A Scott County parts supplier answers its first emissions questionnaire

Illustrative scenario: a composite built to show our method. Names, places and figures are hypothetical.

A stamping and assembly supplier in Scott County, with about 180 employees and two buildings in KU territory, received a sustainability questionnaire from an automaker customer. It asked for 2025 Scope 2 emissions, the method used and a plan for renewable electricity, within 30 days. This supplier Scope 2 questionnaire example shows how the answer was built: a location-based figure of 1,794 metric tons CO2e, a clearly caveated market-based figure and a short list of options the company could actually use.

The emission factors and tariff rules cited are real. The company and its bills are not.

Step 1: 24 months of bills, two accounts

We collected 24 monthly KU bills for each building, January 2024 through December 2025. Before any math we checked:

• billing periods against calendar months, prorating bills that crossed a month boundary
• estimated reads (there was one, later trued up by an actual read)
• that kWh, not demand, was the quantity being added up

	2024	2025
Plant	3,762 MWh	3,892 MWh
Warehouse and offices	494 MWh	487 MWh
Total	4,256 MWh	4,379 MWh

Use rose 2.9%, nearly all in the plant after a press line was added in spring 2025. The plant is 89% of the total. Why two years? Customers ask about change, and one year can’t show a trend or expose a billing error.

Step 2: Location-based Scope 2 with eGRID

The location-based method multiplies electricity use by the average emission rate of the grid where it’s used. In EPA’s eGRID, the LG&E and KU balancing area sits in the SERC Tennessee Valley subregion, SRTV. The current edition, eGRID2023 (revision 2, June 2025), gives SRTV a total output emission rate of 903.306 lb CO2e per MWh.

4,379 MWh × 903.306 lb per MWh ÷ 2,204.62 lb per metric ton = 1,794 t CO2e for 2025, against 1,744 t for 2024.

Two details matter. We used the total output rate, not the non-baseload rate, which is meant for estimating avoided emissions. And transmission and distribution losses belong in Scope 3, not Scope 2.

Step 3: The market-based figure isn’t zero, and it may be bigger

The GHG Protocol’s Scope 2 Guidance asks companies to report both methods. The market-based method starts from contractual instruments: renewable energy certificates (RECs), green tariffs and supply contracts. With none in 2025, the company can claim no renewable share, and the figure falls back to a supplier-specific emission rate or a residual mix.

Here is the part most first-time answers miss. eGRID2023 puts the LG&E and KU balancing area itself at 1,908 lb CO2e per MWh, about 2.1 times the SRTV average, because TVA’s nuclear and hydro fleet pulls the subregion down. If KU’s supplier-specific rate lands near that level, market-based Scope 2 would be about 3,790 t, more than double location-based. So the answer reported location-based as the confirmed figure and labeled market-based as pending KU’s supplier-specific rate.

The GHG Protocol is also revising its Scope 2 guidance. Public consultation ran from October 20, 2025 to January 31, 2026, and the 2015 guidance remains the basis until a revision is final.

Step 4: Renewable options compared

Option	What it changes	Fit for this supplier
Green Tariff RECs through KU	Market-based only	Quick to start and easy to scale; location-based figure unchanged
Unbundled RECs	Market-based only	Flexible; the customer may ask about source, vintage and whether purchases support new projects
On-site solar, about 400 kW DC on the plant roof	Both methods, if the company keeps the RECs	About 480 MWh a year, 11% of use; cuts location-based Scope 2 by about 197 t
Green Tariff Renewable Power Agreement	Both, through a new project	Not available: it requires a 10 MVA minimum monthly billing load, about 20 times this supplier’s average load

On-site solar has a clock on it. For commercial projects that didn’t begin construction by July 4, 2026, the federal credit now requires the system to be placed in service by the end of 2027, with foreign-sourcing rules attached. A licensed engineer must confirm the roof can carry the array. At this size it’s above Kentucky’s 45 kW net-metering limit, so it would be sized for the plant to use its own output.

What went into the supplier’s Scope 2 questionnaire

• 2025 location-based Scope 2: 1,794 t CO2e, eGRID2023 SRTV, with the calculation shown
• Market-based: method stated, value pending the supplier-specific rate
• Plan: Green Tariff RECs for part of 2027 use while a Commercial Feasibility Study tests the plant roof against the 2027 deadline

These are non-certified estimates based on published methodologies. No third party has verified or assured them, and the questionnaire said so. Our Supplier Sustainability Questionnaires service handles the full form, and Carbon & Scope 2 Reporting repeats this method each year.