Check retail energy coverage beyond the stores currently trading

Three shops appear on the current trading list, but six premises belong in the approved electricity return. A collection dashboard can show every store as responsive while leaving closed, unopened and temporarily inactive locations outside the request. Reconcile the premises population before treating the replies as complete.

This fictional case helps retail estate, project and finance teams distinguish missing premises, missing months and duplicate submissions. It follows a single quarter through three supported totals, ending with a late bill. The practical output is an electricity schedule whose coverage another reviewer can reproduce.

Keep the approved population separate from trading status

Register R6 includes premises A–F throughout 1 April to 30 June 2026. The authorised reporting owner has already approved their inclusion for that whole quarter. Each has one dedicated electricity supply, EA–EF. No operator transfer, acquisition or boundary change occurs. This exercise accepts that decision rather than making a new control assessment.

A and B trade throughout. C is in fit-out during April and opens on 1 May. D trades during April, then closes to customers while the retailer retains the premises through June. E remains in fit-out throughout. F is temporarily inactive throughout, with security and other retained loads. Only A, B and C trade at quarter end.

The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard’s completeness principle addresses sources and activities inside the chosen inventory boundary and explanations for exclusions. In this example, today’s trading list cannot override the supplied boundary.

Create 18 expected supply-month positions: six supplies multiplied by three months. Each position needs a premises ID, supply ID, consumption month, operating status, evidence reference and responsible person. All stated quantities below represent supported, non-overlapping consumption in this invented case. One month begins as missing, with no estimate or zero substituted.

Original fictional coverage plan. All six premises remain within the supplied electricity boundary. The 18 expected positions do not establish that every consumption quantity has been received.

Compare the first return with the expected months

A submits April 12,000, May 11,000 and June 10,000 kWh, giving 33,000 kWh. B submits 8,000, 9,000 and 10,000 kWh respectively, giving 27,000 kWh. C’s store manager submits May 4,000 and June 5,000 kWh, giving 9,000 kWh. Its April fit-out record is absent.

The first extract totals 33,000 + 27,000 + 9,000 = 69,000 kWh. All three current stores have replied, yet their records support only eight of the 18 expected supply-months. C’s response covers two months, not the full quarter. A store-level reply flag hides that distinction.

Check R6 against the utility-account list, fit-out project records and temporary-closure log. These identify D, E and F as omitted from the original request. Confirm the supply-to-premises relationship with the appropriate custodian. An unfamiliar supplier account name alone is insufficient grounds either to exclude a record or create another premises.

Bring back the omitted premises and resolve duplicate evidence

D’s facilities custodian supplies April 6,000, May 1,000 and June 1,000 kWh: 8,000 kWh altogether. Its two closed months still contain electricity consumption. The shop’s closing announcement explains its trading status; R6 and the source records establish why the retained premises remain in this schedule.

E’s project team supplies April 2,000, May 3,000 and June 4,000 kWh: 9,000 kWh. F’s custodian supplies 300, 300 and 400 kWh: 1,000 kWh. Both premises have supported electricity quantities despite having no sales. Their records need no turnover-based estimate.

Finance separately sends a project-cost schedule containing E’s same three electricity quantities, also 9,000 kWh. It names bills EE04, EE05 and EE06, matching the project team’s references, supply and consumption months. The project owner confirms that these are second representations of the same quantities. Preserve both submissions while counting each underlying month once.

Summing every submission would give 69,000 + 8,000 + 9,000 + 1,000 + 9,000 = 96,000 kWh. Removing E’s duplicated 9,000 leaves 87,000 kWh across 17 distinct supply-months. Three extra finance rows do not create three extra covered months. Matching quantities alone would not prove duplication; the source identities and confirmed relationship do.

Keep the last month open until its source arrives

C’s April position remains unresolved. Assign its request to the fit-out project owner and label 87,000 kWh as the supported subtotal. It is not yet the complete quarter for these six supplies. No sales, no response or a closed project account can establish zero electricity use.

On 11 July, the project owner supplies EC04. The bill explicitly covers 1–30 April and records 2,000 kWh. The reviewer confirms that this quantity was absent from all earlier submissions. Record July as the receipt date and April as the consumption month. The late arrival does not make it July electricity.

The revised schedule contains 87,000 + 2,000 = 89,000 kWh across all 18 expected positions. The premises check is A 33,000 + B 27,000 + C 11,000 + D 8,000 + E 9,000 + F 1,000 = 89,000 kWh. Preserve the initial extract, the incomplete 87,000 version and the EC04-supported revision.

If the new document covered several months, repeated an earlier quantity or showed only a financial charge, this conclusion would need further work. Request consumption evidence or route a supported estimation proposal to the method owner. Do not insert 2,000 merely to close the schedule. If a report has already been issued, its owner must determine the correction process.

Give the reviewer a coverage test they can repeat

Hand over R6, the 18-position schedule, the original submissions, the EE duplicate links and EC04. Ask the reviewer to retrieve D’s closed months, F’s inactive months and C’s late April record. Filtering the display to current trading stores must not alter the underlying approved population or erase the full-quarter calculation.

The 18 completed positions demonstrate coverage of six named electricity supplies. They do not establish the percentage of the retailer’s total energy covered. A real review must investigate other premises, fuels, additional supplies, landlord-provided cooling or heat, and unresolved reporting treatment before making a wider completeness statement.

The change from 69,000 to 89,000 kWh corrects collection coverage for the same quarter. It does not show worsening efficiency. Keep any trading-only management analysis separately labelled and reconcile it to the full schedule, so its smaller population cannot silently replace the reporting return.

For help organising a retail evidence handover, contact Nitium Advisory with a non-confidential description of the premises, available records and outstanding questions.

Source and limits

GHG Protocol Corporate Standard, revised edition, chapter 1, printed page 7: completeness principle.

Source checked 14 October 2026. The premises, records, dates and quantities are fictional. This original preparation example supplies no real control assessment, emission factor, emissions result, independent assurance or regulatory-compliance conclusion.