Hourly matching is not enough when grids are congested.
DeliveryTag gives your auditors proof that the clean MWh you claim was deliverable to your node — using EnergyTag-compatible certificates plus grid physics, dispatch data, and hardware-signed telemetry.
For hyperscalers · large-load data centers · RFNBO hydrogen producers · CSRD / Scope 2 assurance-exposed corporates
01 · The problem
The question your auditor will ask next.
Annual renewable-energy certificates answered "how much." Hourly matching under the EnergyTag standard answers "when." Neither answers the question assurance teams are now being trained to ask: "could that clean MWh physically have reached your node in that hour?"
On congested grids, the honest answer is often no. EnergyTag's US policy team testified before Colorado's legislature that "100% annually matched power, using only solar, can equate to as low as 40% hourly matching across the year" — and hourly matching itself says nothing about whether the corridor between the generator and your campus had capacity left in that hour.
GHG Protocol Scope 2 revision (consultation), IRA §45V (hourly from 2028), and EU RED III RFNBO rules already point the same direction: time and place. The direction is favorable; formal acceptance of any single evidencing approach is not yet secured. Positioning ahead of it is the opportunity.
02 · The layer
One evidence layer on top of what you already buy. Not a new registry, not a new certificate market.
DeliveryTag attaches nodal attribution and deliverability evidence to an EnergyTag Granular Certificate you already hold. EnergyTag covers time. DeliveryTag adds place. Your PPAs, registries, and GC chain stay exactly where they are.
Evidence input 1
Corridor physics
A PTDF-based corridor-headroom check verifies the network between the generator and your node could accommodate the attributed transfer in that hour — capped at your metered consumption. Grid physics, not wishful accounting.
Evidence input 2
Dispatch records
Settlement and dispatch data from the market operator confirms the generator actually ran and the corridor state is taken from published grid data — not from anyone's marketing department.
Evidence input 3
Hardware-signed telemetry
Sealed sensor units at participating sites sign their measurements cryptographically, so the injection and consumption data underlying each certificate is tamper-evident from the meter onward.
To be precise about the claim: DeliveryTag does not track individual electrons — nobody can. It proves deliverability: that the certified energy was produced, that the network could carry it to your node in that hour, and that the evidence chain for both is tamper-evident and independently checkable. The ledger anchoring, sensors, and signatures are proof infrastructure. The product is audit defensibility.
03 · The deliverable
What lands on your auditor's desk.
For every claimed node-hour: the EnergyTag GC, the nodal attribution, the corridor-headroom evidence, the dispatch cross-reference, and the signed telemetry — packaged so an ISAE 3000-qualified assurance practitioner can verify it without privileged access.
| Framework | Status | Why it matters to you |
|---|---|---|
| GHG Protocol Scope 2 revision | In consultation | Draft direction adds temporal + deliverability quality criteria to market-based claims. Final standard expected late 2027. |
| IRA §45V clean hydrogen | Binding | Three pillars — incrementality, hourly matching (from 2028), deliverability. The deliverability pillar is exactly what DeliveryTag evidences. |
| EU RED III (RFNBO hydrogen) | In force | Additionality, temporal correlation, and geographic correlation for electrolyser power. |
| CSRD + California SB 253/261 | Staged 2026–29 | Mandatory, assured Scope 2 disclosure. Assured claims need evidence that survives assurance. |
Honest status note: regulatory direction is increasingly favorable to temporal and geographic deliverability, but no framework has formally accepted DeliveryTag evidence yet. Framework-by-framework status is maintained publicly at deliverytag.org/regulatory-watch.
04 · Where the protocol stands
Pre-pilot, and we say so.
You will diligence us anyway. Here is the answer up front — and why that makes early partners disproportionately influential.
Exists today
- Public technical specification (Whitepaper v1.3) with full threat model and references
- Reference architectures for one EU and one US market, arithmetic-checked
- Two USPTO provisional applications on the core methods (priority filings; conversion planned)
- EnergyTag-compatible design — extends the GC standard rather than replacing it
In progress · gated
- Design-partner pilots — counterparties being recruited now
- ISAE 3000 assurance engagement — pathway defined, firm not yet engaged
- Sensor hardware certification and manufacturing
- Swiss Stiftung formation (Canton of Zug)
05 · The ask
What a design-partner pilot looks like.
One campus or electrolyser node, 20 MW to 1 GW, on your existing GC chain. Commercial terms are set during pilot design — early partners shape the fee model rather than receiving one.
Request the pilot briefYou bring
- — One load node and its metered consumption data
- — Your existing PPA / GC portfolio for that node
- — Your assurance provider at the table (or use the walkthrough with ours)
You get
- — A node-hour evidence pack for your real load and portfolio
- — An auditor walkthrough of the verification chain
- — The gap analysis: your current claims vs. deliverability-graded claims
- — First-mover input into fee structure and spec evolution