The RCP REST API endpoint allows software developers, ESG platforms, and job management systems to programmatically access the full Restoration Carbon Protocol framework — all articles, emission factors, schema documentation, and article relationships — without scraping the site. This endpoint is part of the Tygart Media REST API and is publicly accessible without authentication.
Base URL:https://tygartmedia.com/wp-json/tygart/v1/rcp
Endpoints
RCP API endpoints at a glance.
GET /wp-json/tygart/v1/rcp
Returns the complete RCP framework index: all published articles with metadata, their relationship type within the framework, and links to full content.
Request:
GET https://tygartmedia.com/wp-json/tygart/v1/rcp
Accept: application/json
Returns the full RCP-JCR-1.0 JSON Schema for a Job Carbon Report — the machine-readable data standard for per-job Scope 3 emissions records. This is the canonical schema endpoint for software developers implementing native RCP data capture.
Request:
GET https://tygartmedia.com/wp-json/tygart/v1/rcp/schema
Accept: application/json
Returns all RCP emission factors as structured JSON — vehicle emission factors, material factors, waste disposal factors, demolished building material factors, and the eGRID subregional table. This allows ESG platforms and carbon calculators to pull the current RCP factor set programmatically rather than hardcoding values.
Request:
GET https://tygartmedia.com/wp-json/tygart/v1/rcp/factors
Accept: application/json
Returns articles filtered by framework type. Valid type values: job_type_guide, regulatory, data_standard, technical, strategy, introduction, commercial.
Example — get all job type guides:
GET https://tygartmedia.com/wp-json/tygart/v1/rcp/articles/job_type_guide
Response: Array of article objects matching that type, with title, URL, excerpt, and job_types array (e.g., ["water_damage", "category_2", "category_3"]).
Existing WordPress REST API — RCP Queries
Existing WordPress REST API queries for RCP.
While the tygart/v1/rcp endpoints above are planned for v1.1 deployment, the existing WordPress REST API at /wp-json/wp/v2/ already supports filtered RCP queries using tag and category IDs.
Get all RCP articles
GET https://tygartmedia.com/wp-json/wp/v2/posts?tags=409&per_page=50
# Tag 409 = "RCP" — returns all 30 published RCP articles
Get RCP articles by sub-type
# Developer/technical articles only (tag 411 = Developer Reference)
GET https://tygartmedia.com/wp-json/wp/v2/posts?tags=409,411&per_page=20
# Regulatory articles (tag 369 = SB 253)
GET https://tygartmedia.com/wp-json/wp/v2/posts?tags=409,369&per_page=20
Get a specific article with full content
# RCP v1.0 Full Framework Document (post ID 2976)
GET https://tygartmedia.com/wp-json/wp/v2/posts/2976
# Returns: id, title, content.rendered, excerpt.rendered,
# link, slug, date, modified, tags, categories
Get the RCP hub page
GET https://tygartmedia.com/wp-json/wp/v2/pages?slug=rcp
# Returns the hub page at /rcp/ with full content and navigation structure
Response fields available per post
Field
Type
Description
id
integer
WordPress post ID — stable across updates
slug
string
URL slug — permanent, do not rely on for API queries (use ID)
title.rendered
string
HTML-decoded article title
content.rendered
string
Full article HTML — includes all tables, methodology, worked examples
excerpt.rendered
string
Summary paragraph — suitable for search result snippets
link
string
Canonical URL
modified
datetime
Last updated — use to detect emission factor version updates
tags
array[int]
Tag IDs — use 409 (RCP), 411 (Developer) for filtering
RCP Tag ID Reference
RCP tag ID reference for developers.
Tag ID
Name
Use
409
RCP
All RCP articles — primary filter for the full framework
The following endpoints are targeted for deployment in RCP v1.1, pending implementation by the infrastructure team. The spec above defines the intended response format.
GET /wp-json/tygart/v1/rcp — Framework index with article type classification
GET /wp-json/tygart/v1/rcp/schema — RCP-JCR-1.0 JSON Schema as a clean API response
GET /wp-json/tygart/v1/rcp/factors — All emission factors as structured JSON with vintage metadata
GET /wp-json/tygart/v1/rcp/factors/{category} — Filtered factor sets (transportation, electricity, waste, materials)
GET /wp-json/tygart/v1/rcp/articles/{type} — Articles filtered by framework type
Software vendors who want to implement the planned endpoints ahead of formal deployment, or who have implementation questions, contact: rcp@tygartmedia.com
Every RCP article published so far covers how to measure and report the Scope 3 emissions your restoration work generates. This article introduces a complementary concept: carbon avoidance — the quantified emissions that did not happen because of deliberate operational choices made on a specific job.
Avoided emissions are not the same as offsets. They are not purchased credits. They are not estimates of what another contractor might have done. They are documented, job-level calculations showing that a specific decision — dry in place instead of demolish, drywall recycled instead of landfilled, electric van instead of diesel truck — produced a measurable reduction from what the baseline calculation would have shown. When delivered alongside a standard RCP Job Carbon Report, avoided emissions data transforms the contractor from a Scope 3 data source into a Scope 3 reduction partner.
Why Avoided Emissions Matter to Your Commercial Clients
Why avoided emissions matter to commercial clients.
A commercial property manager with an SBTi commitment needs two things from their restoration contractor supply chain: the actual emissions figure for their Scope 3 inventory, and evidence that those emissions are declining. The actual figure alone satisfies a disclosure requirement. Evidence of decline satisfies a reduction target.
SBTi supplier engagement targets — which require companies to show that their supply chain partners are actively reducing emissions — are best evidenced not by a contractor’s promise to do better but by documented proof that specific jobs generated fewer emissions than the counterfactual. An RCP Job Carbon Report that includes an avoided emissions summary gives the property manager exactly that evidence in a form their ESG team can cite in annual reporting.
Under the GRESB GH1 indicator’s data coverage scoring, a client who can show that a contractor’s actual job data consistently outperforms the spend-based benchmark is in a stronger scoring position than one using estimates. Avoided emissions documentation supports that narrative directly.
The Three Categories of Restoration Carbon Avoidance
Three categories of restoration carbon avoidance.
Category A: Dry-In-Place vs. Demolish-and-Replace
The most material avoidance opportunity in restoration is also the most consequential clinical decision: dry in place or tear it out. When a Category 2 water damage job achieves successful in-place drying of drywall that would otherwise have been demolished and replaced, the avoided emissions include:
Category 12 avoided: embodied carbon of the drywall that was not demolished (0.16 tCO₂e/ton landfilled, plus the embodied carbon of new drywall not manufactured)
Category 5 avoided: disposal emissions from the demolition debris that was not generated
Category 4 partial: some debris hauling trips eliminated
Calculation methodology: Document the affected area that was successfully dried in place (square footage). Calculate the weight of drywall that would have been demolished using the standard proxy (2.5 lbs/sq ft for 1/2″ drywall). Apply the landfill emission factor plus the embodied carbon of new drywall avoided. Sum across Categories 5 and 12.
Example: A 400 sq ft wall assembly successfully dried in place instead of demolished: 400 × 2.5 lbs = 1,000 lbs = 0.45 tons avoided demolition. At 0.16 tCO₂e/ton (landfill) + 0.12 kg CO₂e/kg for new drywall embodied carbon (ICE Database), total avoided emissions ≈ 0.127 tCO₂e for this decision alone.
Category B: Waste Diversion from Landfill
When demolished materials are diverted from landfill to recycling — drywall to a gypsum recycler, clean wood to a biomass facility, metal to a scrap recycler — the difference between the landfill emission factor and the recycling emission factor represents avoided emissions.
EPA WARM v16 avoidance factors for key restoration materials:
Material
Landfill (tCO₂e/ton)
Recycled (tCO₂e/ton)
Avoided per ton diverted
Gypsum drywall
0.160
0.020
0.140
Carpet and pad
0.330
0.050
0.280
Dimensional lumber (uncharred)
0.039
-0.150
0.189
Vinyl/LVP flooring
0.280
0.080
0.200
Metals (mixed)
0.025
-0.420
0.445
Source: EPA WARM v16. Negative recycling values reflect avoided virgin production emissions — recycling metals and wood avoids more emissions than landfilling would have produced.
Calculation methodology: Obtain a weight receipt from the recycling facility documenting the material type and weight diverted. Subtract the recycling emission factor from the landfill emission factor. Multiply by tons diverted. This is the avoided emission attributable to the diversion decision.
Category C: Low-Emission Equipment or Material Substitution
When a contractor deploys a lower-emission alternative to what would otherwise have been used — an electric monitoring vehicle instead of a diesel truck, R-32 dehumidifiers instead of R-410A units, cellulose insulation instead of fiberglass during reconstruction — the emission difference is an avoidance claim, provided the counterfactual (what would otherwise have been used) is documented and defensible.
Calculation methodology: Document the actual equipment or material used and its emission factor. Document the standard counterfactual (e.g., diesel equivalent, standard drywall, fiberglass insulation). Calculate the emission factor difference and multiply by the activity quantity. This is the avoided emission attributable to the substitution decision.
Important boundary condition: Category C avoidance claims require that the counterfactual is a realistic alternative — not an implausible worst case. Using “diesel heavy truck” as the counterfactual for a small cargo van trip, or “virgin nylon carpet” as the counterfactual when the client specified recycled carpet, overstates avoidance and will not survive audit scrutiny. The counterfactual should be the standard industry practice for that task, not the worst possible option.
How to Structure an Avoided Emissions Disclosure
How to structure an avoided emissions disclosure.
Avoided emissions should be reported as a supplementary section of the RCP Job Carbon Report, clearly separated from the actual emissions inventory. The structure prevents confusion in client ESG reporting — actual emissions go into their Scope 3 inventory; avoided emissions go into their Scope 3 narrative as evidence of supplier reduction activity.
Recommended disclosure format within an RCP Job Carbon Report:
"avoided_emissions": {
"total_avoided_tco2e": 0.267,
"avoidance_actions": [
{
"action_type": "dry_in_place",
"description": "400 sq ft wall assembly dried in place — demolition avoided",
"counterfactual_tco2e": 0.127,
"actual_tco2e": 0.000,
"avoided_tco2e": 0.127,
"documentation": "psychrometric log confirming dry standard achieved, no demolition performed"
},
{
"action_type": "waste_diversion",
"description": "0.91 tons gypsum drywall diverted to regional gypsum recycler",
"counterfactual_tco2e": 0.146,
"actual_tco2e": 0.018,
"avoided_tco2e": 0.128,
"documentation": "recycling facility weight receipt #REC-2026-04847",
"recycler_name": "National Gypsum Recycling, Portland OR"
},
{
"action_type": "low_emission_vehicle",
"description": "Electric monitoring van used for 3 monitoring visits (84 miles total) — diesel counterfactual",
"counterfactual_tco2e": 0.042,
"actual_tco2e": 0.013,
"avoided_tco2e": 0.029,
"documentation": "GPS trip log, vehicle: 2026 Ford E-Transit, charging location WECC subregion"
}
],
"methodology_note": "Counterfactuals based on standard RCP proxy values for the applicable job type. Avoidance calculations follow GHG Protocol guidance on avoided emissions disclosure as supplementary information, distinct from the Scope 3 inventory.",
"audit_note": "Avoided emissions are supplementary disclosures and do not reduce the reported actual emissions total. They are not offsets and should not be subtracted from the client Scope 3 inventory."
}
What Avoided Emissions Are Not
Avoided emissions in the RCP framework are supplementary disclosures, not inventory adjustments. Three critical distinctions:
They do not reduce the reported actual emissions total. The Scope 3 inventory reports what happened. Avoided emissions report what didn’t happen because of a deliberate choice. A client cannot subtract avoided emissions from their Scope 3 total — that would be double-counting avoidance as a reduction. The GHG Protocol treats avoided emissions as supplementary information outside the inventory boundary, and RCP follows this treatment.
They are not carbon offsets. Offsets are purchased credits representing reductions achieved elsewhere. Avoided emissions are reductions achieved on the specific job being reported. A contractor cannot sell avoided emissions credits, trade them, or use them to offset other emissions unless they go through a formal carbon credit verification process, which is a separate and complex undertaking outside the RCP framework.
They require documentation at the same standard as actual emissions. An avoided emissions claim with no supporting documentation is worthless for ESG reporting and creates liability under FTC Green Guides for any contractor who markets it. Every avoided emissions entry in an RCP Job Carbon Report needs a source document: a recycling facility weight receipt, a GPS trip log, a psychrometric log, a materials delivery receipt. The same audit trail required for actual emissions is required for avoidance claims.
The Commercial Property Manager Perspective
When a property manager with a GRESB or SBTi commitment receives an RCP Job Carbon Report that includes an avoided emissions summary, they receive something most of their restoration vendors cannot provide: evidence that their contractor is actively contributing to their Scope 3 reduction trajectory, not just generating a number.
The practical use cases for property managers:
Annual sustainability report narrative: “In 2026, our restoration contractor network documented 47.3 tCO₂e of avoided emissions through waste diversion and dry-in-place techniques across 83 commercial property claims.”
SBTi supplier engagement evidence: Documented avoidance demonstrates that the contractor is taking action aligned with the client’s science-based targets, satisfying supplier engagement target requirements.
GRESB Management Component: Evidence of contractor sustainability practices supports management component indicators on supply chain engagement and vendor ESG requirements.
RCP v1.1 Roadmap: Formal Avoidance Framework
RCP v1.0 establishes the measurement standard. The avoided emissions framework described in this article is RCP guidance, not yet a formal v1.0 schema element. The following items are targeted for formalization in RCP v1.1:
JSON schema extension: avoided_emissions object with required fields for action_type, counterfactual_tco2e, actual_tco2e, avoided_tco2e, and documentation reference
Standardized counterfactual table: default counterfactual values for each of the three avoidance categories, analogous to the RCP proxy value table for actual emissions
Dry-in-place protocol: specific documentation requirements for Category A claims, including psychrometric log format, dry standard reference (IICRC S500), and affected area measurement methodology
Certified recycler registry: integration with a verified recycler directory (analogous to EcoClaim’s recycler directory) so that weight receipts from listed facilities carry a higher data quality designation than receipts from unlisted facilities
Portfolio avoidance summary: annual summary format that aggregates per-job avoided emissions across a client’s property portfolio, suitable for GRESB and SBTi supplier engagement reporting
Contractors who want to begin documenting avoided emissions now can use the JSON structure and methodology described above. Records generated under this guidance will be compatible with the v1.1 formal schema.
If you are generating avoided emissions data and would like to contribute to the v1.1 methodology development, contact rcp@tygartmedia.com. Primary data on actual avoidance outcomes — tons of drywall recycled, square footage successfully dried in place — is exactly what the RCP needs to build defensible proxy counterfactual tables for the next version.
Sources and References
GHG Protocol. Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard, Chapter 9: Avoided Emissions. ghgprotocol.org/scope-3-standard
EPA WARM v16. Waste Reduction Model Documentation. epa.gov/warm
ICE Database v3.0. University of Bath / Circular Ecology. Embodied carbon factors for gypsum, lumber, metals.
Third-party verification of Scope 3 emissions data is no longer theoretical. California SB 253 requires limited assurance for Scope 3 emissions beginning in 2030. CSRD requires limited assurance for all emissions including Scope 3 from the date of initial reporting. GRESB added GHG data assurance as a newly scored metric in 2025. The direction of travel is clear: the per-job carbon data restoration contractors deliver to commercial clients will eventually be subject to external verification — not as a direct requirement on the contractor, but because the client’s verifier will examine the quality and traceability of the supplier data the client used to build their Scope 3 inventory.
This guide explains what verifiers actually look for in Scope 3 contractor data, how the RCP framework satisfies those requirements by design, and what documentation you need to retain to be audit-ready when your clients’ verifiers come asking.
The Two Levels of Assurance and What They Mean for Contractor Data
Two levels of assurance for contractor Scope 3 data.
Understanding assurance levels prevents confusion about what is actually being asked of you.
Limited assurance is a negative assurance — the verifier is confirming they found nothing that makes the report materially wrong. It involves reviewing methodologies, sampling data points, and checking for internal consistency. For Scope 3 data from restoration contractors, a limited assurance engagement will typically review: whether the methodology is documented and consistent with the GHG Protocol, whether proxy values are sourced and labeled, and whether the total reported figure is internally consistent with the underlying calculation inputs.
Reasonable assurance is a positive assurance — the verifier actively confirms the data is accurate. It involves re-performing calculations from source documents, testing internal controls, and in some sectors, site visits. For Scope 3 contractor data under reasonable assurance, verifiers will request the underlying source documents — GPS trip logs, waste manifests, purchase receipts — and verify that the calculation produces the reported number from those inputs.
The practical implication: for limited assurance, methodology documentation and labeling of proxy data are sufficient. For reasonable assurance, you need the source documents. The RCP 12-point data capture standard is designed to collect exactly those source documents at the time of the job, making reasonable assurance retroactively possible without extra effort.
The GHG Protocol’s Five Audit Principles — Applied to RCP Records
The GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain Standard specifies five principles that a Scope 3 inventory — and by extension, the contractor data that feeds it — must satisfy for assurance purposes. Understanding how RCP records satisfy each principle makes audit preparation straightforward.
1. Relevance
What verifiers check: Whether the emissions sources included reflect the actual emissions generated on behalf of the client, and whether any exclusions are documented and justified.
How RCP satisfies this: The scope boundary section of the RCP Full Framework Document explicitly lists what is included and excluded, with justification for each exclusion. The job_type and damage_category fields in the RCP JSON schema ensure the correct emission domains are applied for each job type. No RCP-compliant record silently excludes a material emission source — exclusions must be documented in the data_quality.notes field.
2. Completeness
What verifiers check: Whether all material Scope 3 categories are covered and whether the reporting boundary is consistently applied across all jobs in the portfolio.
How RCP satisfies this: The RCP portfolio summary covers all jobs at a client’s properties during the reporting period. The four GHG Protocol categories covered (Cat. 1, 4, 5, 12) are documented in the framework as the complete set of material categories for restoration work. A verifier can confirm completeness by checking that every invoiced job appears in the portfolio summary.
3. Consistency
What verifiers check: Whether the same methodology and emission factors are applied across all jobs, and whether year-over-year comparisons are valid.
How RCP satisfies this: The schema_version field (“RCP-JCR-1.0”) ensures every record uses the same schema. The emission factor vintage is documented in the framework (“EPA 2025 EF Hub, EPA eGRID 2023, EPA WARM v16”). When CARB or EPA updates emission factors, the RCP patch version increments, creating a clear record of when methodology changed. Verifiers can request the emission factor table used and verify it matches the published RCP version for that reporting year.
4. Transparency
What verifiers check: Whether methodology is fully disclosed, proxy values are labeled, and the calculation can be reproduced from the disclosed inputs and factors.
How RCP satisfies this: The data_quality section of every RCP Job Carbon Report explicitly lists which data points are primary and which are proxy-estimated. The calculation_method field in each domain section identifies whether primary or proxy methodology was used. The emission factors are published in the RCP Emission Factor Reference Table with source citations. A verifier provided with an RCP JSON record, the proxy value table, and the raw source documents can reproduce the reported number independently.
5. Accuracy
What verifiers check: Whether the quantification is systematic, consistent, and not materially biased toward over- or under-reporting.
How RCP satisfies this: The proxy value hierarchy (primary > derived primary > job-specific proxy > national average proxy) ensures that the calculation uses the most accurate available data for each input. The data_quality section’s primary_data_points list lets verifiers assess what fraction of the total is based on primary data. The systematic use of EPA-sourced emission factors — not custom or proprietary factors — provides a defensible, auditor-recognized basis for every number.
What Source Documents to Retain and for How Long
What source documents to retain — and for how long.
The following source documents underpin each of the 12 RCP data points. Retain these at the job level, linked to the job ID, for a minimum of seven years. This covers the typical verification lookback period under CSRD (5 years) plus margin.
Data Point
Source Document to Retain
Assurance Level Required
1 — Vehicle log
GPS trip export or odometer log with vehicle ID, date, start/end location, miles
Reasonable assurance
2 — Waste transport
Disposal facility weight receipt or manifest with facility name, date, weight, material type
Reasonable assurance
3 — Equipment power source
Job notes confirming building power or generator fuel purchase receipt
Limited assurance
4 — Chemical treatments
Purchase order or supply requisition for chemicals used on this job, with quantities
Limited assurance
5 — PPE consumption
Supply order by job or proxy rate table reference if job-specific data unavailable
Limited assurance (proxy acceptable)
6 — Containment materials
Close-out notes with quantities or proxy rate table reference
Limited assurance (proxy acceptable)
7 — Debris volume
Disposal facility weight receipt (see Data Point 2) or dumpster manifest
Reasonable assurance
8 — Disposal method/facility
Disposal facility receipt naming the facility and disposal method
Reasonable assurance
9 — Demolished materials
Demolition scope from job file (Xactimate estimate or written scope), photo documentation
Reasonable assurance
10 — Replacement materials
Purchase orders or materials delivery receipts with quantities
Reasonable assurance (if in scope)
11 — Job classification
Initial assessment documentation with damage category, class, and affected area
Limited assurance
12 — Job timeline
Job management system record with start and completion dates
Limited assurance
How RCP Records Are Treated by Verifiers Under Limited vs. Reasonable Assurance
When a property manager’s verifier reviews their Scope 3 inventory under limited assurance, they will typically sample a subset of vendor records — often 10–20% of the total by value — and check for: consistency with stated methodology, that proxy records are labeled as such, and that the calculation produces a plausible number given the stated activity. An RCP JSON record satisfies all three checks without additional preparation, because the schema enforces methodology documentation, proxy labeling is required in the data_quality section, and the calculation is transparent and reproducible.
Under reasonable assurance, the verifier may specifically request source documents for the sampled records. This is where the seven-year document retention requirement becomes material. A contractor who can produce the disposal facility receipt, the GPS trip log, and the Xactimate estimate for a job from 18 months ago has converted a potential audit finding into a zero-question pass.
The most common Scope 3 audit finding for contractor data is: proxy data used without documentation of why primary data was unavailable. The RCP data_quality.notes field is specifically designed to prevent this. Every proxy-based data point should have a note explaining why primary data was unavailable: “Vehicle mileage estimated from dispatch records — GPS fleet system not yet deployed” is a valid and audit-acceptable explanation. Silence is not.
The Chain of Custody for RCP Data
The chain of custody for RCP data.
Verifiers are increasingly attentive to the chain of custody for supplier data — how data traveled from the source activity to the reported number in the client’s inventory. For RCP records, the chain of custody is:
Data entry: Job management system (Encircle, PSA, Dash, manual log)
RCP calculation: Activity data × emission factor = kg CO₂e per domain
RCP Job Carbon Report: JSON record with emissions summary and data quality metadata
Client delivery: Email, ESG platform upload, or API transmission
Client inventory: Aggregate Scope 3 figure in GRESB/CDP/SB 253 disclosure
Each link in this chain should be documentable. When a verifier asks “how did this number get into the inventory?” you should be able to walk from step 1 to step 7 for any sampled job.
Conducting Your Own Pre-Audit Review
Before your clients face their first verified Scope 3 disclosure cycle, run a pre-audit review of your own RCP records. The GHG Protocol explicitly recommends that inventory preparers treat each verification cycle as a learning process. For restoration contractors, a practical pre-audit review involves:
Pull the portfolio summary for your largest commercial client for the most recent year. Count the total jobs and total tCO₂e reported.
Sample 5 jobs — pick 2 large, 2 medium, 1 small by affected area. For each, verify you can locate all 12 data point source documents.
Check proxy labeling. For every job where a proxy was used, confirm the data_quality section identifies the proxy data points and the notes field explains why.
Reproduce one calculation. Take one job record and manually calculate the emissions from the source documents. Verify it matches the reported total within rounding.
Check version consistency. Verify all records in the portfolio used schema_version “RCP-JCR-1.0” and the same emission factor vintage. Mixed vintages require disclosure.
Document your findings. A one-page internal review memo noting what you checked and what you found creates a quality control record that verifiers view favorably as evidence of internal controls.
The Version Control Requirement
If a Job Carbon Report is corrected after delivery — because a waste manifest weight was updated, a vehicle mileage was corrected, or a proxy value was replaced with primary data — the corrected record must be issued as a new version. The version increment convention for RCP Job Carbon Reports is appending a revision suffix to the job ID: JOB-2026-04847-R1, JOB-2026-04847-R2, etc. The data_quality.notes field must document what changed and why. The original record should be retained alongside the revision — verifiers may ask why a record was corrected.
Assurance Standards Your Clients’ Verifiers Will Use
Different verifiers use different professional standards for GHG assurance. The most common frameworks your clients’ verifiers will reference:
ISAE 3000: The International Standard on Assurance Engagements (Revised) — the dominant framework for GHG assurance in the EU and used by the Big Four accounting firms globally
ISO 14064-3: Specification with guidance for the validation and verification of GHG statements — widely used in the US and internationally
AA1000AS: AccountAbility Assurance Standard — common in voluntary sustainability reporting contexts
CSAE 3410: Canadian standard, referenced by SB 253 as an acceptable framework
None of these standards create requirements that a contractor must meet directly — they govern how the verifier conducts the engagement. But understanding them helps you know what questions to expect if a client’s verifier contacts you directly about sampled records.
The EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is already in effect for large EU companies and is progressively expanding to cover more organizations through 2026. For US-based restoration contractors, CSRD becomes relevant not because they fall under the directive themselves — they almost certainly don’t — but because their clients might. If your commercial property clients include EU-listed entities, US subsidiaries of EU parent companies, or US real estate funds with EU institutional investors who are themselves CSRD-obligated, the data quality standard they need from you is different from and more demanding than GRESB or California SB 253 alone.
What CSRD Is and Who It Covers
What CSRD is and who it covers.
The CSRD requires companies to report on their environmental, social, and governance impacts under European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). It applies to large EU-based companies (those with over 250 employees, €40M revenue, or €20M balance sheet), all companies listed on EU-regulated markets regardless of size, and — importantly — non-EU companies with substantial EU operations or revenues above €150M within the EU.
The EU implementation timeline: Large companies already subject to the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) began reporting under CSRD in 2024 for their 2023 data. Large companies not previously subject to NFRD report from 2025 (for 2024 data). Listed SMEs and certain financial institutions follow from 2026.
In February 2025, the European Commission adopted an Omnibus package proposing to limit mandatory CSRD reporting to companies with more than 1,000 employees, reducing the number of companies in scope. This proposal is moving through the EU Parliament and Council. Until formally adopted, the existing CSRD obligations remain in force.
The Double Materiality Concept and Why It Matters for Contractors
The double materiality concept for contractors.
CSRD introduces the concept of double materiality — companies must assess both how their activities impact climate and society (impact materiality) and how climate and social factors affect their business financially (financial materiality). This is a more demanding standard than the financial-only materiality used by US frameworks.
For restoration contractors serving CSRD-obligated property clients, double materiality means the client must assess not just the financial risk of the contractor’s emissions to the property portfolio, but also the actual environmental impact of restoration work on climate systems. This makes the per-job emissions calculation — not just a portfolio-level estimate — more important in the CSRD context.
ESRS E1: The Specific Standard Where Restoration Contractor Data Is Used
European Sustainability Reporting Standard E1 (Climate Change) is the ESRS standard that governs GHG emissions reporting under CSRD. ESRS E1 requires companies to disclose:
Gross Scope 1, 2, and 3 GHG emissions in metric tons CO₂e
Total GHG emissions (Scope 1 + 2 + 3)
GHG intensity metrics
Disclosure of significant Scope 3 categories and the methodology used to calculate them
The percentage of Scope 3 emissions calculated using primary data vs. spend-based or other estimation approaches
That last point — the percentage of Scope 3 calculated using primary data — is where RCP creates direct value for CSRD-reporting clients. ESRS E1 explicitly rewards primary data quality. A client that can say “67% of our Scope 3 Category 1 emissions from restoration contractors are calculated from primary job-level data using a standardized methodology” is in a materially better ESRS E1 position than one relying on spend-based estimates.
How to Identify Whether Your Client Has CSRD Exposure
Signs that a commercial property client may have CSRD obligations or exposure:
They are a US subsidiary of a European parent company — the EU parent’s CSRD reporting will include the US subsidiary’s supply chain emissions
They are a US REIT or property fund with EU institutional limited partners — the EU LPs may be CSRD-obligated and require portfolio-level supply chain data from their investments
Their annual sustainability report references CSRD, ESRS, double materiality, or EU taxonomy compliance
They are a multinational with EU revenues above €150M — potentially directly in scope for CSRD’s non-EU company provisions
Their ESG team has asked for supplier Scope 3 data with methodology disclosure (a common CSRD data collection pattern)
What CSRD-Obligated Clients Need from RCP Records
What CSRD-obligated clients need from RCP records.
For a CSRD-reporting client, the RCP Job Carbon Report provides the following ESRS E1 inputs:
GHG emissions by Scope 3 category: The emissions_summary section maps directly to ESRS E1 Scope 3 category disclosure
Primary data percentage disclosure: The data_quality section’s primary_data_points list enables the client to calculate what percentage of your reported emissions are primary-data-backed
Methodology disclosure: The reporting_standard field (“Restoration Carbon Protocol v1.0, GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain Standard”) provides the methodology reference ESRS E1 requires
Emission factor vintage: ESRS E1 requires disclosure of the emission factors used. RCP’s emission factor reference table provides this with source citations
One important difference for CSRD vs. GRESB: ESRS E1 requires gross emissions, not net. Do not apply any offset or renewable energy credit adjustments to RCP records delivered to CSRD-reporting clients. Deliver the gross calculation only.
The Practical Implication: Methodology Documentation Matters More
For SB 253 or GRESB, a well-structured number with a plausible methodology is generally acceptable. For CSRD, the methodology disclosure itself is a reporting requirement — auditors will examine whether the stated methodology is credible and consistently applied. The RCP framework’s explicit source citations for every emission factor, its defined proxy hierarchy, and the data_quality section of the Job Carbon Report are not administrative overhead — they are the audit trail that CSRD-reporting clients need.
If you serve clients with CSRD exposure, ensure that every RCP Job Carbon Report delivered to them is fully populated through the data_quality section, with primary vs. proxy data points explicitly flagged and any unusual circumstances noted in the free-text notes field.
Sources and References
European Commission. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). eur-lex.europa.eu
European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG). ESRS E1 — Climate Change. efrag.org
European Commission. Omnibus Package — Proposed CSRD Amendments. February 2025.
Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) commitments have reached 10,000 validated companies globally as of January 2026. Among those companies are many of the commercial property owners, REITs, and institutional real estate operators who hire restoration contractors. When your client has an SBTi commitment, the data quality standard they need from your RCP Job Carbon Reports is materially higher than what GRESB or CDP alone require. This article explains the difference, what it means for the data you deliver, and how the SBTi landscape is changing through 2028.
What SBTi Is and Why It Affects Your Clients
What SBTi is and why it affects your clients.
The Science Based Targets initiative is a collaboration between CDP, the UN Global Compact, the World Resources Institute, and WWF. It provides a framework for companies to set emissions reduction targets that are scientifically aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Companies that commit to SBTi submit their targets for validation and are required to report progress annually.
The current operative standard is the Corporate Net-Zero Standard V1.3, released September 2025. These updates are non-substantive minor revisions improving clarity and alignment with the GHG Protocol — they do not alter the ambition level or intent of the Standard. Companies may continue setting targets under V1.3 through 2027. Version 2.0 is expected to become mandatory for new targets from January 1, 2028, following publication in 2026.
The 67% Rule: Why Scope 3 Coverage Is Mandatory
The 67% rule — why Scope 3 coverage is mandatory.
Here is the specific SBTi requirement that makes restoration contractors relevant to their clients’ climate programs: to be in line with SBTi Criteria, companies must set Scope 3 targets — supplier engagement targets and/or reduction targets — that collectively cover at least 67% of total Scope 3 emissions, if those emissions represent over 40% of their total Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.
For commercial real estate companies, Scope 3 emissions represent well over 40% of their total footprint — typically 85–95%. This means every commercial property owner with an SBTi commitment is required to set supplier engagement targets covering at least 67% of their Scope 3. Restoration contractor work sits in their Scope 3. If restoration spend is material enough to be in that 67% coverage boundary — and for large property portfolios with significant loss history, it can be — they need your emissions data.
Supplier engagement targets require suppliers to set SBTi-approved targets themselves, usually within 3–5 years. This is the escalation path: right now, your clients need your per-job carbon data. Within 3–5 years, some will require you to set your own science-based targets as a condition of preferred vendor status.
What SBTi Data Quality Requirements Mean for RCP Records
What SBTi data quality requirements mean for RCP records.
The SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard V1.3 states that companies must collect high-quality primary data from suppliers and other value chain partners for Scope 3 activities. This is a stricter bar than GRESB or CDP, which accept supplier-estimated data with appropriate disclosure. For SBTi-committed clients, the preference hierarchy is:
Primary data: Metered kWh, weighed waste manifests, GPS-derived vehicle miles. RCP records flagged as “primary_data_points” in the data_quality section.
Activity-based secondary: Calculated from documented activity (miles × mpg × emission factor). Still a defensible RCP record with proper calculation_method flagging.
Spend-based or proxy: Acceptable for initial Scope 3 inventory building, but not sustainable as a primary data source for SBTi reporting. RCP proxy records should be actively replaced with primary data as job management systems improve.
The practical implication: if your largest commercial clients have SBTi commitments, prioritize metered equipment energy and manifest-confirmed waste weights on their properties. The RCP data_quality section explicitly distinguishes primary from proxy data points — use it to show your SBTi-committed clients that their records are primary-data quality where possible.
SBTi V2.0: What’s Coming and What It Means
The draft V2.0 standard moves away from fixed percentage thresholds, instead encouraging companies to prioritize Scope 3 emissions based on intensity of activities and where they have the greatest influence. This is a meaningful shift. Under V1.3, clients must cover 67% of Scope 3 by emissions volume. Under V2.0, they may need to cover the categories where they have the most procurement influence — which may or may not include restoration, depending on their portfolio.
The new standard may require companies to set supplier engagement targets with the goal of increasing the number of Tier 1 suppliers transitioning to net-zero compatible performance. Restoration contractors are Tier 1 suppliers for their commercial property clients. Being RCP-certified and showing a documented emissions reduction trajectory positions you as a net-zero-compatible vendor before your clients are required to ask.
How to Identify Whether Your Client Has an SBTi Commitment
The SBTi maintains a public Target Dashboard at sciencebasedtargets.org/target-dashboard. Any company with a validated SBTi target or a commitment to set one appears there. Search your top commercial clients by company name before your next renewal conversation. If they appear on the dashboard, the data quality bar is higher than if they are GRESB-only reporters.
Signs a client has or is moving toward an SBTi commitment: they have a net-zero pledge on their website with a year attached, they reference “science-based targets” in procurement communications, they are a GRESB “Green Star” participant, or their investor base includes institutional investors with their own SBTi commitments (who in turn pressure portfolio companies).
The RCP as Pre-Positioning for SBTi Supplier Engagement
When a commercial client with an SBTi commitment initiates a supplier engagement program — asking vendors to provide emissions data and eventually set their own targets — the contractors with established RCP records are in a fundamentally different position than those starting from zero. You already have the data infrastructure. You already know your per-job emissions. You already have a documented trajectory if you have implemented any reduction levers from the RCP Carbon Reduction Playbook.
The contractor who can respond to a supplier engagement questionnaire with two years of RCP portfolio data and a documented 15% reduction in per-job emissions is not a compliance burden to the client — they are evidence that the engagement program works.
Every RCP article published so far covers how to measure Scope 3 emissions from restoration work. This one covers something different: how to reduce them. Measurement without a reduction pathway is compliance theater. The contractors who win long-term commercial relationships are not the ones who hand over a carbon number — they are the ones who show a trajectory. This playbook gives you the operational levers, the realistic timelines, and the actual emission reduction math for each.
A realistic 30% reduction in per-job Scope 3 emissions by 2030 is achievable for most commercial restoration operations. It requires no exotic technology, no wholesale fleet replacement in year one, and no sacrifice of job performance. It requires a sequence of deliberate decisions made over four years.
Where Your Emissions Actually Come From
Where restoration Scope 3 emissions actually come from.
Before you can reduce emissions, you need to know what generates them. Across the five RCP job types, transportation (Domain 2) consistently accounts for the largest share of per-job emissions — typically 45–65% of total job Scope 3 — followed by demolished materials (Domain 5) at 15–30%, with equipment energy, consumable materials, and waste disposal making up the remainder.
This matters because it tells you where to focus. Fleet electrification and route optimization attack the largest emission source. Material substitution attacks the second-largest. Equipment energy reduction is meaningful but secondary to the first two. The playbook is sequenced accordingly.
Lever 1: Fleet Electrification — The Highest-Impact Reduction
Lever 1: fleet electrification — highest-impact reduction.
Transportation is the dominant emission source in restoration Scope 3 because restoration work is inherently mobile — multiple daily trips, equipment-laden vehicles, waste hauling. Every gallon of diesel your fleet burns generates 10.21 kg CO₂e. Replacing a diesel van with an electric equivalent driven on US average grid electricity generates approximately 0.35 kg CO₂e per kWh consumed, which at typical commercial van efficiency (0.4–0.5 kWh/mile) translates to roughly 0.14–0.18 kg CO₂e per mile — compared to 0.47 kg CO₂e per mile for a diesel van at 22 mpg. That is a 60–70% per-mile emissions reduction on day one of EV operation.
EV Options Available Now for Restoration Fleets (2026)
The Ford E-Transit remains the most affordable and most widely available electric cargo van on the market, starting at approximately $53,000–$60,000 depending on configuration, with a maximum estimated range of about 159 miles. The 2026 Ram ProMaster EV offers a 200-kilowatt electric motor with 268 horsepower, 302 pound-feet of torque, a maximum payload of 3,161 pounds, and a combined driving range of up to 164 miles.
Both vans are production-ready and available now. Critical note for restoration operations: federal EV tax credits expired on September 30, 2025, so fleet EV economics now depend entirely on fuel and maintenance savings rather than purchase incentives.
Which Vehicles to Electrify First
Not all restoration vehicles are equally suitable for immediate electrification. The 159–164 mile daily range of current commercial EVs constrains which duty cycles work. The priority sequence:
Immediate candidates (electrify now): Daily monitoring and check visit vehicles — the vans that drive to job sites for psychrometric readings and equipment checks. These make predictable, short-radius trips (typically 20–50 miles round trip) that are well within EV range and return to base each night for charging.
2027–2028 candidates: Initial response and equipment delivery vehicles — longer trips but predictable from a home base. Suitable once charging infrastructure at the depot is established.
Longer-term (2028+): Equipment trailer towing and heavy haul vehicles. EV towing range is significantly reduced; wait for next-generation commercial EVs with extended range before committing here.
The Reduction Math
A typical mid-size restoration company runs 5 service vans, each averaging 15,000 miles per year for job-related trips. At 22 mpg diesel, that is 3,409 gallons of diesel annually across the fleet, generating 34,806 kg CO₂e per year from fleet operations alone. Replacing 2 monitoring vans with EVs at the WECC grid emission factor (0.27 kg CO₂e/kWh, cleaner than national average) reduces fleet emissions by roughly 12,000 kg CO₂e per year — a 35% reduction in fleet emissions with just 2 vehicles changed.
Lever 2: Route Optimization — Immediate, Zero-Cost
Before spending on new vehicles, optimize the trips you are already making. Monitoring visit frequency is the easiest lever. IICRC S500 requires psychrometric monitoring at minimum every 24 hours, but many contractors visit more frequently than necessary during stable drying periods. Reducing a 5-day drying job from 5 monitoring visits to 3 (initial setup, mid-point check, close-out) reduces Category 4 transportation emissions by 40% on that job with no impact on drying outcome, provided moisture readings confirm stable drying progression.
Remote monitoring technology — IoT moisture sensors that transmit readings without technician presence — can reduce physical monitoring visits further. The emissions reduction from eliminating one 40-mile round trip per day on a 5-day job is approximately 18 kg CO₂e per job, which compounds meaningfully across a high-volume portfolio.
Consolidated equipment runs — combining equipment delivery and pickup for multiple jobs in a single route — reduce per-job transportation emissions without changing equipment or crew. A fleet management system that plans equipment logistics across active jobs rather than individually can reduce monitoring and equipment trip mileage by 15–25%.
Lever 3: Low-Carbon Material Substitution
Demolished and replacement materials are the second-largest emission source in most restoration jobs. Two substitution opportunities stand out as practical and commercially available:
Insulation: Switch from Fiberglass to Cellulose
Cellulose insulation, made from recycled paper, offers a carbon footprint of just 0.2 to 1.1 kg CO₂e per square meter per inch of thickness, compared to fiberglass insulation which ranges from 1.7 to 2.5 kg CO₂e per square meter per inch. For restoration contractors who control the material specification on reconstruction scope, switching to cellulose where applicable cuts insulation-related emissions by roughly 60–75%. Cellulose is also well-suited to restoration applications — dense-pack cellulose can be pneumatically injected into wall cavities without demolition, which itself reduces Category 4 (haul-away) and Category 12 (demolished materials) emissions simultaneously.
Drywall: Source Recycled-Content Product
Standard gypsum drywall has an emission factor of approximately 0.12 kg CO₂e/kg. High recycled-content drywall (products with 95%+ post-industrial gypsum content) carry materially lower production emissions — some EPD-verified products report as low as 0.06 kg CO₂e/kg, a 50% reduction. This substitution requires no change in installation practice or performance specification. The primary requirement is supplier selection and EPD documentation for auditability.
Carpet: Specify Recycled-Content Nylon
Standard nylon carpet carries an emission factor of 5.40 kg CO₂e/kg — the highest of any common restoration replacement material. Carpet products with high recycled nylon content (from post-consumer carpet) carry meaningfully lower embedded carbon, with some EPD-verified products reporting 30–40% lower production emissions. For restoration contractors involved in carpet replacement, specifying recycled-content nylon where client specifications allow reduces Category 1 material emissions substantially.
Lever 4: Equipment Energy — Grid Decarbonization and Efficiency
Equipment energy (Domain 1) is a meaningful but secondary emission source. Two approaches apply:
Passive: Grid Decarbonization Does the Work
If your equipment runs on building electricity, your equipment energy emissions will decline automatically as the US grid decarbonizes. The EPA eGRID national average was 0.3499 kg CO₂e/kWh in 2023. The EIA projects continued grid decarbonization through 2030 as renewable capacity additions outpace demand growth. For contractors operating in WECC (Western US), the subregion factor is already significantly lower (approximately 0.27 kg CO₂e/kWh). Simply using eGRID subregion factors rather than the national average can show meaningful reductions on paper for contractors in clean-grid markets.
Active: Energy-Star Equipment Selection
When replacing drying equipment, prioritize Energy Star certified dehumidifiers. Energy Star certified commercial dehumidifiers use at least 15% less energy per pint of moisture removed than non-certified units. Across a fleet of 20 LGR dehumidifiers running on an average of 3 days per job at 24 hours per day, a 15% efficiency improvement reduces per-job equipment energy emissions by approximately 20 kg CO₂e — meaningful at scale, particularly for high-volume operations.
Lever 5: Waste Diversion from Landfill
Landfill disposal generates 0.021 metric tons CO₂e per short ton of mixed C&D waste. Recycling the same material eliminates the landfill methane contribution. For drywall specifically — which is 100% recyclable gypsum — landfill disposal generates 0.006 tCO₂e/ton while recycling to a gypsum recycler generates near zero. Many regional gypsum recyclers accept clean drywall waste, and some offer jobsite dumpster pickup directly.
For a typical commercial water damage job generating 2 tons of mixed C&D debris, diverting drywall fraction (often 40–50% of demolition waste by weight) to a recycling facility reduces Category 5 waste disposal emissions by approximately 40% on that stream. This requires establishing a relationship with a regional C&D recycler and documenting the diversion for data quality purposes.
The 30% Reduction Roadmap: 2026–2030
Year
Actions
Estimated Reduction vs. 2026 Baseline
2026
Establish baseline (12-point RCP data capture on all commercial jobs). Begin route optimization and monitoring visit consolidation. Establish drywall recycling relationship with regional recycler.
5–8% from route optimization and waste diversion alone
2027
Electrify 1–2 monitoring vehicles (E-Transit or ProMaster EV). Begin specifying cellulose insulation where applicable. Switch to recycled-content drywall for standard losses.
12–18% cumulative
2028
Expand EV fleet to response vehicles. Install depot charging at primary office. Implement IoT monitoring sensors on high-value commercial losses to eliminate physical monitoring visits.
20–25% cumulative
2029–2030
Replace next diesel van cycle with EV. Implement Energy Star equipment policy for all dehumidifier replacements. Expand drywall recycling to all jobs. Document and deliver annual RCP portfolio summary to key commercial clients.
30%+ cumulative — meaningful for commercial client SBTi and GRESB reporting
How to Present This to Commercial Clients
How to present a reduction roadmap to commercial clients.
The reduction roadmap becomes a sales and retention tool when you present it proactively. Commercial property managers with SBTi commitments or GRESB targets need their Scope 3 supply chain to show a reduction trajectory — not just a static measurement. A contractor who can say “here is our 2026 baseline, here is our 2028 target, and here is how we are getting there” is materially more valuable as a long-term vendor than one who simply produces a number.
The annual RCP Portfolio Summary — a document that aggregates all per-job carbon reports for a specific client’s properties across the reporting year, shows a per-job average, and includes a year-over-year comparison once a second year of data exists — is the vehicle for this conversation. It takes the per-job Job Carbon Report data and turns it into the portfolio-level trend that ESG reporting requires.
The Restoration Carbon Protocol was designed from the start to be implemented by software, not filled out by hand. The 12 RCP data points map almost entirely to fields that restoration job management platforms already capture — or can capture with minimal configuration. This guide is a direct call to action to the restoration software industry: Encircle, PSA, Dash, Xcelerate, Albiware, Restoration Manager, and any platform serving restoration contractors. Here is exactly what RCP compatibility requires and how to implement it.
The Business Case for Software Vendors
The business case for RCP software vendors.
Restoration platforms that implement RCP compatibility give their contractor customers a differentiator that commercial property managers will actively request. As California SB 253 Scope 3 reporting requirements come into effect in 2027 and GRESB, CDP, and CSRD pressure continues to build, commercial clients will increasingly require their restoration vendors to provide per-job carbon data. The contractor that can push a button and produce an RCP-compliant Job Carbon Report wins the commercial renewal. The platform that makes that button possible wins the contractor.
RCP compatibility is also a concrete AI-era feature: it transforms job documentation from a liability tool into a value delivery mechanism. Every well-documented job becomes a carbon asset that the contractor can monetize with commercial clients.
Platform-by-Platform RCP Compatibility Analysis
Platform-by-platform RCP compatibility analysis.
Encircle
Encircle’s strength is field documentation — photos, moisture readings, drying logs, contents inventories, and report generation. It is the platform closest to capturing the data RCP needs at the source.
RCP Data Point
Encircle Field / Location
Implementation
1 — Vehicle log
Not currently captured natively
Add custom “Vehicle Trips” section to job close-out form: vehicle type, fuel type, trip count, miles
3 — Equipment power source
Drying log / equipment log
Add “Power Source” toggle (building power / generator) to equipment placement form. If generator, add fuel type and gallons fields.
4 — Chemical treatments
Notes / photo documentation
Add structured chemical application form: product type, volume in liters, application area. Currently unstructured.
5 — PPE consumption
Not currently captured
Add PPE close-out field to job form with unit counts by type. Can default to RCP proxy rates based on damage category/class.
Link demolition scope to material weight calculation. Encircle already captures sqft demolished; apply RCP weight-per-sqft table to produce weight by material type.
No change needed. Map Encircle category/class fields directly to RCP job_identification fields.
12 — Job timeline
✅ Start and completion dates — already captured
No change needed. Direct mapping to RCP job_start_date and job_completion_date.
RCP JSON export implementation: Encircle’s existing report generation engine can be extended to produce an RCP-JCR-1.0 JSON file as an additional report type at job close-out. The JSON structure maps directly to Encircle’s data model with the additions described above.
PSA (Canam Systems)
PSA is a full job management, CRM, and accounting platform with open API access. It integrates with Xactimate, XactAnalysis, Encircle, and Matterport. PSA’s open API makes it the platform most ready for RCP integration without UI changes.
RCP Data Point
PSA Field / Module
Implementation
1 — Vehicle log
Job tasks / time tracking
Add vehicle dispatch fields to job tasks: vehicle ID, fuel type, departure/return mileage. Or pull from GPS integration if enabled.
4-6 — Materials and PPE
Job expenses / purchase orders
Map RCP chemical, PPE, and containment line items to job expense categories. Add RCP category tags to existing expense item types.
7-8 — Waste log
Job expenses / subcontractor
Add waste disposal as structured expense type with weight, method, and facility fields. Currently tracked as cost, not as physical quantity.
9 — Demolished materials
Job scope / Xactimate import
Parse Xactimate line items for demolition scope. Map Xactimate line item codes to RCP material types. Weight is derivable from sqft and material type.
11-12 — Classification, timeline
✅ Job intake form — already captured
Direct mapping. PSA damage type and class fields map to RCP job_type, damage_category, damage_class.
API integration path: PSA’s open API allows an RCP calculation engine to pull job data at close-out, compute emissions, and POST the resulting RCP-JCR-1.0 JSON to a client-facing endpoint or ESG platform directly. This is the most powerful implementation path and requires no UI changes to PSA itself.
Dash (Next Gear Solutions)
Dash is a full restoration business management platform with Xactimate integration and strong insurance claims workflow support. Its equipment tracking and job financials modules are the primary RCP integration points.
RCP Data Point
Dash Module
Implementation
1 — Vehicle log
Job scheduling / dispatch
Add vehicle type, fuel type, and round-trip miles to dispatch records. GPS integration if available.
3 — Equipment power source
Equipment tracking
Add “Power Source” field to equipment deployment record. Dash tracks equipment placement dates already — add power source and generator fuel log.
9 — Demolished materials
Xactimate integration
Same as PSA — parse Xactimate line items for RCP material type mapping.
11-12 — Classification, timeline
✅ Job type, dates — captured
Direct mapping from Dash job record to RCP fields.
Xcelerate
Xcelerate focuses on operational efficiency and field capture with workflow management and daily checklists. Its customizable daily checklist system is the primary integration point for RCP data capture.
The Xcelerate daily checklist can be configured to include RCP data fields at each technician check-in: vehicle mileage logged, equipment runtime hours, materials consumed. This captures data points 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as part of the existing technician workflow with no additional friction. At job close-out, waste and demolished materials fields complete the 12-point record.
The Xactimate Integration Opportunity
The Xactimate integration opportunity for RCP data.
Xactimate is the dominant estimating platform across the restoration industry. Its line-item scope database defines what was removed and replaced on virtually every insurance-backed restoration job in the US. This creates a unique RCP integration opportunity: Xactimate line items can be mapped to RCP material types automatically.
A partial Xactimate → RCP material type mapping:
Xactimate Category
RCP Material Type
Weight Proxy
DRY — Drywall remove and replace
drywall_standard
2.2 lbs/sqft (½” standard)
FLR — Carpet remove and replace
carpet
0.75 lbs/sqft
FLR — Vinyl / LVP remove and replace
lvp_flooring
1.2 lbs/sqft
INS — Insulation remove and replace
insulation_fiberglass
0.5 lbs/sqft (batt, 3.5″)
FRM — Framing remove and replace
lumber_framing
1.5 lbs/lf (2×4 stud)
A software vendor that implements this mapping can auto-populate RCP data points 9 and 10 directly from the Xactimate estimate on any job where an estimate exists — which is the majority of commercial losses. This is the single highest-leverage implementation step in the entire RCP software integration roadmap.
The API Call Structure for RCP Data Exchange
For platforms that want to push RCP data to a client-facing endpoint or ESG platform, the standard API pattern is:
For ESG platforms that receive RCP data from multiple contractors (Measurabl, Yardi Elevate, Deepki, Atrius), the recommended intake pattern is a webhook endpoint that accepts POST requests with RCP-JCR-1.0 JSON bodies, validates against the published schema, and maps emissions totals to the platform’s Scope 3 category data model.
RCP Compatibility Certification for Platforms
Software platforms that implement RCP compatibility will be listed on the RCP-compatible platforms registry (forthcoming at tygartmedia.com/rcp). To qualify:
Capture all 12 RCP data points (primary or proxy with documentation)
Produce valid RCP-JCR-1.0 JSON output that validates against the published schema
Label proxy-estimated data points in the data_quality section
Notify Tygart Media at rcp@tygartmedia.com with a sample output record
Compatibility certification is free. It is a recognition that the platform meets the RCP standard, not a paid endorsement.
The Restoration Carbon Protocol (RCP) is an open industry self-standard for calculating, documenting, and reporting Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions from restoration contractor work. It is the first framework purpose-built for the restoration industry to enable contractors to provide defensible, auditor-acceptable emissions data to commercial property managers, REITs, institutional investors, government agencies, and ESG reporting platforms.
This document is the complete RCP v1.0 specification. It supersedes and consolidates all individual RCP knowledge nodes published at tygartmedia.com/esg-restoration. This is the document you share with RIA, with software vendors, with ESG consultants, and with any organization that wants to understand, adopt, or build on the standard.
Version: RCP v1.0 Published: April 2026 Published by: Tygart Media — tygartmedia.com License: Open — free to use, implement, and build upon with attribution GHG Protocol alignment: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard Emission factor vintage: EPA 2025 GHG Emission Factors Hub, EPA eGRID 2023, EPA WARM v16
Part I: Purpose and Scope
Part I — purpose and scope.
Why RCP Exists
Commercial property managers, REITs, hospital systems, and institutional facility owners face mandatory Scope 3 greenhouse gas disclosure requirements under California SB 253 (effective 2027 for Scope 3), the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and growing pressure from GRESB, CDP, and institutional investors. Restoration contractor work — water damage, fire and smoke, mold remediation, asbestos and hazmat abatement, and biohazard cleanup — generates Scope 3 emissions that appear in the property manager’s inventory as Category 1 (purchased goods and services) and Category 4 (upstream transportation) emissions.
No standard existed for how restoration contractors should calculate, document, or report these emissions. Without a standard, each contractor produced different data in different formats, making it impossible for property managers to aggregate across their vendor base. The Restoration Carbon Protocol fills that gap.
What RCP Covers
RCP v1.0 defines the emissions calculation methodology, data capture requirements, reporting format, proxy estimation procedures, and emission factors for five core restoration job types:
Water damage restoration (IICRC S500)
Fire and smoke restoration (IICRC S700)
Mold remediation (IICRC S520)
Asbestos and hazmat abatement
Biohazard and trauma scene cleanup
RCP v1.0 covers the Scope 3 emissions generated on behalf of commercial clients. Contractor Scope 1 and 2 emissions (the contractor’s own buildings, fleet, and purchased energy) are a separate accounting obligation under the GHG Protocol and are not addressed by the RCP.
Part II: GHG Protocol Alignment
Scope 3 Categories Addressed
Restoration contractor work generates client-facing Scope 3 emissions primarily across four GHG Protocol categories:
GHG Protocol Category
What It Covers in Restoration Work
Included in RCP v1.0
Category 1 — Purchased Goods and Services
Consumable materials, chemicals, PPE, containment, equipment energy (when building-powered)
✅ Yes
Category 4 — Upstream Transportation
All vehicle trips to/from job site, equipment hauls, waste transport
✅ Yes
Category 5 — Waste Generated in Operations
Disposal of demolished materials, contaminated waste, PPE, wastewater
✅ Yes
Category 12 — End-of-Life Treatment
Embedded carbon in building materials removed and disposed of
✅ Yes
Category 7 — Employee Commuting
Technician commuting to contractor’s office
❌ No — contractor’s own Scope 3
Category 2 — Capital Goods
Embedded carbon in equipment (dehumidifiers, vehicles) manufactured
❌ No — contractor’s own Scope 3
Part III: The Five Emissions Calculation Domains
Part III — the five emissions calculation domains.
Every RCP calculation is organized into five domains. Each domain has a primary data source, a calculation method, and a set of proxy values for when primary data is unavailable.
Domain 1: Equipment Energy
Electricity consumed by contractor-deployed drying, filtration, and remediation equipment. Primary method: metered kWh. Proxy method: equipment wattage × runtime hours × proxy unit power draws.
National grid emission factor: 0.3499 kg CO₂e/kWh (EPA eGRID 2023 national average)
Use subregion-specific factor where available (EPA Power Profiler at epa.gov/egrid)
Proxy unit power draws: LGR dehumidifier 1.1 kWh/hr, air mover 0.25 kWh/hr, HEPA air scrubber 0.50 kWh/hr, desiccant dehumidifier 2.8 kWh/hr
Domain 2: Vehicle Transport
All fuel combustion from vehicles operated for job-related purposes. Primary method: fuel volume in gallons. Proxy method: miles × 1/mpg × emission factor.
Diesel (mobile combustion): 10.21 kg CO₂e/gallon (EPA 2025 EF Hub)
Gasoline (mobile combustion): 8.89 kg CO₂e/gallon (EPA 2025 EF Hub)
Proxy fleet mpg: diesel service van 20 mpg; gasoline pickup 18 mpg; diesel dump truck 8 mpg
Debris haul: 0.186 kg CO₂e/ton-mile truck freight (EPA 2025 EF Hub)
Domain 3: Consumable Materials
Embedded carbon in materials consumed during the job but not remaining in the structure: chemicals, PPE, containment materials. Primary method: purchase records by product. Proxy method: standard consumption rates by job type and crew size.
Antimicrobial treatments (default): 2.8 kg CO₂e/liter
Polyethylene containment sheeting: 0.22 kg CO₂e/meter
Disposable Tyvek suit: 1.8 kg CO₂e/unit
N95 respirator: 0.4 kg CO₂e/unit
Nitrile glove pair: 0.12 kg CO₂e/pair
Domain 4: Waste Disposal
Emissions from disposing of materials removed from the property. Primary method: disposal facility manifests by weight and disposal type. Proxy method: weight estimated from demolition scope or volume.
Mixed C&D waste, landfill: 0.021 tCO₂e/short ton (EPA WARM v16)
Drywall/gypsum, landfill: 0.006 tCO₂e/short ton (EPA WARM v16)
Wood debris, landfill: 0.039 tCO₂e/short ton (EPA WARM v16)
Regulated hazmat, incineration: 0.42 tCO₂e/short ton (EPA AP-42)
Biohazardous waste, medical incineration: 0.88 tCO₂e/short ton (DEFRA 2024)
Domain 5: Demolished Materials
Embedded carbon in building materials removed from the structure as a result of restoration work. Primary method: demolition scope by material type and weight. Proxy method: sqft × standard weight/sqft by material type × emission factor.
Standard drywall (½”): 0.12 kg CO₂e/kg (production) — EPA WARM v16
Fiberglass insulation batts: 1.35 kg CO₂e/kg — EPA WARM v16
Carpet (nylon face): 5.40 kg CO₂e/kg — DEFRA 2024
LVP/vinyl flooring: 3.10 kg CO₂e/kg — DEFRA 2024
Dimensional lumber: 0.45 kg CO₂e/kg — EPA WARM v16
Part IV: The RCP 12-Point Data Capture Standard
Every RCP-compliant job record requires twelve data points captured at the time of the job. These are the minimum inputs needed to produce a defensible Scope 3 emissions calculation. Full definitions, good vs. poor capture examples, and calculation mapping for each data point are documented at: tygartmedia.com/12-data-points-restoration-job-scope-3/
#
Data Point
Capture Stage
GHG Category
1
Vehicle log (type, trips, miles, fuel)
Daily / GPS
Cat. 4
2
Waste transport log
Close-out
Cat. 4
3
Equipment power source (building or generator)
Setup
Cat. 1 / Cat. 4
4
Chemical treatments log (volume by type)
During / Close-out
Cat. 1
5
PPE consumption log
During / Close-out
Cat. 1
6
Containment materials log
Setup / Close-out
Cat. 1
7
Debris volume by waste category (weight)
Close-out / Manifest
Cat. 5
8
Disposal method and facility
Close-out
Cat. 5 factor selector
9
Demolished materials by type and weight
Demo scope / Close-out
Cat. 12
10
Replacement materials (if in contractor scope)
Close-out
Cat. 1
11
Job classification (type, category, class, sqft)
Initial assessment
Proxy rate selector
12
Job timeline (start date, completion date)
System-generated
Period assignment
Part V: Proxy Estimation Methodology
When primary data is unavailable — whether for historical jobs, field situations where documentation was incomplete, or data points that current job management systems don’t capture — the RCP authorizes proxy estimation. All proxy calculations must be labeled as estimated in the data quality section of the Job Carbon Report.
The hierarchy of calculation quality, from highest to lowest:
Primary data: Metered, weighed, or directly measured values from job records
Derived primary: Calculated from primary data using standard conversion factors (e.g., miles from GPS × mpg = gallons)
Proxy — job-specific: Estimated using job classification (type, category, class, sqft) with RCP standard rates
Proxy — national average: Used only when job classification is also unavailable. Lowest quality; flag prominently in data quality notes
Part VI: The RCP Job Carbon Report
Part VI — the RCP job carbon report.
The Job Carbon Report is the output document delivered to commercial clients. It is the vehicle by which contractor emissions data enters the client’s Scope 3 inventory. The report has two valid formats: document (PDF or structured text) and machine-readable (JSON per RCP-JCR-1.0 schema).
Wastewater treatment facility emissions from discharged extraction water (flagged for v2.0)
Subcontractor emissions not within the primary contractor’s scope of work
Part VIII: Per-Job-Type Calculation Guides
Each job type has a dedicated technical calculation guide with job-type-specific emission factors, worked examples, and proxy values. These are the source-of-record methodology documents for each restoration category:
U.S. EPA 2025 GHG Emission Factors Hub (January 2025 update)
U.S. EPA eGRID 2023 (published January 2025)
U.S. EPA Waste Reduction Model (WARM) v16
DEFRA UK Greenhouse Gas Conversion Factors 2024
IPCC AR5 Global Warming Potentials (100-year)
Part X: Governance, Versioning, and Contribution
Governance Model
RCP v1.0 operates under a founder-steward governance model. Tygart Media, as the originating organization, maintains editorial control over the standard and is responsible for version releases, emission factor updates, and scope boundary decisions. This model is appropriate for an early-stage standard where consistency and speed of iteration matter more than distributed governance.
As the standard matures and industry adoption grows — particularly if RIA, IICRC, or another industry body formally endorses or houses the standard — governance may transition to a stewardship board model with representation from contractors, property managers, ESG consultants, and software vendors.
Versioning Policy
Version Type
When Issued
What Changes
Backwards Compatible?
Patch (v1.0.x)
Annually or when EPA updates emission factors
Emission factor updates only
Yes — same schema
Minor (v1.x)
When new fields or job types are added
Additive changes — new optional fields, new job type guides
Yes — existing records remain valid
Major (v2.0)
When scope boundaries change significantly
New required fields, scope expansions (e.g., wastewater treatment), LCA-based material factors
Migration path provided
How to Contribute
The RCP is an open standard. Contributions from contractors, software vendors, ESG consultants, property managers, and researchers are actively welcomed. The current contribution process:
Propose: Email rcp@tygartmedia.com with the proposed change, the technical rationale, and any supporting sources. Emission factor changes require a peer-reviewed or regulatory source.
Review: Tygart Media reviews within 30 days and responds with acceptance, modification request, or rejection with explanation.
Publish: Accepted contributions are credited by organization in the version release notes and reflected in the next patch or minor version.
Priority contribution areas for v1.1:
LCA-based emission factors for specific replacement material types
EV fleet proxy values (kWh/mile × grid factor)
Regional proxy rates for markets outside the continental US
Subcontractor emissions inclusion methodology
Wastewater treatment facility emission factors by treatment type
Open Source License
The RCP v1.0 specification, all calculation methodology, the RCP-JCR-1.0 JSON schema, and all associated proxy value tables are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). You are free to use, share, adapt, and build commercial products on top of this standard with attribution to “Restoration Carbon Protocol v1.0, Tygart Media, tygartmedia.com.”
Part XI: Commercial Application and Regulatory Context
California SB 253
California SB 253 requires companies with California revenues over $1 billion to report Scope 3 emissions for their 2026 fiscal year by 2027. Commercial property managers and REITs in scope must collect contractor Scope 3 data across their vendor base. RCP-compliant Job Carbon Reports provide a standardized format for this data collection. Full context: tygartmedia.com/california-sb-253-2027-restoration-contractors/
GRESB
GRESB Real Estate Assessment submissions (due July annually) require Scope 3 data from property managers’ supply chains, including restoration contractors. RCP Job Carbon Reports in JSON format integrate with major ESG data management platforms (Measurabl, Deepki, Yardi Elevate, Atrius) that aggregate GRESB submissions. Full context: tygartmedia.com/restoration-work-gresb-cdp-disclosures/
CDP Supply Chain
CDP Supply Chain program participants request annual Scope 3 data from their contractors via standardized questionnaire. RCP portfolio-level data aggregation (sum of per-job records by client property) provides the input for CDP Supply Chain responses.
EU CSRD
The EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive requires double-materiality ESG disclosure from large companies, including US-based organizations with EU operations or EU-listed investors. For restoration contractors serving CSRD-obligated property clients, the RCP data format provides the supply chain emissions input required under ESRS E1 (Climate) reporting standards.
Part XII: Software Integration
The RCP is designed to be implemented natively in restoration job management platforms. The 12 data points map directly to field types that existing platforms (PSA/Canam, Dash/Next Gear Solutions, Xcelerate, Encircle, Albiware) already capture or can capture with minimal custom field additions. The RCP-JCR-1.0 JSON schema provides the standard data exchange format for platform-to-platform and platform-to-ESG-tool data transfer.
For a call to restoration software vendors to adopt RCP: see the software integration guide (coming April 2026 at tygartmedia.com/esg-restoration).
Part XIII: Version History
Version
Date
Changes
RCP v1.0
April 2026
Initial publication. Five job types, 12-point data standard, RCP-JCR-1.0 JSON schema, proxy estimation methodology, emission factor reference table, full framework document.
All RCP v1.0 Knowledge Nodes
The following articles constitute the complete RCP v1.0 knowledge base. Each is a standalone reference document that can be read independently or cited as a component of this framework:
The Restoration Carbon Protocol v1.0 JSON Schema is the machine-readable definition of the RCP Job Carbon Report. It specifies every field name, data type, required status, and valid value for a complete RCP emissions record. This is the document software developers, ESG platform integrators, and restoration job management platforms use to implement RCP data capture and exchange.
This schema is released as an open standard. Any platform that produces RCP-compliant JSON output can be described as RCP-compatible. No license is required. Attribution to the Restoration Carbon Protocol is encouraged.
Schema version: RCP-JCR-1.0 Conforms to: JSON Schema Draft-07 (json-schema.org/draft-07) GHG Protocol alignment: Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Standard Emission factor vintage: EPA 2025, EPA WARM v16, EPA eGRID 2023
Schema Overview
RCP JSON schema overview.
The RCP Job Carbon Report JSON object has seven top-level sections that mirror the paper report format: job identification, emissions summary, transportation data, materials data, waste data, demolished materials, and data quality metadata. All sections except data_quality are required for a complete RCP record. Partial records (missing sections) are valid as draft records but must not be delivered to clients as final RCP disclosures.
Full Schema Definition
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
"$id": "https://tygartmedia.com/restoration-carbon-protocol-guide/",
"title": "RCP Job Carbon Report",
"description": "Restoration Carbon Protocol v1.0 — Per-Job Scope 3 Emissions Record",
"version": "1.0.0",
"type": "object",
"required": [
"schema_version",
"job_identification",
"emissions_summary",
"transportation",
"materials",
"waste",
"demolished_materials"
],
"properties": {
"schema_version": {
"type": "string",
"const": "RCP-JCR-1.0",
"description": "Schema version identifier. Must be 'RCP-JCR-1.0' for v1.0 records."
},
"generated_at": {
"type": "string",
"format": "date-time",
"description": "ISO 8601 timestamp of when this record was generated."
},
"job_identification": {
"type": "object",
"required": [
"contractor_name",
"job_id",
"client_name",
"property_address",
"job_type",
"damage_category",
"damage_class",
"affected_area_sqft",
"job_start_date",
"job_completion_date",
"reporting_standard",
"egrid_subregion"
],
"properties": {
"contractor_name": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Legal name of the restoration contractor performing the work."
},
"contractor_rcp_id": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Optional. RCP self-certification ID if contractor is RCP-certified."
},
"job_id": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Contractor's internal job identifier. Used to cross-reference with job management system."
},
"client_name": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Name of the property owner or manager receiving this report."
},
"property_address": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["street", "city", "state", "zip"],
"properties": {
"street": { "type": "string" },
"city": { "type": "string" },
"state": { "type": "string", "pattern": "^[A-Z]{2}$" },
"zip": { "type": "string", "pattern": "^[0-9]{5}(-[0-9]{4})?$" }
}
},
"job_type": {
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"water_damage",
"fire_smoke",
"mold_remediation",
"asbestos_hazmat",
"biohazard_trauma",
"combined"
],
"description": "Primary job type per RCP classification."
},
"damage_category": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["1", "2", "3", "N/A"],
"description": "IICRC S500 water damage category (1=clean, 2=gray, 3=black). Use N/A for non-water jobs."
},
"damage_class": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["1", "2", "3", "4", "N/A"],
"description": "IICRC S500 water damage class (1=minimal to 4=specialty drying). Use N/A for non-water jobs."
},
"affected_area_sqft": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Total affected area in square feet."
},
"job_start_date": {
"type": "string",
"format": "date",
"description": "ISO 8601 date (YYYY-MM-DD) of job mobilization."
},
"job_completion_date": {
"type": "string",
"format": "date",
"description": "ISO 8601 date (YYYY-MM-DD) of job close-out."
},
"reporting_standard": {
"type": "string",
"const": "Restoration Carbon Protocol v1.0, GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain Standard",
"description": "Must match this exact string for RCP v1.0 compliance."
},
"egrid_subregion": {
"type": "string",
"description": "EPA eGRID subregion code for the job site ZIP code. Use 'US_AVG' if subregion unknown.",
"examples": ["WECC", "SRVC", "RFCW", "US_AVG"]
}
}
},
"emissions_summary": {
"type": "object",
"required": [
"total_job_emissions_tco2e",
"category_1_materials_tco2e",
"category_4_transportation_tco2e",
"category_5_waste_tco2e",
"category_12_demolished_materials_tco2e"
],
"properties": {
"total_job_emissions_tco2e": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Total job Scope 3 emissions in metric tons CO2 equivalent (tCO2e). Sum of all categories."
},
"category_1_materials_tco2e": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "GHG Protocol Scope 3 Category 1 — Purchased Goods and Services. Embedded carbon in consumable materials."
},
"category_4_transportation_tco2e": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "GHG Protocol Scope 3 Category 4 — Upstream Transportation. All vehicle fuel combustion for job-related trips."
},
"category_5_waste_tco2e": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "GHG Protocol Scope 3 Category 5 — Waste Generated in Operations. Disposal of materials removed from the property."
},
"category_12_demolished_materials_tco2e": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "GHG Protocol Scope 3 Category 12 — End-of-Life Treatment. Embedded carbon in building materials removed and disposed."
},
"equipment_energy_kwh": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Optional. Total kWh consumed by contractor-deployed equipment. Included in Category 1 if equipment operates on building power; Category 4 if generator-powered."
}
}
},
"transportation": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["vehicle_trips", "calculation_method"],
"properties": {
"calculation_method": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["primary_fuel_volume", "proxy_mileage"],
"description": "'primary_fuel_volume' = actual gallons recorded. 'proxy_mileage' = miles x fleet average mpg x emission factor."
},
"vehicle_trips": {
"type": "array",
"minItems": 1,
"items": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["vehicle_type", "fuel_type", "round_trips", "round_trip_miles"],
"properties": {
"vehicle_type": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["light_truck", "service_van", "equipment_trailer", "dump_truck", "heavy_equipment", "other"],
"description": "Vehicle category."
},
"fuel_type": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["diesel", "gasoline", "electric", "hybrid"],
"description": "Primary fuel type."
},
"round_trips": {
"type": "integer",
"minimum": 1,
"description": "Number of complete round trips for this vehicle on this job."
},
"round_trip_miles": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Miles per round trip."
},
"fuel_consumed_gallons": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Optional. Actual fuel consumed in gallons. Preferred over proxy when available."
},
"emissions_kg_co2e": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Calculated emissions for this vehicle entry in kg CO2e."
},
"trip_purpose": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["response", "monitoring", "equipment_delivery", "equipment_pickup", "waste_haul", "crew_transport", "other"],
"description": "Primary purpose of these trips."
}
}
}
},
"total_vehicle_miles": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Sum of all vehicle-miles across all entries."
},
"total_emissions_kg_co2e": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Total transportation emissions in kg CO2e."
}
}
},
"materials": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["calculation_method"],
"properties": {
"calculation_method": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["primary_purchase_records", "proxy_job_type_standard"],
"description": "'primary_purchase_records' = actual quantities from purchase records. 'proxy_job_type_standard' = RCP standard consumption rates by job type."
},
"chemicals": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["product_type", "quantity_liters"],
"properties": {
"product_type": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["antimicrobial", "biocide", "encapsulant", "deodorizer", "wetting_agent", "other"]
},
"quantity_liters": { "type": "number", "minimum": 0 },
"emission_factor_kg_co2e_per_liter": { "type": "number" },
"emissions_kg_co2e": { "type": "number", "minimum": 0 }
}
}
},
"ppe_disposable": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"tyvek_suits": { "type": "integer", "minimum": 0 },
"glove_pairs": { "type": "integer", "minimum": 0 },
"respirators_n95": { "type": "integer", "minimum": 0 },
"respirators_p100_half_face": { "type": "integer", "minimum": 0 },
"boot_covers_pairs": { "type": "integer", "minimum": 0 },
"emissions_kg_co2e": { "type": "number", "minimum": 0 }
}
},
"containment_materials": {
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"poly_sheeting_meters": { "type": "number", "minimum": 0 },
"zipper_doors_units": { "type": "integer", "minimum": 0 },
"hepa_filters_replaced": { "type": "integer", "minimum": 0 },
"emissions_kg_co2e": { "type": "number", "minimum": 0 }
}
},
"replacement_materials": {
"type": "array",
"description": "Installed replacement building materials, if reconstruction is within contractor scope.",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["material_type", "quantity_kg"],
"properties": {
"material_type": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["drywall_standard", "drywall_moisture_resistant", "insulation_fiberglass", "insulation_mineral_wool", "lumber_framing", "carpet", "lvp_flooring", "tile_ceramic", "other"]
},
"quantity_kg": { "type": "number", "minimum": 0 },
"emission_factor_kg_co2e_per_kg": { "type": "number" },
"emissions_kg_co2e": { "type": "number", "minimum": 0 }
}
}
},
"total_emissions_kg_co2e": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Total materials emissions in kg CO2e. Sum of chemicals, PPE, containment, and replacement materials."
}
}
},
"waste": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["calculation_method", "waste_streams"],
"properties": {
"calculation_method": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["primary_manifest_weights", "proxy_volume_conversion"],
"description": "'primary_manifest_weights' = actual weights from disposal manifests. 'proxy_volume_conversion' = volume estimates converted to weight using RCP standard densities."
},
"waste_streams": {
"type": "array",
"minItems": 1,
"items": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["waste_type", "disposal_method", "quantity_short_tons"],
"properties": {
"waste_type": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["cd_debris_mixed", "drywall_gypsum", "wood_debris", "contaminated_water", "regulated_hazmat", "biohazardous_waste", "ppe_disposable", "other"]
},
"disposal_method": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["landfill", "recycling", "hazmat_incineration", "wastewater_municipal", "wastewater_licensed_facility", "other"]
},
"disposal_facility": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Optional. Name or identifier of disposal facility."
},
"quantity_short_tons": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Weight of waste in US short tons."
},
"haul_miles_one_way": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Optional. One-way distance to disposal facility in miles. Used to calculate haul transport emissions."
},
"emission_factor_tco2e_per_short_ton": { "type": "number" },
"emissions_kg_co2e": { "type": "number", "minimum": 0 }
}
}
},
"total_emissions_kg_co2e": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Total waste disposal emissions in kg CO2e."
}
}
},
"demolished_materials": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["calculation_method"],
"properties": {
"calculation_method": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["primary_demolition_records", "proxy_affected_area"],
"description": "'primary_demolition_records' = actual weights from demolition scope. 'proxy_affected_area' = RCP standard weight-per-sqft by material type."
},
"materials_removed": {
"type": "array",
"items": {
"type": "object",
"required": ["material_type", "quantity_kg"],
"properties": {
"material_type": {
"type": "string",
"enum": ["drywall_standard", "drywall_moisture_resistant", "insulation_fiberglass", "insulation_mineral_wool", "lumber_framing", "carpet", "lvp_flooring", "tile_ceramic", "concrete", "other"]
},
"quantity_kg": { "type": "number", "minimum": 0 },
"emission_factor_kg_co2e_per_kg": { "type": "number" },
"emissions_kg_co2e": { "type": "number", "minimum": 0 }
}
}
},
"total_emissions_kg_co2e": {
"type": "number",
"minimum": 0,
"description": "Total demolished materials emissions in kg CO2e."
}
}
},
"data_quality": {
"type": "object",
"description": "Optional but strongly recommended. Documents data sources and proxy usage for audit purposes.",
"properties": {
"preparer_name": { "type": "string" },
"preparer_date": { "type": "string", "format": "date" },
"primary_data_points": {
"type": "array",
"description": "List of data points captured from primary sources.",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"vehicle_mileage_gps",
"vehicle_mileage_odometer",
"fuel_consumed_recorded",
"equipment_kwh_metered",
"waste_weight_manifest",
"materials_purchase_records",
"demolition_scope_documented"
]
}
},
"proxy_data_points": {
"type": "array",
"description": "List of data points estimated using RCP proxy values.",
"items": {
"type": "string",
"enum": [
"vehicle_mileage_estimated",
"fuel_consumed_proxy_mpg",
"equipment_kwh_proxy_wattage",
"waste_weight_estimated",
"ppe_consumption_standard_rate",
"materials_proxy_sqft"
]
}
},
"notes": {
"type": "string",
"description": "Free-text field for data quality notes, exceptions, or unusual circumstances."
}
}
}
}
}
Minimal Valid Record Example
Minimal valid RCP record example.
The following is the smallest valid RCP-JCR-1.0 JSON object — all required fields populated, optional fields omitted. This represents a simple water damage job with proxy-based calculations:
All emission factors used in RCP-JCR-1.0 calculations are drawn from the RCP Emission Factor Reference Table. The authoritative source for each factor is documented there. The key factors for software implementations:
Grid electricity (US national average): 0.3499 kg CO₂e/kWh — EPA eGRID 2023
Diesel fuel (mobile combustion): 10.21 kg CO₂e/gallon — EPA 2025 EF Hub
Gasoline (mobile combustion): 8.89 kg CO₂e/gallon — EPA 2025 EF Hub
Drywall production: 0.12 kg CO₂e/kg — EPA WARM v16
Carpet (nylon): 5.40 kg CO₂e/kg — DEFRA 2024
Implementation Notes for Software Developers
Implementation notes for software developers.
Several implementation patterns are worth noting for platforms building RCP compatibility:
Field nullability: Optional fields should be omitted entirely when no data is available, not set to null or 0. A missing field is distinguishable from a zero-value field, which matters for audit purposes.
Calculation_method flags: The calculation_method field in each section is required because it tells the receiving system and verifier whether to trust the numbers at primary-data quality or proxy quality. ESG platforms that ingest RCP JSON should surface this distinction to their users.
Unit consistency: All emissions totals in emissions_summary are in metric tons CO₂e (tCO₂e). All emissions in sub-sections are in kilograms CO₂e (kg CO₂e). The conversion is 1 tCO₂e = 1,000 kg CO₂e. Software implementations should validate unit consistency at write time.
eGRID subregion codes: The canonical list of eGRID subregion codes is available from EPA at epa.gov/egrid. The US_AVG code is an RCP extension for cases where the subregion is unknown — it instructs consuming systems to apply the national average factor (0.3499 kg CO₂e/kWh).
Schema validation: Implementations should validate records against this schema before transmission. Invalid records — missing required fields, wrong data types, enum violations — must not be transmitted as final RCP disclosures.
Versioning and Backwards Compatibility
The schema_version field is used by consuming systems to identify which version of the RCP schema a record was produced under. RCP v2.0 will introduce a new schema version string and may add fields not present in v1.0. All v1.0 records remain valid and will be processed by systems that implement backwards compatibility for RCP-JCR-1.0. No fields will be removed between minor versions; only additions are permitted.
Will Tygart · Senior Advisory · Operator-grade intelligence
The RCP requires 12 data points per job. In practice, some of those data points will be unavailable — particularly for historical jobs being calculated retrospectively, or for field situations where documentation wasn’t captured as completely as the standard requires. The proxy estimation methodology provides documented substitution methods that produce defensible, auditor-acceptable estimates when primary data is missing.
Key principle: A documented estimate with a stated assumption is always preferable to a blank field in an RCP report. ESG auditors understand that emissions calculation involves uncertainty — what they require is transparency about where estimation was used and what the basis of that estimation was. Undocumented guesses are not acceptable. Documented proxies are.
Data Quality Tiers
RCP proxy estimation — data quality tiers.
The RCP uses three data quality tiers, consistent with GHG Protocol Scope 3 guidance:
Tier
Description
Audit Acceptability
Tier 1 — Primary measured data
Actual measurements from job records: GPS mileage, disposal facility receipts with weights, materials purchase orders by job
Highest — preferred for all data points
Tier 2 — Primary estimated data
Calculated from documented job parameters using RCP proxy methods: affected area × consumption rate, crew size × duration × unit rate
Acceptable — must document calculation method and basis
Tier 3 — Spend-based / invoice-based proxy
Dollar amount × industry average emission factor — the fallback of last resort
Lowest — use only when no job-specific data is available; flag prominently in data quality notes
Proxy method: Use Google Maps or equivalent mapping tool to calculate round-trip distance from your facility (or prior job address for multi-stop days) to the job site. Multiply by the number of crew trips documented in time records or invoices. This is a Tier 2 estimate.
Default proxy (Tier 3, last resort): Industry average mobilization distance for restoration contractors is 22 miles one-way (44 miles round trip). Apply this default only when no address or routing information is available. Note as Tier 3 estimate in data quality section.
Data Point 2 — Waste Transport Mileage
Primary source: Waste manifests and hauler receipts (these typically include origin and destination).
Proxy method: Use the distance from the job site to the nearest licensed disposal facility of the appropriate type (standard C&D landfill, licensed ACM facility, medical waste facility). Use online waste facility directories (EPA RCRA Info for hazmat, state environmental agency databases for C&D landfills) to identify the nearest appropriate facility.
Default proxies by facility type (Tier 3): Standard C&D landfill: 18 miles. Licensed ACM facility: 60 miles. Licensed PCB incineration: 150 miles. Medical waste facility: 55 miles.
Data Point 3 — Equipment Power Source
Primary source: Job documentation noting whether equipment ran on building power or contractor generator; generator fuel logs.
Proxy method: Default assumption is building electrical supply unless your company policy or the job type (remote location, building power unavailable) indicates otherwise. Note the assumption explicitly. If generator use is suspected but not documented, use the following generator fuel proxy: standard drying equipment setup (3 dehumidifiers + 6 air movers) consuming approximately 2.5 gallons of diesel per 8-hour shift × number of drying days × 10.21 kg CO2e per gallon diesel.
Data Points 4–5 — Chemical Treatments and PPE Consumption
Application rate proxies by job type and surface type:
Job Type / Surface
Antimicrobial Rate
Tyvek Suits per Tech per Day
Glove Pairs per Tech per Day
N95/P100 per Tech per Day
Cat 1 water — porous surfaces
0.008 L/sq ft
0.5
2
0.5
Cat 2 water — porous surfaces
0.015 L/sq ft
1.0
3
1.0
Cat 3 water — porous surfaces
0.025 L/sq ft (×2 applications)
2.0
5
2.0
Mold Condition 3 — first application
0.020 L/sq ft
2.0
4
1.5
Mold Condition 3 — second application
0.015 L/sq ft
2.0
4
1.5
Fire — smoke cleaning (chemical sponge + cleaner)
1 sponge per 50 sq ft + 0.010 L/sq ft cleaner
1.5
4
1.5
Hazmat abatement (Level C, standard exit protocol)
N/A (wetting agent: 0.003 L/sq ft ACM)
3.0 (full replacement each exit)
6
2 pairs OV/P100
Biohazard Level C
0.025 L/sq ft × 2 applications
3.0 (full replacement each exit)
6
2 pairs OV/P100
Biohazard Level B (decomposition)
0.025 L/sq ft × 2 applications
3.0 Level B full-suit (replace each exit)
6
Supplied air — 0 disposable
Data Point 6 — Containment Materials
Proxy method: Standard containment for a single affected room (standard ceiling height 8–10 ft): perimeter of affected area (linear feet) × ceiling height × 1.2 (overlap factor) = m² of poly sheeting. For compartmentalized commercial spaces, add 20 m² per additional doorway or penetration point.
Zipper doors: 1 per entry/exit point, typically 2 per contained area (entry + equipment pass-through).
Data Points 7–8 — Waste Volume and Disposal
Volume proxy: Use weight estimation proxies from the RCP Emission Factor Reference Table (drywall at 2.5 lbs/sq ft, carpet at 3.0 lbs/sq ft, etc.) applied to the demolished area documented in job scope records.
Disposal method proxy: If disposal facility type is unknown, apply default based on material type: standard C&D for non-contaminated demolition debris, regulated C&D or hazmat for contaminated materials (see Table 3 in the Emission Factor Reference).
Data Points 9–10 — Demolished and Installed Materials
Proxy method: Calculate from demolition scope records (affected area by room, material type documented in scope of work or Xactimate/Symbility estimate). Weight estimation proxies apply as above. For installed materials in reconstruction phase, use square footage from scope-of-work documentation and apply standard weight proxies.
Documenting Proxy Use in Your RCP Report
Documenting proxy use in your RCP report.
Every proxy estimate must be documented in the data quality section of the per-job carbon report. The format for documenting a proxy is: [Data point name]: [Tier 2 or 3 estimate]. [Brief description of proxy method]. [Source of proxy rate or assumption].
Example: “Vehicle mileage: Tier 2 estimate. Round-trip distance calculated using Google Maps from company facility to job site address (44 miles RT × 4 crew trips). Crew trip count from job invoices. Source: RCP proxy method P-4-1.”
Example: “PPE consumption: Tier 2 estimate. Cat 3 water damage standard consumption rate applied (2.0 Tyvek/tech/day, 5 glove pairs/tech/day) per RCP Table A-5. Actual PPE not tracked separately on this job.”
Can a per-job carbon report with all Tier 2 estimates be used in GRESB reporting?
Yes. GRESB accepts primary data at various quality levels, including documented estimates. A Tier 2 estimate is primary data (not spend-based estimation) and is acceptable. The data quality notation in the RCP report demonstrates that you have applied documented methodology rather than guessing, which is what auditors need to see.
What is the margin of error typical for Tier 2 proxy estimates?
Typical uncertainty range for Tier 2 RCP estimates is ±20–35% relative to primary measured data. This compares favorably to spend-based estimation (Tier 3), which typically has ±50–100% uncertainty for restoration work due to the high variability of job type, scope, and emission profile at equivalent invoice amounts.
Should you disclose the uncertainty range in the per-job carbon report?
The RCP does not require quantified uncertainty ranges in the per-job report, but noting that Tier 2 estimates were used in the data quality section effectively communicates to auditors that the figure carries inherent estimation uncertainty. For clients whose ESG consultants or auditors specifically request uncertainty ranges, use the guidance values above (±20–35% for Tier 2).
