Five cases for checking renewable electricity statements
A renewable-electricity statement can describe an installation, a reported consumption category, a calculated share or evidence supporting a sourcing claim. These are different propositions. A report may support one while leaving another unanswered. The first task is to identify the statement being tested before choosing a number that appears to support it.
This study preserves five selected historical issuer cases across seven report editions. Its original evidence cohort was the local 1,475-record edition; four cases drew on the smaller 1,040-record public projection, while GIPCL was outside that projection. The cases are purposive, not a representative survey, and reusing them creates no additional company-data records.
We checked the selected company-authored energy tables, period headings and explanations. Contracts, certificates, meter systems and the underlying renewable attributes were not examined. This is a reading study, not verification of procurement, a finding about misleading claims or a comparison of the issuers’ sustainability performance.
Five cases and the question each can answer
eClerx: matched electricity categories
eClerx’s FY2024–25 table reports India-office electricity of 30,274,906 renewable and 16,967,434 non-renewable Mega joules. Their sum is 47,242,340; renewable divided by that sum gives a derived 64.08%. This describes the two reported categories, without independently verifying renewable attributes.
KRBL: another renewable category is separate
KRBL’s 2024–2025 table separates renewable electricity from energy through other renewable sources. Keep these categories distinct when reading an electricity statement. This study does not reconstruct a different KRBL electricity share.
City Union Bank: an installation is not consumption data
City Union Bank’s 2024–2025 report describes solar installations, but its renewable-energy consumption cells contain dashes. The initiative statement supplies neither a period consumption quantity nor a supported zero. Retain the narrative and the unresolved numeric state separately.
Andhra Paper: one period, two source versions
Andhra Paper’s original 2023–2024 report shows 0.00 Gigajoules of renewable electricity for that year. The 2024–2025 report’s comparative shows 739,436.19 for the same year. The selected passages do not establish the cause. Treat this as a source-version difference, not an increase in consumption between publication dates.
GIPCL: a revision explanation has limits
GIPCL’s original 2024–2025 report shows renewable electricity of 2,528.06 Tera Joules. Its 2025–2026 comparative gives 85.79 for that same period, alongside a table-level explanation of amended calculations using more accurate consumption details. This does not isolate a plant, operating change or precise cause for the individual revision.
Read the cases as an evidence ladder
The ladder below matches a proposed statement to the evidence it needs. It is not a quality ranking of the five issuers. The steps are not automatic: a table can support a reported quantity without establishing its underlying sourcing attributes, while a well-documented installation may still lack the consumption record needed for a share.
1. Initiative statement. Identify what the company says was installed, planned or commissioned and where. Preserve whether it is a plan or completed activity. Do not convert capacity into electricity consumed without a supported production, export and consumption relationship for the relevant interval. A narrative should remain an attributed narrative.
2. Reported quantity. Record the actual carrier and category, original unit, reporting period, entity or site boundary and source edition. Electricity, fuel and purchased heat can all be measured in energy units while describing different activities. Compatible units make arithmetic possible; they do not make every category interchangeable.
3. Calculated share. Identify both quantities and explain why the numerator belongs inside the denominator. Keep the same period, population and measurement basis. State which categories are included and label the result as derived. A ratio can be arithmetically correct yet answer a broader or narrower question than the headline suggests.
4. Historical comparison. Keep the source edition beside the reporting period. An older observation may be presented differently in a later report. Preserve the original and the revised version together with any explanation actually supplied. A revision in published history is not, by itself, an operational improvement or deterioration.
5. Sourcing statement. Define the specific claim and the evidence needed for it. A consumption table alone does not demonstrate entitlement to renewable attributes or the validity of an instrument. Route that question to the applicable contractual and accounting review rather than treating a source-linked percentage as certification.
Original test: the same records, two different shares
All figures and records in this test are fictional. Site Juniper has one complete annual schedule containing 60 MWh of electricity labelled renewable, 40 MWh labelled non-renewable electricity, and 120 MWh of separately supplied heat labelled renewable. Assume the three quantities are non-overlapping, cover the same site and year, and exhaust the schedule’s energy categories. The labels are accepted only as descriptions in the invented schedule, not independently verified attributes.
For the statement “renewable electricity as a share of electricity”, the calculation is 60 divided by (60 + 40), giving 60%. The heat quantity stays outside both sides because the question concerns electricity. Its renewable label does not change its carrier. All three records remain visible even though only two answer this particular question.
For the different statement “renewable energy as a share of the energy in this schedule”, the calculation is (60 + 120) divided by (60 + 40 + 120), giving 81.82% after final rounding. Under the stated assumptions, that is a valid descriptive share of the schedule’s broader energy categories. It is not an 81.82% renewable-electricity share.
Neither result establishes emissions, procurement eligibility or physical supply tracing. The exercise isolates a wording error: retaining a correct broad-energy numerator and denominator while changing the headline to electricity. A reviewer can detect it by writing the carrier definition beside each input, without disputing any of the invented quantities.
Now remove the heat quantity while leaving its category named. The electricity share can still be reproduced from its complete two-category schedule, but the whole-energy share becomes unresolved. Do not set the missing heat quantity to zero, or reuse the earlier whole-energy percentage as though the missing record had no effect. The permitted conclusion depends on the specific question and available coverage.
Preserve enough context for the next reader
Keep a short statement record containing the exact proposed wording, source passages, input identities, calculation and remaining limitation. If a reader changes “electricity” to “energy”, expands a site claim to the whole group or drops the reporting dates, review the evidence again. Editing the wording can change the claim even when every displayed number remains unchanged.
For a revised historical value, record which edition is used and whether the source explains the revision. Leave an unexplained difference unresolved. A broad table note should not be expanded into a precise causal account. Keep generated electricity, sold electricity, installed capacity and consumed electricity distinguishable unless the relevant relationship is actually supported.
Use the purchased renewable-electricity evidence guide for the separate operational task of connecting consumption, contracts, attributes and claim scope. This study stops at what the selected public disclosures and explicitly stated arithmetic support. It does not replace that evidence review or establish a location-based or market-based emissions result.
Sources checked 15 October 2026. eClerx: printed/PDF 23.
KRBL: printed/PDF 32, energy categories.
City Union Bank: PDF 18 and 46, both unnumbered.
Andhra Paper: 2023–2024 printed/PDF 32; 2024–2025 printed/PDF 29.
GIPCL: 2024–2025 PDF 99, printed 97; 2025–2026 PDF 97, printed 95.
The issuer reports retain their own rights and qualifications. Selected facts are attributed without reproducing source assets or third-party assurance material. The evidence ladder, fictional test and artwork are original Nitium material. No issuer endorsement, client relationship, underlying measurement verification or independent assurance is claimed.
Comments