An Electricity Emissions Dashboard Needs a Method Label, Not Just One Total

Before commissioning an electricity-emissions dashboard, decide whether the reporting framework calls for location-based results, market-based results or both. Preserve those results as separately identified views of the relevant consumption. Do not add them together or let the application quietly replace one with whichever number looks smaller.

This is a software requirements guide for a business gathering electricity information, not a carbon inventory assurance service or a claim that the business is carbon neutral. The example uses the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance published in 2015. Have a competent emissions-accounting specialist confirm the applicable framework, version and reporting boundary before implementation, particularly while standards are being updated.

One electricity record can support different accounting views

A fictional business has electricity-consumption records for several premises. Its team also receives supplier information and contractual energy-attribute documents. A spreadsheet with one field called “carbon factor” can conceal which method a factor belongs to and why it was selected.

The Scope 2 Guidance describes the location-based method as reflecting the average emissions intensity of the grids where consumption occurs. It describes the market-based method as reflecting the electricity companies have purposefully chosen, or their lack of choice, using factors derived from contractual instruments and the applicable data hierarchy.

These are different accounting perspectives, not two additional electricity purchases. Keep the underlying consumption connected to each result and label the method in the screen, export and report. A user should not have to infer the method from the colour of a chart.

Confirm whether dual reporting applies

Section 1.5.1 of the cited guidance calls for both methods, with each result labeled, for companies with any operations in markets providing product- or supplier-specific contractual-instrument data. It also explains that lacking contractual information for every site does not itself cause noncompliance with that guidance; the appropriate emission-factor hierarchies matter.

Do not turn that into either “everyone must report two numbers under every law” or “we have no certificate for one site, so no calculation is possible”. Ask the specialist to document the actual framework decision and the treatment of sites with different available data.

The software brief should identify the included premises, reporting period, responsible reviewer and method requirements. A website language or invoice currency does not decide the accounting boundary. This article does not determine which premises your company must include.

A contract upload does not automatically select a zero factor

Section 1.5.2 establishes Scope 2 Quality Criteria for contractual instruments used in the market-based method. It also points to other factors where instruments meeting the criteria are unavailable. Merely attaching a document labeled “renewable” is not a substitute for the relevant review.

Have the specialist define which evidence supports an instrument's use, what consumption and period it covers and which reviewed factor is applicable. The application should distinguish received documents from accepted data and preserve unresolved questions. It should not invent a factor from a marketing phrase or treat an unreviewed contract as a completed allocation.

The proposed evidence fields and review steps are implementation recommendations. This article does not reproduce all quality criteria or approve a particular certificate, supplier rate or fallback factor.

Keep consumption changes separate from factor changes

A result can change because the business used a different amount of electricity or because the accounting inputs changed. Preserve the consumption value, unit and period separately from factor identity, unit, source and method. Have the specialist define the permitted unit handling and calculation rules.

When correcting a factor or replacing a provisional input, record the new calculation version and retain the earlier reported basis. A historical report should not silently change every time a supplier's current data is updated. Missing information should remain visible; it is not the same as zero emissions.

The guidance recommends separately disclosing energy consumed per reporting period to help clarify consumption changes versus supply changes. In your dashboard, a side-by-side view of consumption and method-specific results can make that distinction understandable without presenting the output as an independent audit.

Demonstrate a mixed-data reporting period

Use synthetic premises and specialist-approved example inputs. Include one site with reviewed contractual information, one requiring an approved alternative factor, a missing consumption record and a document still awaiting review. Show both reporting views where required without duplicating consumption in the inventory.

Then change one input and inspect the calculation history and actual export. Method labels, period, source references and unresolved cases should survive outside the dashboard. Do not accept a tidy chart that loses those distinctions when downloaded.

Bring a blank reporting example to a business dashboard and workflow discussion. The deliverable is traceable method-specific reporting under expert-defined rules, not a guaranteed sustainability claim or evidence that buying software reduced emissions.

Source: GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance, section 1.5 and its reporting, quality-criteria and disclosure subsections. The framework's current applicability must be reviewed for the actual project.