AI Scale and Climate Commitments: A 2026 Outlook

Key Takeaways

• The electricity demand surge is real and accelerating. Just last year, data center load in the US was projected to increase from 25 GW to 120 GW by 2030. Today, Texas’ preliminary long-term load forecast projects over 187 GW of data center load by 2030, more than double today’s total peak demand of approximately 91 GW.
• Flexible loads that respond dynamically to policy signals are becoming a regulatory requirement. Texas Senate Bill 6 (SB6), signed into law in June 2025, is the clearest signal yet. It makes remote curtailment equipment a condition of interconnection for new loads of 75 MW or more, so utilities can disconnect them during declared firm load shed events, and separately creates a voluntary demand response program that those loads can elect to join. 
• Relae’s power system modeling puts a dollar value on what data center load flexibility is worth. Our ERCOT analysis shows that data center demand response can eliminate forced load shedding risk, even at 40 GW of data center buildout – preventing $5.5 billion in annual consumer welfare losses by curtailing an average of 5% of demand for under 1% of operating hours. 
• Flexible load curtailment and compute uptime do not need to be in conflict. In our modeling, demand response operates as a "ghost battery" at the data center's grid node, absorbing grid stress as a physical battery would. That construct has a direct real-world analog: on-site battery storage lets data centers draw from stored energy during grid stress events rather than curtailing workloads. Technologies such as those demonstrated by Emerald AI have shown 25% load curtailment at cluster scale while preserving compute service quality.

Data Center Electricity Demand is Testing Grid Limits

Electricity demand in the United States is growing at its fastest pace in decades. Leading the surge is a rapid buildout of data centers, driven by the expansion of artificial intelligence. ERCOT, the grid serving most of Texas, is projecting up to 187 GW of new data center load by 2030, against a total peak demand today of approximately 91 GW.

The scale of this shift extends across the country. According to NERC's 2025 Long-Term Reliability Assessment (LTRA), summer peak demand across the US bulk power system is forecast to grow by 224 GW over the next 10 years, 69% above the prior year’s 10-year projection of 132 GW, with data centers as the dominant driver. As previously explored by Relae, data center energy capacity in the US is projected to increase from 25 GW to 120 GW by 2030, characterizing it as the first wave of a longer demand surge that electrification of buildings and transport will reinforce.

Policymakers are responding in real time, and regulatory responses like Texas SB6 are already rewriting the rules for how data centers connect to the grid. The pace of change is fast, but the siting, infrastructure, and interconnection decisions made today will have lasting consequences: they will determine whether data centers are grid assets or grid liabilities, and the financial difference between the two is measured in billions.

New Solutions for Data Center Demand Response: Texas SB6 as a Test Case

The rapid nature of this new wave of load growth means traditional approaches to managing the grid may not be sufficient. In the past, lead times on new sources of electricity demand allowed utilities to procure supply-side resources in advance. The scale and immediacy of data center deployment is revealing limitations of this approach. States, utilities, independent system operators (ISOs), and regulators are actively pursuing novel approaches for grid management in response.

Texas has become a focal point of US data center expansion, with SB6 as a leading policy response. The bill, which took immediate effect upon Governor Greg Abbott's signature on June 20, 2025, is the most significant restructuring of large-load interconnection rules in ERCOT's history. It requires large loads over 75 MW to install remote curtailment equipment as a condition of interconnection, so grid operators can disconnect them during declared firm load shed events, and creates a separate voluntary demand response program, procured competitively with at least 24 hours’ notice, that those loads may elect to join. If data centers are adding substantial new load to the grid, this reasoning goes, they should also contribute to grid stability by demonstrating load flexibility—reducing power draw at times of peak demand.

While demand response programs currently exist, incentivizing voluntary curtailment from data centers is challenging. In an AI compute arms race, the value of uninterrupted compute time far exceeds any available curtailment payment, such as via PJM’s capacity market mechanisms. 

Approaches to bridge that gap are coming to fruition: EPRI’s DCFlex program is working with hyperscalers and utilities to develop the technical protocols, measurement standards, and contractual frameworks that would make large-load demand response a routine grid service. Innovators like Emerald AI have demonstrated a 25% power reduction across a 256-GPU cluster over three hours during an Arizona grid stress event, while preserving compute service quality, helping to bridge the valuation asymmetry between energy and compute. 

Hyperscalers are already putting a flexible load commercial strategy into action. In March 2026, Google announced  1 GW in demand response contracts with multiple US utilities, including Entergy Arkansas, Minnesota Power, and DTE Energy.

The conversation has shifted from whether data centers can be flexible to how that flexibility gets structured and deployed. 

Putting a Dollar Value on Data Center Load Flexibility

For developers, investors, and grid operators navigating data center growth, the challenge has been making high-stakes siting and interconnection decisions without a clear picture of what load flexibility is actually worth, what inflexibility costs the system, or how curtailment requirements will reshape the regulatory landscape. 

Prior research has established that flexible data center load can absorb substantial grid stress. For instance, research from Duke University’s Nicholas Institute found that 22 of the largest US balancing authority areas could absorb approximately 98 GW of new flexible load if 0.5% of that load’s annual energy is curtailed, or 76 GW at a stricter 0.25% curtailment level. 

Relae’s analysis goes further by quantifying the economic cost at each increment of flexible load growth, and the precise threshold at which that flexibility stops being optional. We zeroed in on ERCOT, a region with high data center load growth and immediate regulatory stakes, determining the value of implementing flexibility and, conversely, the system risk of failing to do so.

How We Modeled It 

Assessing the impacts of load growth and flexibility solutions requires a systems-level analysis, best achieved via power market modeling. At Relae, we deploy our in-house power system modeling framework to navigate this complexity. 

Our toolkit includes CD-PyPSA-USA, used for this analysis, which is built on the Python for Power System Analysis (PyPSA) platform. This grid model simulates how power networks operate and evolve over time by solving for the least-cost optimization of the entire power system. Critically, our model is customized to explicitly represent complex, real-world dynamics, including data center load flexibility, co-located generation, and various policy constraints.

For this analysis, we simulated ERCOT operations under a range of data center growth scenarios. We modeled loads from 5 GW up to 40 GW in 5 GW increments, pairing each with sufficient on-site gas generation to cover roughly 70% of data center energy needs–a conservative estimate on the approach developers are taking today. 

We ran each scenario under two conditions: no load flexibility (“flex00”, the baseline) and 25% emergency curtailment capability (“flex25”), consistent with solutions exhibited by Emerald AI. This approach allowed us to determine the system's response to step-changes in electricity demand.

What Our Analysis Reveals

Before doing the analysis, we expected to see load flexibility become more important as more data center load is added to the grid, preventing forced load shedding with high lost-load costs. But we didn’t know how large this effect would be, or what amount of new data center load would start to trigger it.

Our analysis found that without flexible load management, forced load shedding first appears at 30 GW, small in scale at first (4.4 GWh over 3 hours) but growing sharply as load increases. At 35 GW, we observe 50 GWh of shedding across 39 hours. At 40 GW, shedding reaches 158 GWh across 81 hours, equivalent to nearly three times ERCOT’s average hourly energy consumption, with an economic cost at VoLL of approximately $5.5 billion.¹

By enabling on-demand data center load flexibility, forced load shedding is eliminated in every scenario we tested. The same 40 GW case instead sees 165 GWh of controlled, short-duration curtailment spread across 86 hours, less than 1% of hours in a year. Further, the average demand response in these hours was less than 5% of the nameplate data center load, with the largest event reaching 14% of data center load. The grid stays balanced, consumers remain connected, and data centers deliver substantial value to the system via flexible loads.

Load Flexibility Is High Value and Presents an Opportunity for Storage

Our modeling puts a dollar figure on what flexible load is worth. At a VoLL of $35,000/MWh, each hour of demand response in the 40 GW scenario delivers approximately $64 million in avoided consumer welfare losses. Over a full year, that adds up to $5.5 billion, achieved through an average of just 5% demand response across the 86 hours of curtailment needed to eliminate all forced load shedding.

That value points directly to an opportunity for storage. In our model, demand response functions as a “ghost battery” at the data center’s grid node, absorbing grid stress exactly as a physical battery would, without any electrons needing to flow. That virtual battery can become a real one. On-site battery storage allows a data center to dispatch stored energy during grid stress events rather than curtailing workloads, maintaining compute continuity while relieving grid pressure.

The implications point in two directions. 

• For the hyperscaler or data center operator, physical storage converts a compliance obligation into an uptime guarantee: the curtailment event becomes a battery discharge, with negligible impact to the compute stack. 
• For the storage developer, co-location with large data center loads represents a high-value deployment opportunity with a clear commercial case. The avoided welfare costs per curtailment hour our model quantifies is the value a well-positioned battery asset, co-located at a data center node, can credibly claim to preserve.

The Data Centers of Tomorrow Need to be Grid Assets

The data center buildout underway is large enough to reshape grid reliability across entire regions, and the regulatory environment is beginning to reflect that scale. Texas SB6 is the most prescriptive example to date: it requires new large loads above 75 MW to install remote curtailment equipment operable during firm load shed events.

Our modeling quantifies what load flexibility is worth across this landscape: data centers with curtailment capability can provide significant value and avoid billions in consumer welfare losses annually. For developers and investors, designing that capability in from the start can convert a compliance requirement into a long-term grid asset.

The federal picture has moved in the same direction since this analysis was published. In May 2026, NERC issued a rare Level 3 Alert on computational loads; in June, FERC ordered six RTOs and ISOs to revise or justify their large-load interconnection rules, and in July, FERC directed NERC to develop mandatory computational-load reliability standards by the end of the year. We covered what that means for grid modeling and interconnection in Inside NERC’s Level 3 Alert on data center loads. Flexibility is no longer only a Texas statutory question; it is becoming part of the federal reliability framework.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is data center load flexibility, and how does it work?

Load flexibility is a data center’s ability to reduce the power it draws from the grid on short notice, during the small number of hours when the system is under stress. In practice, that means shifting or pausing deferrable compute, drawing on on-site batteries or generation, or pre-cooling the facility ahead of a peak. The point is not to consume less overall—it is to move a thin slice of demand out of the hours when the grid can least afford it.

What does Texas SB6 require of large data centers in ERCOT?

Texas Senate Bill 6, signed June 20, 2025, makes remote curtailment equipment a condition of interconnection for new loads of 75 MW or more in ERCOT, so utilities can disconnect them during declared firm load shed events. Separately, it creates a voluntary, competitively procured demand response program those same large loads can elect to join, with at least 24 hours’ notice. The mandatory piece is the disconnection capability; paid participation in demand response is a choice.

What does data center inflexibility cost? How much curtailment avoids it?

Relae’s ERCOT modeling found that without flexibility, forced load shedding first appears at 30 GW of data center load and reaches 158 GWh across 81 hours at 40 GW—roughly $5.5 billion a year in consumer welfare losses at ERCOT’s $35,000/MWh value of lost load. Enabling curtailment eliminated forced shedding in every scenario we tested, at an average of under 5% of data center demand across 86 hours, less than 1% of the year. Each hour of demand response in the 40 GW case is worth about $64 million in avoided losses.

Is data center load flexibility proven today, and how does it compare to on-site batteries?

Data center load flexibility is past proof of concept and into commercial deployment: Emerald AI cut power to a 256-GPU cluster by 25% for three hours during an Arizona grid stress event without degrading compute service quality; EPRI’s DCFlex initiative is building the protocols and contracts, and Google has signed 1 GW of data center demand response with US utilities. 

On-site batteries reach the same result from the other direction—instead of curtailing workloads, the facility discharges stored energy, which is why our modeling treats demand response as a “ghost battery” at the data center’s grid node. For operators who cannot pause compute, storage turns the same compliance obligation into an uptime guarantee.

Key Takeaways

• On May 4, 2026, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) issued a rare Level 3 “Essential Actions” Alert in response to repeated events in which 1,000+ megawatts (MW) of computation load dropped off the bulk power system in seconds, leading to major grid stability issues.
• The pattern has since escalated: on July 22, 2026, a transmission fault in Ashburn, Virginia took more than 3 GW of data center load offline in seconds—roughly 3% of PJM demand at the time.
• NERC also published Reliability Guidelines that push the same concerns into long-term planning, explicitly recommending resource adequacy models that capture firm vs. flexible load, behind-the-meter resources, and AI training operating windows.
• For transmission operators and balancing authorities, the releases compel new scrutiny of how computational loads affect stability and resource adequacy. For hyperscalers and other large loads, those assessments now sit on the critical path: if operators cannot show through advanced modeling that they can integrate the new loads, interconnection and buildout plans stall.
• Meeting the bar takes advanced grid modeling at multiple time and spatial scales, from sub-second stability through long-horizon capacity and resource adequacy, to evaluate the role of large load portfolios considering demand response, storage, and co-located generation.

Why Grid Frequency Matters for Large Loads

When we turn on the lights or charge our phones, it’s easy to forget that electricity travels through the power grid as alternating current. Sixty times a second—far faster than our eyes can see—the flow of electricity alternates back and forth along the wires making up both the transmission and distribution parts of the North American grid. 

Power generation equipment and most large industrial loads are designed to work with this 60 Hertz (Hz) alternating flow and must be synchronized precisely to this rhythm to function. Grid synchronization is so important that it can even have geopolitical implications.

For some electrical equipment, getting out of sync with the grid’s frequency can lead to malfunctions or even physical damage and destruction. That’s why grid-connected equipment is protected by circuits that automatically disconnect from the grid (“trip offline”) if the grid frequency begins to deviate by even one percent. For minor equipment, this is easily managed. However, when large amounts of generation or load trip offline quickly, it can lead to rapidly cascading grid blackouts affecting tens of millions of people with costs in the billions.

Grid operators pay extremely careful attention to factors that could cause grid frequency to deviate. The grid’s frequency stays near 60 Hz only when total power generation and consumption (load) are closely balanced. If load suddenly drops below generation, physical rotating generators like gas turbines can begin to speed up, making grid frequency rise. 

This becomes particularly dangerous when large grid-connected loads all trip offline simultaneously because of minor frequency deviations or other factors. If these loads are large enough, they can trigger a cascading sequence of rising frequency and further equipment and generator trips, potentially causing a complete “grid collapse” blackout. The North American grid may be getting closer to this scenario. 

What Triggered NERC’s Highest-Urgency Alert

Data center load drops are now a documented grid stability threat. On May 4, 2026, NERC issued a rare Level 3 “Essential Actions” Alert—its highest-urgency notification—in response to a pattern of customer-initiated load reductions in which 1,000+ MW of computational load (data centers) dropped off the bulk power system (tripped offline) in seconds. These were “customer-initiated” because protection circuits at data centers detected problems with grid-supplied power and automatically disconnected to protect their sensitive computing equipment from electrical damage. 

Paired with a new Reliability Guideline on emerging large loads, the alert highlights the urgent need to better understand the potential for these events to cause grid instability or even blackouts. Together, these two documents reset the bar for the detailed grid modeling and planning needed for any utility, independent system operator (ISO), or hyperscaler with material data-center growth in its footprint.

How the Alert Reshapes Grid Interconnection

For utilities and ISOs, the alert and guideline raise the standard of evidence required to connect computational loads safely to the grid. Modeling assessments now sit on the critical path for large load interconnection decisions, and the same studies will increasingly inform reserve margin, transmission, and dispatch program designs.

For hyperscalers and other large loads, the consequence is direct. Plans that assume firm service without supporting analysis will face longer queues and tougher interconnection conditions. Buildout timelines now depend on whether utilities and ISOs can show, through stability and resource adequacy modeling, that the system can absorb the load and respond safely to its disturbances.

For storage developers, particularly long-duration and fast-responding assets, these events elevate the reliability value of rapid response and load-shifting resources. The same grid modeling improvements that capture flexible load behavior also surface storage's full reliability contribution.

For flexibility platforms, the same modeling work that satisfies NERC's expectations unlocks faster, cheaper interconnection. Demand response, large-load shifting, and co-located dispatch coordination are now both technical and commercial enablers.

A Higher Bar for Power Analysis

These pressures point to a higher bar for power analysis at multiple time and spatial scales, for utilities and the large loads they serve.

At sub-second to second timescales, electromagnetic transient (EMT) models capture fast electrical switching and the uninterruptible power supply behavior that determines whether a data center stays connected during a disturbance (“rides through”). The alert asks for these models to be more detailed, validated against actual equipment, and shared between large loads, transmission owners, and planners.

At seconds-to-minutes, dynamic stability simulation covers system frequency response, voltage recovery, and oscillation behavior after disturbances. NERC now expects annual stability studies and explicit load drop contingencies in planning files.

At hours-to-years, capacity expansion and production cost modeling determine whether the system has enough resources, in the right places, with the right flexibility, to keep up with computational load growth. NERC’s May 2026 Large Loads Reliability Guideline is most explicit at this scale, calling for resource adequacy studies that represent firm and flexible load components, behind-the-meter resources, AI training operating windows, and probabilistic scenarios across many weather, load, and outage combinations on a network-aware footprint. 

Rising to the Challenge

Since the alert was issued, its expectations have begun hardening into rules. Registered entities were required to report to NERC on their progress against the seven Essential Actions by August 3, 2026, and on July 16, 2026, FERC directed NERC to go further: to develop mandatory reliability standards for computational loads and revise its registration criteria, with the first standards and Rules of Procedure changes due December 31, 2026 and a second-phase work plan due March 1, 2027. NERC's Large Loads Action Plan anticipates new "Computational Load Owner" and "Computational Load Operator" registered entity types alongside the first three computational load standards. 

The practical consequence is that the modeling described above is no longer only good planning practice: utilities, ISOs, hyperscalers, and other large loads should expect the data-sharing, study, and commissioning expectations in the alert to return as auditable requirements, and should build the capability before the compliance deadline rather than after it. 

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a NERC Level 3 Alert, and what does it require?

A Level 3 “Essential Actions” Alert is the most urgent of NERC's three alert levels, reserved for risks that need immediate, documented industry response. The May 4, 2026 alert directed registered entities to take seven essential actions on computational load—covering modeling, system studies, commissioning, protection, fault recording, and direct operational communication with large load operators. Written responses were due to NERC by August 3, 2026.

Why do data centers disconnect from the grid during minor disturbances?

Data centers run voltage- and frequency-sensitive computing equipment protected by automatic transfer systems that switch to on-site UPS or backup generation the moment grid power looks abnormal. Those protection settings trip faster, and at smaller deviations, than conventional industrial loads, so a fault lasting milliseconds can move a gigawatt of demand off the system in seconds. Because the shift is customer-initiated, grid operators get no warning and no time to rebalance.

How does the alert change interconnection for hyperscalers and other large loads?

Modeling assessments now sit on the critical path for large load interconnection. A plan that assumes firm service without stability and resource adequacy analysis behind it will face longer queues and tougher interconnection conditions, because the utility or ISO has to be able to show the system can absorb the load and respond safely to its disturbances. In practice, buildout timelines are now tied to someone else's study queue.

What modeling do utilities and large loads need to meet NERC's expectations?

Electromagnetic transient (EMT) models validated against actual equipment for sub-second ride-through behavior; dynamic stability simulation with explicit load-drop contingencies for seconds-to-minutes frequency and voltage response; and capacity expansion and probabilistic resource adequacy modeling that separates firm from flexible load, represents behind-the-meter resources, and reflects AI training operating windows. The paired Reliability Guideline is most explicit about the last of these.

Key Takeaways

• The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and life cycle assessment (LCA) offer distinct frameworks for measuring electricity-related emissions, one for annual corporate reporting and one for detailed cradle-to-grave analysis, leading to different emissions results.
• Renewable energy certificates (RECs) are accepted under the GHG Protocol's market-based approach to reduce reported scope 2 and scope 3: category 3 emissions, but are not explicitly addressed in ISO LCA standards, where transparent disclosure is essential.
• Using both the GHG Protocol and LCA together, while recognizing their different scopes, boundaries, and purposes, can give organizations a more complete and strategic view of electricity-related emissions and decarbonization opportunities.

Electricity-Related Emissions: Why Measurement Methods Matter

In the era of AI-driven power demand, scrutiny over electricity-related emissions is intensifying. With this increased attention comes growing confusion around how to measure and report these emissions. The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and life cycle assessment (LCA) are two widely used methods for measuring and reporting electricity-related emissions, but each follows its own complex and often incompatible, set of rules.

This piece will examine the differences between these approaches and answer common questions such as:

• What are the differences between the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and LCA?
• Why do they result in different emissions for the same type and amount of electricity?
• Can renewable energy contracts reduce electricity-related emissions under both methods?
• When should you use each approach?

Both the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and LCA are powerful tools that, if used in complementary ways, can help organizations identify emissions hotspots and develop more effective pathways for decarbonization.

What Is the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard?

The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard is a globally recognized framework for corporate entities to publicly report GHG emissions throughout their value chain. It divides emissions into three scopes:

• Scope 1: Direct emissions from owned or controlled sources, such as company-owned vehicles, on-site fuel consumption, or industrial processes.,
• Scope 2: Indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, heat, steam, or cooling. These emissions are generated off-site, but result from an organization's energy consumption.
• Scope 3: Indirect emissions across an organization's value chain. Scope 3 is divided into 15 categories, including a company's supply chain activities, business travel, employee commuting, investments, and product life cycle emissions.

This piece focuses on emissions associated with electricity consumed by a reporting entity. These electricity-related emissions primarily fall under scope 2 and scope 3: category 3 (fuel- and energy-related activities, or FERA).

Scope 2: Electricity Generation Emissions

Scope 2 emissions account for the generation of electricity a company purchases or uses. Hypothetically, if a company were powered by a single solar project, it would report zero scope 2 emissions. In reality, a company is powered by a combination of power generation assets and must report them under scope 2 emissions. These emissions can be reported using two methods:

• Location-based method: Reflects the average emissions intensity of the local electricity grid where the consumption occurs. This approach is mandatory under various reporting frameworks and does not take into account a company's procurement choices.
• Market-based method: Reflects an organization's actual procurement decisions and energy-sourcing strategies. It accounts for specific contracts, such as power purchase agreements (PPAs), renewable energy certificates (RECs), and green tariffs, which allow businesses to claim lower emissions from their purchased electricity.

Scope 3: Category 3 FERA

Scope 3: category 3 FERA reports on non-generation electricity emissions associated with:

• Upstream emissions: Emissions associated with the production and transportation of fuels needed for electricity generation
• Transmission and distribution losses: Emissions associated with the loss of electricity while delivering it from the generator to the consumer.

The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard does not include emissions associated with the manufacturing, construction, and end-of-life phases of electricity generation equipment; however, some datasets used for reporting may include manufacturing emissions. While scope 3: category 3 guidance may not require these emissions to be included, if possible, companies reporting on their electricity-related emissions should include these additional sources of emissions  in order to more completely represent their total emissions impact. The GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance allows for the reduction of some of the reported scope 3 FERA emissions by contracting renewable energy (see Appendix B).

What is an LCA?

An LCA is a systematic method used to quantify the environmental impacts of a process, product, or project throughout its full life cycle. A life cycle includes everything from raw material extraction ("cradle") to manufacturing/production ("gate") through disposal ("grave").

LCAs primarily follow a standard published by the ISO organization (ISO 14040/14044). The ISO standards establish industry-wide rules for which processes are included and how to assign environmental burdens to products.

An LCA can be used for any product, process, or project, and can estimate multiple different environmental impacts (i.e., climate change, human health, ecotoxicity, eutrophication, ozone depletion).

Electricity-Related Emissions Can Be Different Using the GHG Protocol and an LCA

The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and an LCA (as per ISO standards) generally include different life cycle stages of electricity use when estimating GHG emissions. Therefore, the approaches can result in different reported emissions.

Key Differences in Reporting Electricity-Related Emissions

The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard includes emissions in the following phases:

• Generation (scope 2)
• Transmission and distribution losses (scope 3: category 3)
• Fuel, if applicable (scope 3: category 3)

A “cradle-to-grave” LCA considers emissions from all activities associated with power generation, including:

• Manufacturing
• Construction
• Generation
• Fuel, if applicable
• Use-phase, if applicable
• End-of-life

Use-phase electricity-related emissions are emissions generated by electricity-consuming equipment used or sold by the reporting company (representing additional scope 1 or scope 3 emissions, respectively). Examples include sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) emissions from electrical transformers or refrigerant leakage from air conditioners with high global warming potential. Please note that both the ISO and GHG Protocol Corporate Standard provide guidelines for reporting these emissions. However, due to the equipment-specific nature of these emissions, they are excluded from the following table. The table compares electricity-related emissions associated with different electricity sources using the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard approach and the LCA approach.

Reporting Electricity-Related Emissions

‍

* US average transportation and distribution loss rate (4.2%) times US average grid carbon intensity (410 gCO₂e/kWh). Note: gCO₂e/kWh = grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour. Source: GREET 2024 (US grid average. 10% fuel- and energy-related activities; 1% construction, facilities, maintenance, and end-of-life; 89% fuel combustion).

Reducing Electricity Emissions with Renewable Energy

Renewable Energy Mechanisms Under the GHG Protocol

The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard allows companies to contract for renewable electricity as a mechanism to reduce reported emissions. The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard defines allowable energy contracts that can be used to reduce emissions associated with electricity consumption (market-based reporting).

In North America, one of these allowable contracts is RECs, each of which represent one megawatt-hour of renewable generation. Analogous instruments used in other locations, such as Guarantees of Origin in Europe and green electricity certificates in China, are also permissible under the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard.

RECs were developed as a contractual mechanism for renewable electricity in response to the fundamental structure of "a power grid." In a power grid, it is impossible to link a single generator to a single load. Power is injected at a point in the grid and withdrawn at a different point in the grid; there is no traceable pathway.

RECs were created to track the attributes of electricity generation entering into a power grid for the entity that consumes the power at a different point. The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard allows buyers to claim exclusive use of renewable electricity with RECs even if they are actually consuming a mixture of electricity from the grid.

Renewable Energy Mechanisms Under the LCA ISO Standard

The ISO 14040 standard does not address the use of renewable electricity contracts. However, the ISO 14044 standard provides the following guidance:

"When determining the elementary flows associated with production, the actual production mix should be used whenever possible, in order to reflect the various types of resources that are consumed. As an example, for the production and delivery of electricity, account shall be taken of the electricity mix, the efficiencies of fuel combustion, conversion, transmission and distribution losses."

It does not explicitly define whether RECs can or cannot be used in the determination of the "actual production mix." In the event an organization does procure a renewable energy contract to reduce the emissions reported within the LCA, it should disclose that clearly in order to communicate the impact of the contract on the carbon intensity of the LCA with and without the use of RECs.

Powerful Tools for Different Use Cases

The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and LCAs following the ISO Standard are both powerful tools that can provide insight into emissions associated with electricity use. The GHG Protocol Corporate Standard allows companies to use a standardized framework to report emissions associated with electricity use and interventions on an annual basis. The LCA ISO standard is a detail-driven analysis that allows a deep dive into specific processes, projects, or products. This detailed analysis allows for deeper insights into areas where a company may have more ability to address specific interventions for emission hot spots. Using these tools together, while understanding the boundaries of each, can provide companies with a more effective and impactful approach to decarbonization.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the differences between the GHG Protocol Corporate Standard and LCA? 

The GHG Protocol is an annual corporate reporting framework covering scope 2 (generation) and scope 3: category 3 (transmission and distribution losses, fuel), while a cradle-to-grave LCA is a detailed analysis governed by ISO 14040/14044 standards that also includes manufacturing, construction, use-phase, and end-of-life emissions. LCA can also be applied to any product or process and multiple environmental impacts, not just greenhouse gas emissions.

Why do they result in different emissions for the same type and amount of electricity? 

They include different life cycle stages. The GHG Protocol excludes manufacturing, construction, and end-of-life emissions of generation equipment, while an LCA includes them.

Can renewable energy contracts reduce reported electricity-related emissions under both methods? 

Under the GHG Protocol, renewable energy contracts (e.g., RECs, PPAs) are explicitly allowed to report zero market-based scope 2 emissions, though scope 3 FERA emissions remain. Under ISO LCA standards, these contracts aren't explicitly addressed. Organizations may choose to apply them, but should transparently disclose LCA results both with and without the contract's impact.

When should you use the GHG Protocol vs an LCA? 

Use the GHG Protocol for standardized, annual corporate-wide emissions reporting and tracking procurement interventions; use an LCA for a detailed, process- or product-specific deep dive to identify specific emissions hotspots. Relae recommends using both together for a more complete, strategic view of electricity-related emissions.

Key Takeaways

• On April 16, 2026, two weeks before the Department of Energy’s (DOE) April 30 deadline for action on the Large Load Proceeding, FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, provided a significant update: 
  
  • FERC issued its compliance order on PJM's Bring Your Own Generation (BYOG) tariff; the order approved four interconnection paths, rejected two PJM proposals, and directed PJM to refile by May 18. 
  • FERC's June 2026 order settled a key question around enforcement mechanisms for co-located projects. FERC rejected PJM's Two-Strike proposal (which would have terminated contracts on second violation), allowing only penalties and suspension from the three new transmission services, materially reducing developer downside risk.
  • Notably, BYOG arrangements built on the rejected elements of the compliance filing face restructuring risk before that refile. For deals that clear it, however, energization could begin as early as this summer.
• These proceedings reflect the underlying industry concerns about speed, reliability, and cost equity, shifting the risks and costs of new generation from ratepayers to the large loads, such as data centers, themselves. 
  ‍
• Developers, investors, and project teams can use quantitative grid and load modeling to navigate these risks successfully, converting regulatory exposure into priced engineering decisions.

A New Rulebook for Bring Your Own Generation in PJM

PJM Interconnection (PJM) hosts the highest concentration of data center load growth in the US, managing regional transmission across 13 states in the Eastern US, and commercial operation dates for new generation projects in its current interconnection queue stretch into the early 2030s. Bring Your Own Generation (BYOG) has become the fastest speed-to-power path around that bottleneck. 

BYOG allows large loads, such as data centers, to draw power directly from a co-located generation source connected to the bulk power grid, enabling developers to avoid lengthy interconnection queues and costly transmission upgrades, while drawing limited to no power from the bulk power grid.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) April 16 order is now the rulebook that governs the tariffs that facilitate these BYOG arrangements. Any deal built on the paths FERC closed off must now find a way to align with one of the four approved mechanics before PJM's May 18 compliance refile. Deals that clear the refile could begin to energize as early as this summer.

Below are the top questions the Relae power advisory team is fielding most from hyperscalers, large commercial power buyers, and power producers navigating the mechanics of PJM’s BYOG tariff and the engineering realities of running a co-located project. 

What Is Co-Location?

Co-location refers to a power generation facility sited in close proximity to a large load, such as a data center, that interconnects directly to the bulk power grid. The generator serves that load contractually via a power purchase agreement (PPA), with power flowing through the meter.

BYOG is the predominant co-location model in PJM. Under a typical BYOG arrangement, on-site generation covers the majority of the data center's load (~90%), with only a small residual portion (~10%) supplied from the grid. Each co-located project effectively functions as its own mini-grid, with explicit operational obligations that are less forgiving than standard transmission service (NITS).

Why Did FERC Keep Behind-the-Meter (BTM) and Co-Location Separate?

While BTM and co-location may look similar, they sit in different regulatory buckets. That said, the line between them is less clear-cut than it once was. FERC found existing BTM rules inadequate to address the grid impacts of large co-located loads and directed PJM to treat co-location as a distinct framework. 

At the same time, BTM rules, including how tariffs and distribution charges are applied, remain under revision in a separate PJM proceeding. The two tracks moving in parallel have contributed to the conflation of the frameworks in industry discussion.

How Does Co-Location Differ from BTM Generation?

• Co-location, as this order defines it, is a bulk grid-interconnected arrangement. The host generator remains on the same interstate grid, maintains its interconnection service agreement, and continues exporting power to the grid. The co-located load connects through an approved interconnection mechanic and takes transmission service under a PJM tariff product.
• BTM is a distinct arrangement. The generator sits on the consumer's side of the utility meter and serves the load through a private line, without an interconnection agreement. The load may typically have a grid connection; however, in some circumstances, the generation may be fully off-grid or islanded. By setting a megawatt (MW) threshold for BTM, larger loads with co-located generation may no longer net out their load to reduce transmission and grid charges. FERC's jurisdiction over a BTM arrangement is narrower, and the tariff mechanics that apply to co-location do not apply in the same way.

FERC's rejection of PJM's proposed BTM rule changes illustrates this distinction. The commission is keeping the two categories separate on purpose. Ultimately, FERC’s intention seems to signal that large loads co-located with generation may not be adequately reflected in grid and transmission upgrade costs when these assets are behind the meter. Historically, BTM assets were exempt from these costs because their relatively insignificant power contributions had no meaningful financial impact on the bulk power grid.

That said, the BTM track is still moving. PJM's BTM application rules, including the netting-off mechanism that lets BTM loads avoid utility tariffs, remain under review in parallel proceedings.

For developers, regulatory clarity on co-location and BTM is increasingly critical. In April 2025, FERC upheld its rejection of the Talen-Amazon Susquehanna nuclear BTM interconnection agreement proposal, declining to rehear arguments on the initial decision. To many experts, the split ruling signaled that the structure of PJM’s interconnection service agreement (ISA) is inadequate for large loads operating behind the meter. 

However, in the initial challenge to the Talen-Amazon proposal, utility companies argued that the arrangement would unjustifiably shift transmission costs to other PJM customers. Ultimately, in June 2025, Talen Energy entered into a 1,920 MW, front-of-the-meter power purchase agreement with Amazon Web Services, which does not require FERC’s approval. 

FERC Has Always Regulated Generators, Not Loads. What Changed?

The April 16 order lands inside a larger jurisdictional shift. FERC does not typically regulate load interconnection; its authority sits with the bulk power grid. Under Orders 888 and 2003, FERC has regulated how generators connect to that system (with standardized study deposits, readiness requirements, and withdrawal penalties) while load interconnection has historically been regulated at the distribution level under state jurisdiction.

That generation-only approach to FERC regulation worked for three decades. Now, the scale of AI data centers and other large loads creates interstate impacts that state-level load regulation cannot fully address. Generation co-location breaks the pattern by routing the load through a FERC-regulated generator interconnection agreement rather than a state-regulated load-serving entity, pulling it into federal jurisdiction.

In December 2025, FERC declared PJM's existing interconnection rules (tariff) unjust and unreasonable in the PJM Co-Location Order and directed PJM to revise the tariff. The April 16 order is FERC's review of that rewrite. 

As FERC Commissioner David Rosner wrote in his concurrence to the December 2025 PJM Co-Location Order: "We are trying to meet surging demand while upholding two fundamental values that underpin the electric industry in our country: first, that all customers have a right to receive electric service on a timely basis, and second, that electric service should be reliable and affordable for all customers. Given the scale of new large loads putting demand on our grid today, it is clear that fostering both of these values requires intervention."

Which Four Interconnection Mechanics Did FERC Approve?

The April 16 order (Docket ER26-1088-000, 195 FERC ¶ 61,030) approves four ways for a data center to plug into the PJM grid. Each solves a different bottleneck: available capacity, queue position, study timing, or pre-studied capacity. All four rely on existing PJM and FERC tariff mechanics rather than new constructs, a deliberate choice to reduce legal exposure and speed up adoption. 

1. Sub-full-capacity interconnection service (available capacity). The data center co-locates with an existing host generator, and interconnects at less than the host generator's full capacity, using the portion of the existing interconnection rights the generator does not need.
2. Request acceleration at Decision Points I and II (queue position). Co-located load applications can move ahead of the standard queue at defined checkpoints, subject to PJM's study results. Co-located loads place less demand on the bulk power grid than new large loads without co-located generation, justifying the accelerated treatment. To qualify, projects must demonstrate there will be no significant network updates required or network impact, among other readiness milestones. 
3. Provisional Interconnection Service, or PIS (study timing). Interim interconnection services are provided during the full study, giving developers a bridge to early operations.
4. Surplus Interconnection Service, or SIS (pre-studied capacity). Use of unused capacity at an already-studied generator’s interconnection point, without triggering a new full study.

The four mechanics are different ways of answering the same operational question—how a co-located data center plugs into the grid without triggering a multi-year re-study of the host generator's interconnection—enabling faster speed-to-power.

Which Generators Gain Most From Surplus Interconnection Service?

SIS is the most commercially interesting of the four mechanics for existing generator owners because it monetizes previously stranded capacity.

The generators that benefit most include:

• Retiring or derated thermal units with unused megawatts of interconnection rights at high-value points (for example, retiring coal plants in PJM's eastern and mid-Atlantic footprint).
• Existing nuclear and large thermal plants near concentrated load growth, particularly in Dominion, American Electric Power (AEP), and ComEd territory (the Northern Virginia, Columbus, and Chicago metro zones), where PJM load is most concentrated.
• Storage-paired assets where the underlying generator has capacity headroom that the storage does not fully use (for example, solar-plus-storage or gas-plus-storage sites where the battery sits below the full interconnection rights).

For illustration, a host generator running at roughly 85% of its interconnection rights with a forced outage rate near 5% has material surplus capacity (10%) available to a co-located load, depending on how PJM studies the combined profile.

Owners of underutilized interconnection rights now have an approved tariff path to extract value from them by attracting data centers to co-locate with these generators.

What Transmission Service Does a Co-Located Load Receive?

Connecting to the bulk power grid and taking service from it are two separate decisions. PJM's default transmission service for any load on the system is the Network Integration Transmission Service (NITS), the standard contract for firm power year-round. NITS commits PJM to serve a customer’s full load at any and all times, meaning that PJM may need to wait for generation and/or transmission upgrades before offering it to a large load. 

Recently, PJM reopened its generation interconnection queue after pausing to study its backlog of proposed projects. With 800 proposed projects representing approximately 220 GW in new capacity in 2026, this growth signals progress, but it does not address the underlying permitting and financing challenges that have prevented projects already in the queue from being built.  

The BYOG mechanics are variations that waive or defer parts of NITS for faster speed-to-power. PJM delivers the resulting service through three tariff product types:

1. Firm contract demand: The co-located load holds firm transmission service (consistent with most aspects of NITS) and operates like any other firm load on the system. Availability is site-specific, depending on the point of interconnection. Unlike other NITS customers, entities contracting firm contract demand transmission on behalf of co-located loads cannot exceed the contracted demand level, and loads would be subject to a penalty if they withdraw additional energy beyond the contracted demand capacity. 
2. Non-firm contract demand: The load accepts interruption risk in exchange for faster interconnection or lower-cost service, making it better suited to loads with operational flexibility. It is available at more interconnection points than firm service, but power delivery is subject to curtailment based on real-time grid conditions. This service intends to provide brief and intermittent energy access from the bulk power grid, during available periods, under unanticipated circumstances, such as downtime for the co-located generator. 
3. Interim NITS: A bridge product that provides firm service on an interim basis while the co-located generator is still under construction. The load energizes early; once the generator and any transmission upgrades are complete, the project transitions to a standard NITS arrangement, and the generator can participate in the broader PJM market. However, while the load pays the NITS rate, the load is subject to curtailment under system emergency conditions, posing reliability challenges. 

In practice, a 1,000 MW data center co-located with a 900 MW on-site generator would request 100 MW from PJM under one of these three products.

The interconnection mechanic (how the load connects) and the tariff product (what service the load receives) are two distinct decisions. For example, in the case of an interim NITS, a data center and co-located load could connect through a Provisional Interconnection Service (PIS). Other co-located loads may connect by submitting a request for acceleration at Decision Points I and II to secure firm contract demand service. The connection mechanism and tariff will vary based on each co-located load’s unique characteristics and project configuration. 

For clients evaluating specific sites, the right path depends on how much of the host generator's interconnection capacity is available, how sensitive the load is to interruption, and how fast the site needs to energize. Grid modeling allows project teams to quantitatively assess their risk exposure before committing to a tariff product. 

Which Two PJM Proposals Did FERC Reject?

Two elements of PJM's original filing did not make it through the April 16 order.

1. Point of Change in Ownership substitution: PJM proposed swapping in "Point of Change in Ownership" for FERC’s mandated term "Point of Interconnection" in the definition of Co-Located Load. FERC rejected the swap as an unexplained deviation from the Co-Location Order's definition and because it could let transmission owners delay or effectively veto the Point of Change in Ownership location, creating uncertainty for co-located projects.
2. BTM application-rule changes: PJM tried to fold changes to its BTM application rules into this same compliance package. FERC rejected that on the ground the changes did not fall within the scope of the initial order. BTM remains a separate regulatory track; the April 16 order does not settle it.

Project configurations built on either rejected proposal need restructuring before PJM's May 18 refile.

The order also directs PJM to add the PIS definition to the Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT), Part I, section 1 (paragraph 26), and flags items in paragraph 29, including assessment of the reliability of co-located loads paired with electric storage, as out of scope. 

These determinations should not be seen as FERC rejecting these tariff changes, but rather deeming them outside the scope of the order. They are open questions that belong in a separate docket. The direction to include PIS while declining to address issues not included in the compliance proceeding demonstrates FERC’s focus on speed-to-power, clarifying the rules for new co-located generators to connect to the grid more quickly.  

What Is the Two-Strike Reliability Rule, and Why Does it Matter?

The rules for violating a co-location interconnection service agreement are still being developed, but FERC has urged PJM to issue robust protections to maintain reliability and cost allocation equity. 

For both firm and non-firm contract demand transmission service, PJM will apply a penalty rate to transmission service customers who withdraw more energy from the grid than was contracted. The precise design of these rates for unreserved use is scheduled for a paper hearing this spring; however, developers should cautiously size and appropriately model load and generation sizes, as the penalties for jeopardizing PJM’s reliability are not limited to rates. 

While penalty rate design for unreserved use is underway, PJM proposed a strict Two-Strike reliability rule for co-located projects. If a co-located customer failed to adequately implement automated loadshedding or generator tripping mechanisms during unusual grid conditions, PJM has previewed severe consequences:  

• First strike: a 120-day operational pause for review.
• Second strike: termination of the transmission service contract and return to the NITS interconnection waitlist.

The entire purpose of pursuing a co-located large load configuration is to ensure speed-to-power while maintaining reliability. In a June 2026 order, FERC conceded that there are legitimate reliability concerns with co-located generation misoperation; however, PJM’s proposal to disqualify customers with multiple misoperations is unnecessarily strict. FERC ultimately agreed PJM has the authority to charge penalties to and temporarily suspend services for customers that fail to shed load or curtail, but cannot disqualify customers for misoperation. Data centers will need to rigorously model and design their co-located load and generator facilities with the understanding that multiple reliability violations could strand billion-dollar assets for multiple years. 

Which BYOG Deals Need Restructuring Before the May 18 Refile?

Any deal built around the Point of Change in Ownership substitution or the BTM application-rule changes that FERC rejected needs restructuring. 

In addition, co-located projects that relied on one of the four approved mechanics, but used PJM tariff language from the original December filing, may also need re-papering against the language PJM submits in its forthcoming May 18 compliance filing. Until PJM files that package and FERC accepts it, the operative document is the April 16 order itself.

Counterparties should confirm that operational controls, curtailment rights, and dispute mechanisms in the contract align with the proposed Two-Strike regime and the approved mechanics the project uses.

What Does Grid Modeling Reveal for a Co-Located Project?

Non-firm service is the lowest-cost tariff product for the portion of load the co-located generator does not serve, but availability depends on real-time grid conditions. Grid modeling is how developers size that exposure before signing.

Take the same 1,000 MW data center paired with a 900 MW on-site generator, contracting 100 MW of non-firm service for the residual load. Grid modeling might show non-firm power dropping out in roughly 15% of hours during the summer peak.

If the on-site generator also carries a 5% forced outage rate, the developer faces a meaningful probability of a compound event: grid supply drops out at the same moment the on-site unit trips offline.

In that window, the data center has three options, none of them free: 

1. Curtail load. 
2. Shift the load to another site. 
3. Draw more from the grid than the contract allows, which triggers a Two-Strike violation.

Grid modeling converts that risk into decisions the developer can price. A developer can test whether adding 50 MW of battery storage, contracting 150 MW of firm service instead of 100 MW of non-firm, or adding a smaller backup generator delivers the best risk-adjusted return.

Key Takeaways

• Larger power users are securing behind-the-meter (BTM) power to bypass grid constraints, pairing data centers with third-party-owned generation assets that deliver electricity through a private line rather than the grid.
• BTM power arrangements can create confusion about electricity emissions classification: the power users neither own the generating asset nor purchase electricity from the grid, leading some to misclassify those emissions as scope 3 in their corporate GHG inventories. But the GHG Protocol's Corporate Standard is clear: BTM electricity emissions belong in scope 2.
• Misclassifying BTM emissions can create reputational and regulatory risk. Relae can help organizations get this right before the contract closes.

Why Large Power Users Are Turning to Behind-the-Meter Power

Large power users are consuming more electricity due to data center growth and are looking to add capacity faster than the grid can support, which is having a direct impact on corporate emissions. For example, between 2020 and 2024, Microsoft’s location-based scope 2 emissions rose 130%, and Google’s rose 92%, driven almost entirely by soaring electricity demand from AI infrastructure. 

To bypass grid congestion and long interconnection queues, many are turning to behind-the-meter (BTM) power. It’s a pragmatic solution to a real supply problem, but it’s opening an urgent carbon accounting question: when the BTM asset is owned and operated by a third party, where should we account for those emissions?

There has been some confusion that has resulted in companies pursuing an interpretation that would place those emissions in scope 3. The GHG Protocol’s Corporate Standard says otherwise, and the stakes of getting this wrong are high.

What Is Behind-the-Meter Power Generation?

Behind-the-meter refers to electricity generated on the power consumer’s side of the utility meter, bypassing the grid, and typically located on or near the site where the power is consumed. 

In most BTM arrangements for a data center, a third-party developer builds and operates a generation asset, such as natural gas, geothermal, or renewable energy, and delivers electricity directly to the facility through a private transmission line. There is no utility meter, no grid connection, and no standard energy invoice. 

This structure allows companies to access large, reliable blocks of power without waiting years for grid interconnection approvals. Since the company does not own or operate the generation asset and is not purchasing electricity through a conventional utility relationship, this arrangement has created some uncertainty around how to account for the associated emissions. 

Can BTM Electricity Emissions Be Classified As Scope 3?

In this scenario, no. The GHG Protocol's Corporate Standard is unambiguous: BTM electricity emissions belong in scope 2, not scope 3. Yet, some companies have been confused about this classification.

There is broad agreement that since the power users do not own or operate the generating asset, those emissions do not belong in scope 1. Divergence starts when we consider that the company is purchasing BTM power, i.e., not from the grid. Since no electricity is acquired from the grid, some argue that rather than accounting for these emissions in scope 2, they are better placed in scope 3, category 8: emissions from leased assets. 

The appeal is obvious for BTM power consumers. Scope 3 emissions face less scrutiny from investors, auditors, and regulators who focus most of their attention on scopes 1 and 2. Classifying BTM emissions as scope 3 would reduce near-term pressure to act. However, the GHG Protocol is unambiguous in its stance.

What the GHG Protocol Actually Says

The GHG Protocol’s Scope 2 Guidance states that “organizations must quantify emissions from the generation of acquired and consumed electricity, steam, heat, or cooling (collectively referred to as ‘electricity’).” The method of delivery, whether grid or BTM, does not change the classification. 

If a company consumes electricity from a BTM source, the emissions from generating that electricity belong in scope 2. Section 5.4 of the Scope 2 Guidance addresses BTM power generation directly: “the company with operational or financial control of the energy generation facility reports those emissions in scope 1, following the operational control approach, while the consumer of the energy reports the emissions in scope 2.”

This resolves the question completely. The emissions sit in scope 1 if the company has operational or financial control of the asset, or in scope 2 if a third party controls it.

The GHG Protocol’s Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard reinforces this conclusion. “Category 8 includes emissions from the operation of assets that are leased by the reporting company in the reporting year and not already included in the reporting company’s scope 1 or scope 2 inventories.”

Because BTM electricity emissions are captured by the Scope 2 Guidance, the scope 3 category 8 does not apply.

Get the Accounting Right Before the Contract Closes

The GHG Protocol is unambiguous: behind-the-meter electricity emissions belong in scope 2 for companies that consume, but do not control the generating asset. This means that BTM contract terms are crucial to determining how the emissions will be classified, since the GHG Protocol assigns scope based on who holds operational or financial control of the generating asset. 

Companies that move fast on BTM capacity without understanding this distinction risk locking in a scope 1 or scope 2 obligation they didn't anticipate or building a reporting strategy around a scope 3 interpretation the GHG Protocol doesn't support. This can become a reputational or even a regulatory liability that is far harder to address after the contract is signed.

[cta]

Key Takeaways

• Geothermal shares the clean firm category with only three other technologies: nuclear, natural gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS), and solar or wind paired with long-duration energy storage (LDES).
• Buyers comparing geothermal to solar or unabated natural gas power contracts are comparing different products: one isn’t firm, the other isn’t clean, and both remain cheaper options because they satisfy less of what buyers currently need. 
• Geothermal’s cost premium is real, but so is the value it delivers. Geothermal can reach 90%+ capacity factor, delivering dispatchable clean power around the clock, and it sidesteps the gas turbine manufacturing backlogs and pipeline infrastructure delays slowing other firm power technologies. 
• Geothermal is closer to commercial readiness than most buyers realize. As demand for firm, low-carbon power intensifies, geothermal warrants a serious look alongside nuclear and gas with CCS.

Geothermal is Gaining Traction Despite Its Cost Premium

Hyperscalers, corporate energy buyers, and data center developers face unprecedented pressure to procure clean power. Wind and solar have played a major role in meeting this need, but they are intermittent, and load growth is accelerating and changing. This market pressure is creating bottlenecks that cannot be solved without new grid infrastructure and/or substantial additions of energy storage. Geothermal, which does not suffer from intermittency, has gained tremendous momentum as a challenger to wind and solar, yet it carries one seemingly glaring disadvantage: its cost. 

Yet, major utilities and hyperscalers alike are lining up for geothermal offtake anyway: Southern California Edison and Google have signed separate contracts with Fervo, and Meta has two 150 MW agreements in place with Sage and XGS. These contracts are signaling a growing shift in power markets: not all megawatt-hours are created equal, and the cheapest contracts may no longer contain what buyers truly need. 

Fast, Clean Firm Power: What Buyers Need Today 

In the clean firm power evolution, clean came first. Buyers signed solar and wind power purchase agreements (PPAs) and matched their annual consumption with renewable energy contracts, or offset them with renewable energy certificates (RECs). With lax carbon accounting, solar and wind remain unbeatable on price. But annual emissions tallies conceal something important—a buyer can procure as much renewable electricity as it consumes over a year while still depending on the rest of the grid during the hours when those resources are unavailable. To close that gap, buyers need a source that delivers clean power around the clock, firmly in every hour, on demand. 

Two unforgiving demands have followed since: speed and location. With today’s rapid buildout of new load, a power source needs to come online in time to deliver power when the customer needs it. It is also important to connect near a customer’s location because existing transmission assets are often fully subscribed. Failure on either axis can disqualify a project. However, a contract that can meet all attributes: clean in every hour, firm on demand, quick to deliver, and able to reach the load, might be the best (or only) option available. It is also likely to be considerably more expensive than those annual solar benchmarks that only met the clean condition. 

Four Technologies Make the Clean Firm Power Shortlist

Given this strict set of constraints, what power options should buyers consider? The right set of technologies should aim to solve as many of the aforementioned conditions as possible, and that leaves a fairly tight shortlist: 

1. Solar or Wind paired with Long-Duration Energy Storage (LDES): To achieve the level of reliability that many buyers, including data centers, require, solar or wind would have to be paired with LDES, beyond 4–8 hours, to be able to cover evening hours and remain online during increasingly common extreme weather events. While there are promising LDES technologies on the horizon, most remain expensive and not yet widely commercial. Costs rise significantly compared to a standard solar or wind PPA, and viability varies by location. This will be increasingly competitive as storage costs fall, but not yet a mature firm-power solution at scale.
2. Natural Gas with CCS: With large amounts of unabated natural gas generation coming online, CCS is an attractive option to mitigate a large portion of these emissions while retaining time to power (by building gas first and adding CCS later) and the dispatchability of gas-fired power. On the flip side, CCS is operationally complex, geographically restricted, and - unlike other options here - failure at any point in the CCS chain directly impacts the carbon intensity of power delivered. Gas-fired generation is also reliant on the gas delivery pipeline infrastructure, which may face capacity constraints. Finally, natural gas with CCS is 50% more costly per MWh than unabated firm gas.
3. Nuclear: Nuclear is seeing renewed interest from a wide range of corporate buyers and investors. Conventional nuclear and small modular reactors (SMRs) are attracting funding and offtake deals. While nuclear power holds high potential, long development timelines, high capital costs, and technology risk remain barriers to commercializing the next wave of nuclear technologies. 
4. Geothermal: Geothermal can provide firm, dispatchable, and low-carbon power with capacity factors typically above 90%. Development timelines can be faster than nuclear in regions where resources are already proven, with some projects approaching commercial readiness now. Geothermal technology is still geographically constrained, but enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) are poised to  expand their geographical flexibility by reducing the number of siting variables. 

How to Evaluate the Right Clean Firm Power Technology for Your Project

How do these various options stack up? We compared them across six dimensions:

1. Firmness: how reliably a resource can deliver power on the hour, on demand
2. Carbon: the lifecycle emissions intensity when considering the operational emissions of the generating facility and the broader system carbon impacts required to meet any reliability gaps
3. Time to power: a measure of how long it takes to get from “we need power” to delivery, including interconnection and schedule risk
4. Cost (current): the likely cost of a PPA if signed today
5. Execution risk: a measure of how likely a project’s claims regarding price, timing, and performance will hold
6. Siting flexibility: a measure of how constrained a resource is to a specific geography

This frame is ultimately something the buyer should score themselves; below you will find our current read. Red (unfavorable) represents a weakness that can end an evaluation on its own, green (favorable) means the dimension won’t constrain the decision, and yellow (moderate) sits somewhere in between. 

Comparing the clean firm power options is, perhaps ironically, challenging along the “clean” and “firm” lines. Every serious contender delivers low-carbon power around the clock, because that is the price of admission. Not one technology earns an unfavorable rating in those categories. And that is the catch: every weakness in the comparison table sits somewhere else. The dimensions that ultimately win (or end) these contracts may be the ones that the “clean firm” label can obscure or oversimplify.

A resource that cannot be energized for a decade, or sited near load, or delivered at a price a buyer cannot defend internally, may be infeasible regardless of what else it offers. None of the four clean firm generation technology groupings clear every hurdle today, but they can satisfy different buyer priorities.  

Solar or wind with LDES offers more buyer flexibility, at a price. Enough generation, storage, and other firming can deliver the reliability required, and the buyer sets that target. But the increments get expensive quickly, especially when reliability gaps remain long or unpredictable. Covering more hours means more storage and more generation to fill it, so each step toward firmness parity costs more than the one before it. Firming shortfalls also carry carbon consequences, depending on what gets called to compensate. Those emissions may be absent from GHG accounting ledgers, but that doesn’t stop them from hitting the atmosphere. 

Gas with CCS is challenged by execution and siting because the product depends on a chain: gas generation, capture, transport, and a permitted storage site capable of permanent CO₂ disposal at scale. Each piece can be developed and tested, but low-carbon electricity requires all of them to work together, which can only be demonstrated once all are built. A buyer cannot substitute a link, and cannot observe the whole chain before committing. Clean, in this sense, is conditional, and the delivered power could end up being far more carbon-intensive than advertised.

Nuclear ranks poorly on time, cost, and execution, but full-scale reactors and small modular reactors carry those weaknesses differently. A large reactor arrives in one piece, and its schedule and final cost come into focus as construction advances. By then, years and billions are committed; a buyer cannot learn from a fraction of a reactor before deciding whether to finish it. Small modular reactors are designed to break that capacity into increments a buyer could add as demand grows, which would ease the one-piece problem. But none are operating commercially in the US yet, and the signed deals target first power in the 2030s, so the modular promise is still years out. 

Geothermal’s weaknesses work somewhat differently. Conventional hydrothermal is tightly constrained by location, which buyers can screen before choosing where to procure, or co-locate where possible. Next-generation geothermal, including EGS, could widen that geography considerably. 

For EGS, the largest remaining uncertainty is execution: whether the developers can replicate successful drilling and reservoir performance at commercial scale. Part of that risk belongs to the rock, and no contract can make a reservoir perform. But drilling also produces information before the entire project has been built, and geothermal capacity can often be developed incrementally as needed. A buyer can require resource evidence before committing, tie later commitments to demonstrated performance, or spread procurement across projects rather than depend on a single field. 

Geothermal’s flexibility has limits. A buyer who needs full capacity by a fixed date may have little room to wait for wells to perform before committing to the next phase. And successful wells do not eliminate risk in project expansion or guarantee performance in other locations. Execution risk stays with the resource. What geothermal offers is more opportunity to learn about that risk while a buyer can still do something about it. 

Revisiting the Geothermal Premium

Geothermal contracts, especially EGS, remain expensive. But that premium looks different on this side of the comparison. Clean has a cost, but so does firmness, speed,  reach, and execution. Every clean firm option pays for those attributes somewhere. Solar and wind contracts will remain cheap by comparison, but it’s the wrong comparison: the market signing geothermal contracts is pricing a much larger product. 

That still leaves a hard decision. Geothermal and gas with CCS carry execution risk and siting constraints. Nuclear asks more of the buyer on cost and time. Firmed solar asks more as reliability requirements rise. The best option will change with each buyer, location, and project. Geothermal’s place in that choice is changing quickly. EGS is expanding where projects can be developed, drilling costs are falling, and commercial experience is growing. Those advances are bringing geothermal into consideration for buyers who previously had little reason to look its way. 

And that may be the more revealing aspect of the geothermal market today: buyers are signing those contracts with the alternatives in full view. Their decisions offer an early indication of what clean firm power delivered in the right place and at the right time is worth, and which risks buyers are willing to carry to get it. 

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Geothermal Cheaper Than a Solar PPA? 

No, a geothermal power contract can be significantly more expensive than a solar PPA. But they're not the same product: solar meets annual clean-energy targets, while geothermal delivers firm, dispatchable power around the clock, which is why buyers are increasingly comparing it to nuclear and gas with CCS instead.

Is Geothermal Cheaper Than Solar with LDES? 

Not necessarily on a per-contract basis, but the cost structures behave differently. Solar with LDES gets more expensive with every additional hour of reliability a buyer needs, since covering more hours means adding both more storage and more generation to fill it. Geothermal's premium, by contrast, is priced into the contract upfront as a firm, dispatchable product from day one.

How Does Geothermal's Risk Compare to Gas with CCS? 

Differently, in a way that matters to buyers. Gas with CCS depends on a chain (generation, capture, transport, and storage) that can only be verified once the whole system is built, so a buyer can't test it piece by piece. Geothermal generates performance data incrementally through drilling, letting buyers require resource evidence or tie commitments to demonstrated results before committing further, though this data does not come free.

Which Deploys Faster, Geothermal or Nuclear? 

Geothermal, in regions with already-proven resources. Fervo's Cape Station, for example, broke ground in 2023 and is on track for first power in late 2026 and 500 MW by 2028: a fraction of a typical new-nuclear large reactor timeline.