We spoke with Pierre Tabet, Founder and CEO of Voltview, about how the company began, the growing role of smart data schemes like Perseus, and Voltview’s contribution as part of the Perseus technical advisory group. We also explored how banks, eager for more accurate data to strengthen their ESG reporting, are likely to see Perseus as a critical enabler.

Ross: How did Voltview begin? 

Pierre: So, I started Voltview just over two years ago. I’d always been interested in the energy sector, having previously worked as a back-end engineer for an energy management company. When I moved back to the UK, I knew I wanted to stay in that field.

At the time, I began speaking to business owners who were unknowingly in the middle of the energy crisis. Many were still on fixed contracts, but when their renewals came up, their bills more than doubled. Hospitality businesses were hit especially hard because of their high energy consumption. For example, one fish and chip shop I spoke with saw annual bills jump from around £10,000 to £35,000. That kind of increase can threaten the viability of a business.

We saw huge pressure on SMEs, and I realised that’s where Voltview should focus. Early on, I had conversations with Smart DCC, who pointed me towards a government grant for smart tariff comparison in the non-domestic sector. Now, we just missed out on getting that grant, but we were still interested in the space. And from there we pivoted slightly.

Rather than just offering comparisons, we wanted to combine switching with retrofits, so businesses could save on tariffs and reduce consumption. Think of it like Booking.com: when you book a flight, they also suggest hotels, car hire, or insurance. But in energy switching, businesses never get offered solutions like heat pumps, EVs, or electrification measures, even though the data used for switching could easily support those recommendations. With reforms like market-wide half-hourly settlement, that data is more valuable than ever. It felt wasteful for switching to end with just a new tariff, when it could instead trigger bigger energy and cost-saving changes.

Ross: This makes a lot of sense to me. Especially now, what with rising energy costs. It reminds me of Open banking and how it opened up consumer choice. How do you ensure the data accuracy and transparency when you’ve got these tariff comparisons? 

Pierre: Open banking is a great comparison as it allows you to share financial data with authorised third parties, who then provide tailored services. As I’m sure you know, the government now wants to replicate that model in energy, having passed the Data Use and Access Act. 

This is especially relevant in the commercial sector- currently about 80% of UK commercial buildings aren’t compliant with the EPC B rating required by 2030. Non-compliance could mean fines. To address this, businesses need access not just to energy data but also building data, credit scores, financial history, everything required to prioritise and fund retrofits.

What’s really cool now is, a lot of the administrative work which took up a lot of energy consultants’ time, can now be done with AI, so that they’re only working on sort of the high value work.

Ross: That’s really interesting. How exactly can EPC data be linked to financial impact? Is there a link to green mortgages here, in a similar vein to SME emissions data being linked to green finance with Perseus? 

Pierre: Absolutely. Perseus is a great example and we’ve been lucky to contribute on the technical side. It provides a trusted way to share Scope 2 emissions data with banks, who in turn reward businesses with lower interest rates.

The bigger picture here is increasing electrification. In the UK, only about a quarter of energy use is electricity, compared to roughly half in Norway. To close that gap, we need incentives  like cheaper capital for retrofits, particularly for SMEs. Many owners are busy running their businesses, so making retrofits easy is critical to driving uptake.

Ross: And so you’ve got EPC data, half-hourly meter data, and financial data – how hard is it to bring all that together on one platform?

Pierre: It is challenging. Only about 60% of UK business meters are smart compared with roughly 95%+ in some European countries, so many firms are effectively flying blind. The first hurdle is getting half-hourly data; the second is aligning it with building and financial data. We start with specific use cases and design the simplest possible customer journey around them.

Ross: Very cool. And as you mentioned, the Data Use and Access Act should hopefully accelerate this work and smart data schemes like Perseus. I also saw on your website that your clients save 17% on energy bills. Can you share an example of this?

Pierre: Sure. Savings usually come from two areas: matching clients with tariffs that suit their load profiles, and cutting waste. One example was a restaurant kitchen where the ventilation system was switching on at night. The owners had no idea until we flagged it with half-hourly data alerts. Fixing that single issue accounted for about a third of their total savings. So really the savings are already in the data- you just need the right tools to uncover them.

Ross: Let’s dig into Perseus a bit more. How have you found being involved in its development?

Pierre: It’s been a great experience. We’re part of the technical advisory group, which has focused on making Perseus trustworthy, scalable, and incredibly easy for users. Ultimately, it’ll be as simple as ticking one box. In December, when Perseus trialled the process manually, it gave us confidence in how it can work at scale. We’re now about six months away from real-world rollout, and we’re excited to integrate it into our ecosystem.

Ross: And what would that integration look like for Voltview?

Pierre: It might not sit directly on our platform. We may simply guide clients to enable it through their accounting software. The point is that all our customers gain access to cheaper capital for retrofits, regardless of where they switch it on.

Ross: Do you think financial institutions are ready to adopt Perseus and scale up green finance for SMEs?

Pierre: Increasingly yes, the real bottleneck is data quality not intent. Almost half of FTSE 100 companies have had to restate climate metrics every year, mostly due to emissions in their suppliers. Banks and lenders want more reliable data to strengthen their own ESG reporting and sustainability-linked products. Perseus helps by providing verifiable upstream data so there is less estimation, fewer restatements and more confidence to deploy capital.

Ross: Great. To wrap up, what’s next for Voltview?

Pierre: We are nearing the end of the Smart Data Challenge funded by the Department for Business and Trade. The challenge has been to incorporate more cross-sector data into our platform. Our next step is to launch use cases that almost any SME can tap into by sharing their energy, building and financial data. We will announce these later this October as we complete the Smart Data Challenge.

Stepping away from silos also encapsulates our approach to data – connecting not collecting. And, in the context of the built environment, a more joined up, accessible approach to data is crucial to bridge the burgeoning €2.75 trillion investment gap needed to decarbonise Europe’s buildings through renovation.

As many as 215 million buildings within Europe will require some level of renovation before 2050. It’s therefore evident that the longevity of existing assets through retrofitting is critical if we’re to remain within the boundaries of the Paris Agreement. This sentiment was shared by the advisory group, who dug deeper into our two use cases:

Whole life-cycle carbon

One approach when looking to reduce emissions in the built environment is to consider the whole life-cycle carbon of a building. This goes beyond Scope 1 & 2 emissions and into examining the embodied carbon of a building. These Scope 3 emissions relate to materials used in construction as well as the emissions relating to the end-of-life process or demolition. The latter contributes to embodied carbon emissions when the materials are broken down or discarded.

One member of the advisory group went further, discussing the importance of the more nascent Scope 4 emissions, or ‘avoided emissions’. The WBCSD defines these as the ‘positive impact on society when comparing the GHG impact of a solution to an alternative reference scenario where the solution would not be used’. Avoided emissions could therefore provide a useful way of framing the emissions savings resulting from retrofit efforts.

Positive developments

Promising updates have been seen from standards like PAS 2080, which recognises the importance of decarbonising buildings. The standard recently broadened its scope beyond infrastructure to the built environment, with an emphasis on whole life-cycle carbon.

There have also been some important developments from RICs (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors). After recognising the lack of good-quality data and lack of transparency around data sources, RICs have designed a Built Environment Carbon Database. The database allows data to be reported, stored and used to inform future carbon assessments and policy.

Accessing data for impact investing decisions

Accessing good-quality data represented a significant headache for one member of our advisory group, who noted the abundance of regional level data but lack of granular asset-level data. The benefits of asset-level data for impact investors could be far reaching, allowing investors to verify the performance of an asset and reduce energy consumption. It could also ensure the investors is aligned with regulations or ESG reporting standards. What’s more, this level of transparency could also generate further financial benefits by building trust among stakeholders.

Open Net Zero

The underlying need for better access to reliable data is also why the latter half of our advisory group meeting involved members using our Open Net Zero (ONZ) service. We believe the ONZ tool can assist investors in accessing relevant data for mobilising impact investments related to the built environment.

The advisory group provided live feedback on the tool, suggesting improvements such as refining search options, including data update timestamps, and providing user feedback functions to help others find relevant datasets.

We now extend an invitation to those with experience in the built environment sector to use our Open Net Zero service and provide feedback on how we can enhance it. Please share your feedback using this sheet. If you’d like to contact us about our impact investing data research or Open Net Zero, please reach out via opennetzero@ib1.org 

Scope

The starting point for the programme is electricity. 

1. Users

Users are defined as:

A. Primary Users:

1. Banks
2. SMEs
3. Asset managers
4. Third parties (e.g. accountants, accountancy software firms, carbon accountants, auditors, consultants and advisors)

B. Data Providers:

5. Primary data providers (e.g. energy companies, utilities, smart meter providers, national grid, asset managers)

C. Stakeholders

6. Government and regulators (DESNeZ, Ofgem)
7. Standards bodies (e.g. PCAF, ISSB) 
8. Reporting bodies and users of outputs (e.g. CDP, LSEG, Bloomberg) 
9. Universities 

The ‘decision makers’ will vary across organisations, however, in this programme, it could be a regulator or code body or a voluntary code adopted by industry through the Advisory and Steering Groups. Summaries of the business case for each user are included in the FAQ https://ib1.org/perseus-faq/

2. Data needs 

The task is to identify which primary data links to material impact for each user. We also wish to gather a list of ‘all the data needs’ so they can be added to the long-term roadmap.

For electricity we want to know, for each user, what specific data is needed, and at what level of resolution. For example, 

1. Spend
2. kWh (total consumption and total generation)
3. kgCO2e (including methodology, supplier, time resolution) 
4. Time resolution (e.g. annual, quarterly, monthly, 30-minute, bill-based, smart meter) and aligned with reporting needs vs impact incentives and recommendations
5. Source
   1. Data (e.g. retailer, landlord, smart meter, aggregator, third party)
   2. Supply (reserve capacity, power factor, national grid, tariffs, renewable energy)
      1. Generation/contract information on the supply (PPAs, REGOs, generation mix)
6. Asset resolution (e.g. company, primary asset, sublet)

3. Reporting needs 

The task is to identify what the reporting needs are for each user, related to electricity. For example,

1. Which reporting framework is being used? (e.g. PCAF, TCFD, ESOS)
2. Which emission reporting models/methodologies are being used? (e.g. GHG protocol)
3. What emissions factors/algorithms are being used (e.g. national grid, supplier-source, Defra, DESNeZ, Ofgem)
4. What time resolution and formats are required for reporting? 

4. Impact and decision-making needs

The task is to identify ‘so what’. Specifically:

1. What impact or influence does assurable electricity data make to the risk profile of reporting on lending (Scope3 cat 15)?
2. What impact or influence does continuous access to this data have on the risk profile of lending and other financial products and incentives (e.g. tax incentives)? 
3. What impact or influence does access to assurable data have on reporting and standards? (e.g. PCAF, TCFD, ISSB)  
4. What impact or influence does access to assurable data have on regulation and policy? (e.g. DESNeZ)  
5. What impact or influence does access to assurable data have on users of reporting data? (e.g. CDP, LSEG)  
6. And, combined, what is the impact of these and/or influences on SMEs? 

Collective agreement on our assessment and direction

The core questions for this group are around impact and influence: 

1. Does it help unlock access to net zero finance for SMEs? (to help SMEs decarbonise; change behaviour; increase resilience)
2. Does it reduce risks for users?
3. Does it bring efficiency to users?
4. Does it help users to identify opportunities for energy efficiency?

For each of these questions, we wish to address

1. If not, why not? 
2. If so, why and at what scale?
3. What are blockers, incentives, and opportunities (e.g. benchmarking)?

Outputs

Outputs from this AG1 are to:

1. Summarise the needs of users.
2. Highlight the value cases.
3. Recommend and agree a cohesive (whole-of-market) approach for electricity.

These outputs will be used as direction for, and inputs into the other AGs, to enable the other AGs (technical, legal, communications, policy) to unpack what they need to do and prioritise the questions they need to address. The outputs of the combined AGs will be used as the basis for implementation in the demonstrator. 

Process

The process for each of these questions will be:

1. User categorisation and ecosystem map
2. User questionnaire on data needs 
3. User questionnaire on reporting needs
4. User questionnaire on impact
5. Interim synthesis report circulated
6. Discussion at AG meeting
7. Iteration on synthesis report 
8. Discussion at AG meeting
9. Snagging/iteration on synthesis report 
10. Formal sign off  

Changes and comments from v2023-05 AG1 meeting

• Regarding kgCO2e – it is important to discuss where and how the calculation takes place, i.e. pre, in, or post-platform, and ensure the methodology is open-source and robust. Need to differentiate between standard location-based, market-based and time-of-use carbon information.
• It is essential for banks to lean in and say what their compliance needs are to ensure reporting frameworks are the way in which bodies and regulators are collecting information on emissions are collecting the right information
• Formatting changes (clearer headings, adding specifics) 
• Adding in universities as a stakeholder to engage with 
• Note the importance of separating total energy consumption and total energy generation as it cannot always be used as a proxy.
• having the correct metrics in there and for the right time periods (e.g. annual kWh, year-on-year change) allows for the removal of manual reporting
• net zero finance is used to deliver value to SMEs through the mechanisms of decarbonisation, behaviour change, increase resilience

Background  

Assurable supply chain data is fundamental to fighting greenwashing

As $trillions flow to combat Net Zero, the future of green investment faces some tough challenges. These include alignment around common reporting standards, definitions of ‘green taxonomies’ and mandatory reporting frameworks. All of these processes include the assessment of ‘footprints’ of real economy businesses (e.g. Scopes 1, 2 and 3 – and soon Scope 4 in ‘avoided emissions’). 

The EU is also regulating against greenwashing. The Green Claims Directive would oblige Member States to enact legislation that ensures that traders can and should substantiate their “explicit environmental claims”.  This means the financial economy needs to be able to trust the environmental data from the real economy. 

The primary data feeding into these footprints are consumption data such as energy, materials, transport and goods. The level of rigour that we expect from our financial reporting systems is, however, not yet in place for non-financial data. 

We need to put in place the ‘rails’ to enable assurable data flow to connect from the real economy to the financial sector in a highly scalable, repeatable, and extensible manner.  To help design and implement these rails, we are picking a single starting point, electricity, as this is foundational to all GHG reporting, applies to every business and, arguably, is ‘the most digital’. 

The rails that we need to put in place don’t require the invention of new standards. To address the market needs we can build on existing standards and processes. These include:

• Impact: Reporting, and the data requirements related to impact;
• Technical: the technical and operational mechanisms and processes for sharing Smart Data;
• Legal: the legal basis, liability frameworks and consent processes for sharing Smart Data;
• Communication: the process for aligning on language that enables clear engagement; 
• Governance: the policy and regulatory frameworks that can support and steer controls for the market of Smart Data;

Together, these form the basis of developing trust in the market, laying the foundations to both automate GHG reporting and ensure that it can be assured. 

Endorsements

Gavin Starks (Icebreaker One – AG1 co-chair)
Duncan Oswald (Sage – AG1 co-chair)
Nick Carmont Zaragoza (Connect Earth)
Dr Yildiz Tugba KARA (Society 5.0 Institute)
Leon Jayasinghe (Tide)
Andrew Griffiths (Planet Mark)
Lee Freeman (Auditel)
Andrew Smithson (Paragon Banking Group)
Paul Clark (Smart DCC)  
Jaya Chakrabarti (tiscreport.org, projectvana.org)
Josh Couchman (Connect Earth)
Yentl Staelens (Connect Earth)
James Armstrong (Ciendos)
David Beer (Cogo)
Nika Safonova (Cogo)
Rebecca Harding (Rebeccanomics)
Hannah Gilbert (British Business Bank)
Ian Sutherland (Tide)
Peter Allen (Surple)
Jonathan Ward (Cogo)
Conrad Ford (Allica Bank)
Jarmo Eskelinen (University of Edinburgh)
Callum Campbell (Connect Earth)
Matt Bullivant (OakNorth Bank)
Ben Cotton (Dais Partnership LLP)

Pending endorsement

(from other AG1 members, subject to internal approvals):
Cerys Leff (Natwest)Tracie Callaghan (Natwest)
Dr. Kesavan Gopalan (St. James’s Place)
Sean Hanafin (Climate Bonds Initiative)
Julia Langley (Independent)

Members included data analysts, specialised data providers, framework developers, assurers, impact investors, research & academia and more. The goal of the advisory group was to produce a long list of use cases centred around the following problem statement:

How to improve the data sharing and infrastructure of company impact data (scopes 1-3), starting with water and energy use, to increase trust and data validation, including by ratings agencies. 

Water and Energy 

With our problem statement focusing on water and energy use, it was important to be aware that this is an area of disclosure that lags far behind disclosures on GHG emissions. What’s more, finding the clear link between water data in the real economy and linking it back to the financial economy represents a significant challenge. One member of the AG suggested this link could be found by focusing on water pressure, which acts as one key indicator of how water can be linked back to company performance. 

Discovering the real financial incentive for organisations to voluntarily disclose this data remains firmly at the centre of the issue. And, while some regulatory requirements exist for reporting water data, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) or initiatives such as the CDP Water Program, it seems finding the carrot rather than the stick would yield a more satisfying solution. Disclosing this data ultimately comes down to an organisation choosing to be more transparent, demonstrating their commitment to more sustainable practices and therefore building trust with stakeholders and customers. 

Scope 3 emissions

As the meeting progressed, the advisory group quickly began to refine its focus, looking to Scope 3 emissions. This is a challenging area, not least because Scope 3 emission disclosures are voluntary and yet are said to account for around 90% of the average company’s emissions, according to the GHG protocol. 

Dissecting further, Scope 3 emissions can be separated into upstream and downstream sources, with one AG member noting that upstream sources (emissions stemming from the production of a business’s products or services) may hold more leverage whereas downstream sources (emissions stemming from the use and disposal of these) are more sensitive and fragmented. 

More specifically, the methods of acquiring data from downstream sources can be done by looking at spend data, supplier surveys and product life-cycle assessment data, though each method has its own respective drawbacks. ‘Banks for example, use spend based analysis to work out energy use of customers which isn’t a great method as it has a 10% error rate’, noted one member of the AG. 

Voluntary disclosures

While the voluntary nature of Scope 3 disclosures is set to change, following an announcement from the ISSB in December 2022, those companies already voluntarily disclosing their Scope 3 emissions often appear to have a bigger impact on the planet than those that don’t report on their Scope 3. This, of course, is not an accurate representation of what is really happening. 

Therefore, alongside a push to improve the transparency and accuracy of ESG disclosures there also needs to be a shift in attitude or reframing of how we view companies Scope 3 emissions. Organisations should be incentivised to disclose their Scope 3 emissions and those that demonstrate transparent and accurate environmental reporting should be rewarded when they do so.

This line of thinking from the Advisory Group led to the inception of one potential use case on how to: increase the voluntary sharing of data – celebrating people who are doing it well by creating strong impact benefits, and making it interoperable to share with stakeholders and competitors. 

Disclosure formats

One way of increasing the transparency and accuracy of disclosures is by moving away from reports in PDF format, adopting alternatives such as CSV or XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language) with countries like Switzerland now pushing for the use of the latter. 

Unlike PDF, which isn’t machine readable, making it difficult to compare companies at scale, XBRL is used to deliver human-readable financial statements in a machine-readable, structured data format, allowing for the comparative analysis that formats like PDF do not. 

However, despite XBRL having the potential to report certain financial aspects of ESG, ESG disclosures also cover a range of non-financial topics. And, considering the continually evolving nature of ESG reporting, XBRL simply doesn’t go far enough to capture the broad nature of ESG disclosures.

Looking ahead 

We now look ahead to our next Impact Investing advisory group meeting on June 27. It’s here that we will prioritise two use cases, focusing on how to improve the data sharing and infrastructure of company impact data (scopes 1 – 3), to increase trust and data validation, thus enabling better impact investment decisions. 

We at Icebreaker One are proud to be a partner of FoSDA, and it’s a community whose goals are very closely aligned with our own. In this blog post, we’ll be looking at a few highlights from FoSDA’s initial recommendations to the financial community, addressed to both regulators and financial market participants. There are 3 primary themes: 1) Defining and creating a path to filling ESG data gaps and data holes, 2) mapping data to sustainability taxonomies and 3) the need for ESG data talent development globally. At Icebreaker One, our focus is on the data and data infrastructure requirements that will underpin the successful transition to green finance and a green economy, and so we will look at FoSDA’s recommendations through this lens.  

What are data holes and data gaps?

As an industry, we’re perhaps more familiar with the concept of data gaps – missing information related to a specific data point that has already been collected. An example might be data on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – it’s well-known and well-defined, there are plenty of standards out there, and the main challenge is that not enough firms are reporting it. Data holes, on the other hand, are potentially a much larger issue: entire datasets that are not collected at all, such as data on biodiversity risks.  FoSDA’s focus is on supporting regulators and the industry in identifying data holes and minimising data gaps, so that investors and regulators are able to have a better view of both specific climate risks as well as the overall systemic risks and challenges posed. 

Mapping and addressing data holes

The first step towards solving the problem of data holes is to identify where these holes exist. FoSDA has identified biodiversity data as a key initial area of focus, as nature-related and biodiversity issues are a new frontier in understanding climate and environmental risk. Regulators, data providers and investors should therefore come together and collaborate in determining the data sets that are needed to understand and address these risks. Where we collectively identify and map these holes, we then need to develop a plan of action to fill them. This can take the form of policy interventions – such as mandatory reporting requirements, or by interventions to open up public and private sector sources of such data – or through novel means of sourcing the data, such as geospatial data. 

Move away from binary reporting

By binary reporting, we mean reporting that requires a company to disclose whether or not it has certain policies in place. This is overly simplistic and does not provide any usable information on the robustness or actual implementation and outcomes of such policies. FoSDA therefore recommends a transition towards more standardised, metrics-based reporting. This could be implemented via the enhancement of existing reporting standards (such as the “Gang of Five”, comprising SASB, GRI, CDP, IIRC and CDSB), with financial institutions and data vendors, as consumers of this data, helping to determine the data points and level of granularity required.  

Increase focus on forward-looking data

It’s a well-known issue that ESG data – particularly environmental data – is near-useless if it is purely backwards-looking. That’s why we are huge supporters of the growing recognition of the role played by scenario analysis – a forward-looking tool for assessing climate impacts and risks – on the part of central banks, regulators and standards setters such as the Taskforce for Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).  However, at Icebreaker One we also know that these types of forward-looking assessments also require common data inputs and base assumptions. Addressing this will also require multilateral cooperation and collaboration.

Standardise corporate ESG reporting

To be truly usable as means of internalising climate risk and ESG within the financial system, enabling the transition to a green and sustainable financial system and economy, we need ESG data standards and metrics that are internationally consistent, well-defined and produce meaningful, objectively comparable data outputs. 

As governments and regulators increasingly move towards mandating ESG disclosures and reporting, these will ultimately become costly but futile exercises for companies, unless they’re accompanied by clear standards. Existing standards setters will play a key role – but will require input from regulators and market participants globally as well.  

Sustainability taxonomies need to be mapped to underlying data

There are a number of initiatives across jurisdictions globally to develop taxonomies that define what is and is not “green”. These aim at helping financial institutions to better classify their products, investors to better understand the green credentials of their investments, and regulators to understand the relative exposures of the financial institutions that they oversee. In order to make the best use of taxonomy frameworks, they need to be mapped to the underlying data sets that enable taxonomy determinations to be made. Regulators therefore need to consider these data sets when developing their taxonomies.

Move away from singular dataset focus

Combining data sets from multiple sources, and starting to explore the potential for use of “alternative” data sources such as geospatial data, can provide powerful new mechanisms for understanding the exposures and risks of companies. There’s a need for governments, regulators and investors to all contribute towards understanding what these integrated data sets could look like and offer, and in creating the environments that will enable them. 

The need for ESG data talent development globally

As we’ve seen across these recommendations, we are going to need new skills and talent to drive ESG data forward and into the mainstream. Governments and regulators can play a role in helping to develop and nurture this talent, as well as in creating an environment conducive to innovation and testing of new ideas. 

Putting it all together

At Icebreaker One, our work with our insurance and financial partner network on initiatives such as SERI (the Standard for Environment Risk and Insurance) has highlighted many practical examples of the ways in which data gaps and holes are holding the industry back from developing the net-zero enabling financial products and services that are needed for the transition to a green economy. We’ve seen the consequences of these gaps in action, and their impacts. 

Even where data is available, it’s not always easy to find, or to access. We believe that the accessibility of data for decision-making is absolutely critical in the transition towards a green economy and a net-zero, sustainable future. Our vision is that a robust data infrastructure can address these challenges, and our goal is to work with our constellation of partners to develop this. 

Photo by USGS on Unsplash