Well, his answer is actually just a longer version of mine
It is in principle not appropriate to discuss temperature in this at all. We have no effects of real temperature, like phonons etc, and I think we can all agree on this.
What we do have is a Fermi distribution, and you are right, in principle we should use a step function and compute everything at 0 K to be on solid theoretical soil regarding the NEGF formalism. However, with a step-like Fermi distribution, the calculation will most likely not converge for numerical reasons. Therefore we make it have finite width, say 0.025 eV. Now, using E=kT we can express this energy as a temperature, which is 300 K. Some calculations might not even converge until we increase the broadening to 100 meV, or 1200 K.
If you want to be really thorough, you could in principle try to reduce the temperature, instead of increasing it, if the convergence is stable. Or, after you reach convergence, you can restart from the converged result and "anneal" the system down towards zero temperature. Only in this limit is, for example, the zero-bias conductance equal to the conductance quantum times the Fermi-level transmission coefficient.
This approach would be more relevant if you performed the calculation at a very high temperature, for convergence reasons, to anneal down to 300 K. Going down from 300 K to, say, 100 K, most likely the influence of the finite Fermi distribution width (a.k.a. finite electron temperature) on the observables like current etc will be negligible, and also it will probably be smaller than other inaccuracies due to k-point sampling, basis set, mesh cut-off, exchange-correlation functional, etc.