Sample report · Clean Energy & ESG
We re-derived a published figure from the public record.
We typed in one number from Kroger's ESG report — 6,739,850 MWh of electricity — plus the public EPA eGRID grid factor, and withheld the Scope 2 total. The app computed 2,358,948 tCO₂e, landing within 14% of Kroger's published 2,739,997 tCO₂e — and then showed exactly why the remaining gap exists, instead of fudging the number to hit it.
The situation
Disclosed energy figures, turned into an audit-ready carbon scorecard.
A sustainability lead at a large company has to turn the company's own disclosed energy figures into an audit-ready carbon scorecard for investors and ESG reviewers. They don't have a carbon-accounting platform — they have a published ESG report and the public EPA eGRID emission factor.
We used Kroger's 2024 ESG report as a reconcile test: feed the electricity consumed and the public grid factor, withhold the Scope 2 total, and see whether the app re-derives Kroger's own published location-based Scope 2 — and where it doesn't quite, whether it explains why.
What we supplied
Only public inputs — each one sourced.
We fed the electricity number a user would read off Kroger's ESG report plus the public EPA eGRID factor, and told the app to derive Scope 2 the standard way (electricity × factor) — without ever stating the answer.
| Input | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Asset type | Mixed renewable portfolio | Onsite solar + grid power |
| Reporting standard | GHG Protocol (Scope 1/2/3) | Matches Kroger |
| Baseline year | 2018 | Kroger baseline |
| Electricity consumed | 6,739,850 MWh | ESG energy table |
| Grid emission factor | 0.350 tCO₂e/MWh (771 lb/MWh) | EPA eGRID2023 (US avg) |
| Scope 1 total | 2,288,734 tCO₂e | ESG carbon table |
Source: Kroger 2024 ESG Report · download the source document we used.
The report
The finished, board-ready output.
This is the actual rendered report — interactive charts and all. Nothing was edited after generation.
Reconcile
Our output vs. the published figures.
| Metric | Published | Ours (computed) | Match | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 2 (location-based) | 2,739,997 tCO₂e | 2,358,948 tCO₂e (6,739,850 × 0.350) | ≈ explained | ~14% low — app derived it; we withheld it |
| Implied grid factor | 0.407 t/MWh (896 lb) | 0.350 t/MWh (771 lb) | ≈ explained | Kroger's grid mix runs hotter than the US average |
| Electricity consumed | 6,739,850 MWh | 6,739,850 MWh | ✓ | Carried through |
| Scope 1 | 2,288,734 tCO₂e | 2,288,734 tCO₂e | ✓ | Carried through |
Why the ~14% gap is the honest answer: location-based accounting is supposed to use eGRID subregion factors weighted by where power is consumed. With only the single US national-average factor a public user has, the math lands ~14% short — precisely because Kroger's stores concentrate in higher-carbon Midwest/Southeast grids. The tool didn't fudge a factor to hit the headline; it showed its arithmetic and the gap traces to a real, explainable modeling choice. Figures Kroger didn't disclose were generated as labeled operational estimates, distinct from the disclosed numbers.
A second proof
Same method, the right regional factor — and it nails the number.
The Kroger gap is the national-average factor, not the method. To show that, we ran the same reconcile on a single-campus emitter that sits entirely in one EPA eGRID subregion, with no on-site generation to confound the math: Ball State University (Muncie, IN, subregion RFCW), whose carbon footprint is public via the SIMAP tool.
We fed only the campus's disclosed electricity and the correct regional eGRID factor, withheld the Scope 2 total, and the app re-derived Ball State's published location-based Scope 2 to within 0.006% — the tight counterpart to the Kroger "close" demo.
What we supplied
Same fields, but with the eGRID factor for the campus's actual grid subregion instead of the US national average. Scope 2 was again withheld.
| Input | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Electricity consumed | 123,211 MWh | Ball State SIMAP, FY2022 |
| Grid emission factor | 0.4581 tCO₂e/MWh | EPA eGRID2022, subregion RFCW |
| Scope 1 total | 15,887 tCO₂e | Ball State SIMAP |
| Region | Muncie, IN — eGRID RFCW | No on-site generation |
Source: Ball State University (SIMAP public record) · download the source document we used.
The report
Reconcile
| Metric | Published | Ours (computed) | Match | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope 2 (location-based) | 56,446 tCO₂e | 56,443 tCO₂e (123,211 × 0.4581) | ✓ exact | 0.006% — app derived it; we withheld it |
| Implied grid factor | 0.4581 t/MWh | 0.4581 t/MWh (eGRID RFCW) | ✓ | The public eGRID factor is the one SIMAP used |
| Electricity consumed | 123,211 MWh | 123,211 MWh | ✓ | Carried through |
| Scope 1 | 15,887 tCO₂e | 15,887 tCO₂e | ✓ | Carried through |
Together the two reconciles tell the honest story: a broad national-average assumption lands ~14% off and says why; the correct regional factor lands it to the decimal. The near-exact match holds because Ball State is a single-grid electricity buyer with no self-generation or REC-netting — which is exactly why the source was vetted rather than picked at random.
Build the same report from your own numbers.
You supply the figures you already have, and every number comes back labeled by where it came from — so you can put your name on it and show your work.
Generate your report — $20