Three mandates, one common demand
The specifics differ by jurisdiction, but the direction is identical: Scope 2 emissions are now a disclosed number, and the data behind it has to hold up. That shifts solar from a “nice sustainability story” to an input in a regulated filing.
| Mandate | Where | What it asks of Scope 2 data |
|---|---|---|
| BRSR | India — top listed companies | Report energy and emissions intensity; Scope 2 disclosure with growing scrutiny of the underlying data. |
| CSRD | EU — large companies & many non-EU firms trading there | Report Scope 1–2 (and material Scope 3) with mandatory assurance — the number must be auditable. |
| SB 253 | California — large companies doing business there | Report Scope 1–2 with third-party assurance phasing in — an “assurance gap” for un-auditable data. |
What this means for solar owners
If your company reports under any of these — or supplies a customer who does — the emissions you avoid with on-site solar are part of the story you disclose. Under a market-based method, a lower Scope 2 number backed by your own generation is a legitimate, defensible claim. But “backed by” now means auditable: the assurance provider will want the measured MWh, not a screenshot of an inverter app.
That is the quiet requirement running through all three regimes. They don’t name a monitoring product; they set a standard of evidence. Meeting it is a data problem — solved before the reporting period, not during the audit.
Where BijliBachao fits — the evidence, not the filing
Solar Performance Cloud (SPC) produces the per-MWh, per-string, independent generation record that these mandates increasingly require behind a market-based Scope 2 claim — across every major inverter brand, aligned to IEC 61724-1 monitoring practice.
The boundary is deliberate and consistent: SPC is the measurement/source layer. It does not file BRSR, CSRD or SB 253 reports, calculate your consolidated footprint, or replace your assurance provider. It gives all of them a generation number that stands up.
