolution of Project Frame to encompass the complete spectrum of climate solutions impact assessment, now including adaptation & resilience alongside mitigation. Both areas warrant our thoughtful time and attention.