From Capture-Ready to Capture-Committed: Decarbonizing Natural Gas with CCS

Key Takeaways

• AI-driven data center demand is outpacing grid capacity, and hyperscalers are bringing more natural gas, which already supplies about 40% of US electricity, online to meet their needs.
• Pairing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) with natural gas lets data centers source firm power today while cutting plant-level emissions up to 95%—without waiting on multi-year renewable interconnection queues.
• The Google-Broadwing deal demonstrates real progress and commitment toward natural gas with CCS as the first major commercial deployment of this exact pathway

Meeting Electricity Demand and GHG Emission Reduction Targets

Rapid growth in electricity demand across the US, driven by AI data center expansion and increased industrial electrification, is placing significant pressure on power grids. After decades of stable electricity load, demand has increased significantly since 2022 and is expected to rapidly grow for the foreseeable future. Natural gas currently fuels around 40% of US electricity generation. Its share is expected to grow in the coming years. However, unabated natural gas generation is not compatible with stakeholder targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Combining CCS with natural gas-fired generation is one pathway to meet growing electricity demand and achieve GHG emission reduction targets.

[cta]

The Role of Natural Gas in Electricity Supply

Natural Gas Generation Versus Renewable Generation Deployment

Electricity generators can provide multiple products to regional grids, generally providing two services: energy (power production) and reliability (consistent availability). Natural gas-fired plants can provide both, whereas renewable energy sources like wind and solar generate energy but offer less reliability. 

As electricity demand rapidly grows, grids will need both energy and reliability to function effectively. However, the interconnection queue for renewable energy assets has a years-long backlog which is delaying their deployment. Grids will need additional reliability assets to support the large amounts of renewables (usually in the form of storage). Some jurisdictions are creating an alternate pathway for natural gas plants to bypass the lengthy interconnection queue which may allow for the rapid development of natural gas generators.  Hyperscalers are also pursuing development of large behind-the-meter (BTM) generation of electricity from renewable and fossil sources, but these must also meet high standards for reliability. 

The Case for Carbon Capture Deployment

Electric utilities and developers of data center infrastructure are planning to build substantial new natural gas generation assets in addition to maximal deployment of renewable electricity. CCS technology enables natural gas plants to deliver stable, continuous power while significantly reducing emissions by capturing up to 95% of emitted CO₂. Natural gas plants with CCS are viable options to deliver the lower-emission, reliable power needed to respond to rapidly emerging AI data center power demand growth. The 45Q tax credit, a key government incentive for CCS, was preserved and effectively strengthened under 2025's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The Google-Broadwing deal, the first major commercial deployment of this exact pathway, was signed in October 2025 and serves as a useful proof point.

Benefits of Integrating CCS into Natural Gas Power Generation

Integrating CCS into natural gas-fired power plants provides several advantages for data center stakeholders:

• Reduced carbon emissions: Achieve emission intensities of approximately 80–120 kg of CO₂ equivalent per megawatt-hour (CO₂e/MWh), significantly below the current US grid average of approximately 340–420 kg CO₂e/MWh.
• Reliable baseload power: Continuous, predictable electricity delivery.
• Compact infrastructure: Requires less land compared to renewable energy projects, simplifying data center siting near existing infrastructure.
• Cost: CCS integrated with new natural gas-fired generation can deliver low-cost decarbonization. Relae estimates $75-150/MWh, which is competitive in many markets with other firm baseload options such as new nuclear power or wind and solar with battery backup.

Seven Key Considerations for Implementing CCS

Stakeholders considering CCS technology must carefully evaluate seven critical factors:

1. Meeting Rapid Deployment Timelines

Traditional natural gas plants can be operational within roughly 18 months, provided they bypass interconnection queues for reliability purposes and have access to key equipment. Integrating CCS technology extends this by an additional 18–36 months. Designing plants to be "capture-ready" allows for quicker initial deployment and smoother CCS integration in the future. However, deploying a capture-ready plant without a commitment to build the carbon capture portion is inconsistent with serious climate action. 

2. Sizing Plants Optimally

CCS is most economically and environmentally optimal at natural gas plants with capacities of 100 MW or greater. It offers significant opportunities for emissions reductions for the forecasted new data center load. CCS is not suitable for smaller or highly variable natural gas plants.

3. Selecting Effective Carbon Capture Technology

CCS technologies such as solvents, sorbents, membranes, and oxyfiring vary significantly in maturity, efficiency, and cost. Choosing the right approach requires thorough evaluations aligned with specific project requirements. These will vary by setting and configuration (e.g., turbine class, reciprocating engines, number of units, water availability, etc.).

4. Navigating CO₂ Transportation Logistics

The safe and efficient transport of captured CO₂ via pipelines, rail, or barges is critical. Aligning infrastructure planning with overall project timelines prevents delays.

5. Ensuring Safe and Effective Sequestration

If there is no CO₂ storage, there is no project. Permanent CO₂ storage in Class VI injection wells requires detailed geological studies and regulatory permitting. Early collaboration with experienced sequestration operators is essential to success.

6. Conducting a Comprehensive Life Cycle Analysis

Full life cycle emissions analyses, including upstream methane leakage, construction impacts, and CO₂ transportation, are critical for accurate environmental assessments and ensuring low-carbon electricity supply. Prioritizing low-leakage, third-party verified natural gas supply enhances positive climate impacts.

7. Performing Siting Feasibility Early

An early and quick feasibility assessment is critical to identifying promising opportunities and key barriers at candidate CCS sites. Important factors include available transmission capacity, the potential to expedite approval of interconnection for thermal resources, regulatory barriers, state and local incentives, the sufficiency of natural gas infrastructure, and water supply.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much longer does adding carbon capture take compared to building a natural gas plant alone? Traditional natural gas plants can be operational within roughly 18 months, provided they bypass interconnection queues for reliability purposes and have access to key equipment. Integrating CCS technology extends this by an additional 18–36 months.

Is a "capture-ready" natural gas plant a legitimate climate strategy if the capture portion isn't committed yet? Designing plants to be "capture-ready" allows for quicker initial deployment and smoother CCS integration in the future. However, deploying a capture-ready plant without a commitment to build the carbon capture portion is inconsistent with serious climate action. “Capture committed” is a better stance than “capture ready”. 

How does the cost of natural gas-fired power with CCS compare to nuclear or renewables with battery storage? CCS integrated with new natural gas-fired generation can deliver low-cost decarbonization. Relae estimates $75-150/MWh, which is competitive in many markets with other firm baseload options such as new nuclear power or wind and solar with battery backup.

Has any hyperscaler actually deployed natural gas-fired power with CCS at scale yet? The Google-Broadwing deal, the first major commercial commitment of this exact pathway, was signed in October 2025 and serves as a useful proof point. Others are in development.

[cta]

How Relae Supports Data Center Decarbonization

Natural gas-fired generation combined with CCS is a proven solution for meeting the urgent electricity demands of data centers while significantly reducing emissions. Relae helps stakeholders navigate the complexities of CCS deployment through deep, science-backed expertise and strategic advisory services. Our experienced team provides comprehensive support throughout CCS project planning and execution, including technology selection, life cycle emissions analysis, infrastructure assessment, project viability, regulatory compliance, and risk management. 

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

• 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 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol’s proposed scope 2 revisions would shift many large power buyers from annual renewable energy certificate (REC) accounting to 24/7 hourly matching and reveal a larger emissions gap than most inventories currently report.
• Of all the US grid regions modeled, the emissions gap between annual and 24/7 hourly matching is widest in PJM Interconnection (PJM) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the markets where data center load is growing fastest.
• Relae's modeling quantifies the shift from annual to 24/7 hourly matching: serving a 4-gigawatt (GW) data center load at 100% hourly carbon-free energy requires 9.6 GW of additional clean capacity in ERCOT and 10.5 GW in PJM, a roughly 800-megawatt premium in PJM that translates directly into cost and siting strategy.
• Closing that gap requires investments in clean, firm generation technologies, like natural gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS), battery storage, and geothermal. The optimal mix varies by market and load profile, which means modeling current and future emissions positions under 24/7 accounting to understand the best procurement options for a specific portfolio.

Annual REC Accounting No Longer Holds at Data Center Scale

For years, large corporate energy buyers have relied on a straightforward approach: purchase renewable energy certificates (RECs) or sign virtual power purchase agreements (VPPAs) to offset market-based scope 2 emissions. Under the current GHG Protocol guidance, these instruments allow companies to claim low or zero emissions regardless of when or where clean energy is actually generated. When corporate clean energy demand was modest, this fueled new renewable project development while aggregate grid emissions were trending down.

That approach worked, until now. Energy demand from data centers and hyperscalers is surging. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) reported more than 50 GW of data center capacity operating in the US at the end of 2025, much of it concentrated in regions where local clean generation cannot keep pace. When corporate clean energy demand was modest, the gap between contractual claims and physical generation was small enough that few questioned this argument. At hyperscaler levels, with load concentrated in a handful of grids, that gap is becoming too large to ignore.

From a climate perspective, well-designed renewable procurement has created real impact by channeling corporate capital into new clean generation, and reducing CO2 emissions anywhere to benefit the climate everywhere. From a grid perspective, power consumption and generation must balance in real time, and the flow of electricity is constrained by the physics of the transmission system. Some regulators, investors, and standard-setters argue that corporate clean energy claims should be grounded in this second, engineering perspective rather than the first. The GHG Protocol's proposed revisions reflect that view, and would force buyers to defend their claims against it.

Relae’s modeling of this 24/7 framework in PJM and ERCOT helps quantify its costs and emissions implications in the markets where the stakes are highest.  

What Does 24/7 Hourly Matching Mean for Scope 2 Accounting?

The biggest proposed change to the GHG Protocol’s current Scope 2 Guidance is the move from annual power reporting and matching to a 24/7 approach. Instead of calculating emissions with an annual emissions factor (EF) based on their independent system operator (ISO) or eGRID region for each megawatt-hour (MWh) consumed, companies would need to use hourly-specific EFs. 

Companies would still be able to retire RECs to reduce their market-based emissions. However, companies would need to show that these RECs came from clean energy that was generated on the same grid, in the same hour as their facilities consumed power. This makes annual, location-agnostic REC retirement, currently the dominant practice, insufficient for 24/7 market-based accounting. 

Both the time restriction (hourly matching) and the location restriction (generation on the same grid as consumption) will make it more difficult for companies to retire RECs. For example, because today's methodology is location-agnostic, a New York-based company can retire RECs from a Texas wind farm (purchased unbundled or via a VPPA) to reduce its reported market-based scope 2 value. This has allowed renewable development to follow the best resource sites rather than the load. Similarly, the time of day that the wind farm generates energy is irrelevant, as long as it is approximately in the same calendar year. 

Under the proposed revisions, retiring these RECs would no longer be acceptable for the New York company, since they would fail both location- and hourly-matching requirements. As a result, companies with large REC portfolios today may no longer be able to retire them in order to reduce their market-based scope 2 emissions, if the proposed revisions take effect. These companies may face significant unmatched consumption under 24/7 accounting, especially during evening peaks or grid stress events when fossil-based generation fills the gap. 

Annual Matching vs 24/7 Hourly Matching

‍

The figure below illustrates the gap between what a representative large buyer reports under the current annual location- and market-based methodologies, versus what an hourly 24/7 analysis reveals.

Understanding this emissions gap is the essential first step for buyers to make informed decisions about which instruments to retain, which contracts to renegotiate, and where new investment will matter most. If the proposed scope 2 revisions are enacted, companies procuring clean energy will be disincentivized from buying RECs sourced from variable renewables in distant locations, and instead will find it more favorable to invest in same-grid clean, firm generation, such as geothermal, nuclear, and renewables plus storage. RECs from these projects would qualify to be retired against market-based scope 2 emissions under the proposed revisions, where today's distant-wind or off-peak-solar RECs would not.

Where Pressure Is the Highest: ERCOT and PJM

Two markets stand out for projected hyperscaler load growth: PJM, which covers the extended mid-Atlantic region, and ERCOT in Texas. Both are on track to absorb massive increases in data center demand over the next decade, and both expose the limits of annual REC accounting in ways that will be hard to ignore under the new proposed framework.

PJM: 60% Fossil Generation Means High Marginal Emissions

PJM is one of the largest and most complex wholesale electricity markets in the world. Its generation mix still includes 60% coal and natural gas, which means hourly emissions intensity remains high, particularly during evening peaks and grid stress events when fossil generation dominates the dispatch stack. 

Buyers relying solely on annual REC retirement may show low market-based scope 2 emissions today, but a 24/7 analysis tells a different story. For PJM-based buyers, this means hourly matching gaps will be largest during evening and overnight hours, when nuclear and storage become disproportionately valuable relative to additional solar.

ERCOT: Solar and Wind Don’t Peak When Demand Does

Texas has abundant wind and solar, with solar generation growing nearly 7x since 2020, but those resources don’t always run when demand peaks. While fossil-based generation has declined since 2020, it still comprises more than half of ERCOT’s generation. Solar dominates midday, wind peaks in the evening, and natural gas fills the gaps, especially during high-demand evenings or extreme weather events. 

Buyers with large ERCOT footprints may find that VPPA portfolios, which generate most of their clean energy in off-peak hours, already satisfy the proposed location-based test but fail on hourly matching. Battery storage and demand flexibility could help bridge the gap.

Figure 3 below quantifies that gap in both markets by showcasing the carbon-free energy (CFE) score in ERCOT and PJM, as well as the additional capacity required for a 4 GW load to achieve a 100% CFE target. The CFE score is the share of grid-supplied electricity in a given hour that comes from carbon-free sources, and is the metric the proposed scope 2 revisions would use to evaluate hourly matching. A 100% CFE target means electricity consumption is matched to carbon-free generation in every hour of the year.

In the left panel, a representation¹ of each market's 2030 hours are sorted by grid (CFE) score, from the dirtiest hour on the left to the cleanest on the right. Neither grid approaches 100% carbon-free on its own, and the shaded areas represent the unmatched hours a buyer claiming 100% clean energy through annual instruments would actually carry under 24/7 accounting. The gap is the maximum unmatched hours a buyer might be exposed to, as some RECs procured through annual matching may qualify under the new rules, if satisfying the locational and hourly requirements.

The right panel translates that gap into action. The additional co-located clean generation and storage required to serve a representative 4 GW load (roughly 5% of the forecast 2030 C&I load in ERCOT and 4% in PJM) at a 100% hourly CFE target, on top of what the underlying grid already provides.

A few patterns are worth highlighting. First, the left panel confirms that PJM’s grid will still spend materially more hours below 100% carbon-free than ERCOT’s in 2030, a direct consequence of the coal- and gas-heavy generation mix described above. Notably, ERCOT's curve reaches 100% in a meaningful share of hours (windows when the grid is running entirely on carbon-free resources), while PJM's never does, meaning some fossil generation is dispatched in every hour.  

Second, the ISO a buyer operates in drives a meaningful difference in build-out: hitting 100% hourly CFE for a 4 GW load takes 9.6 GW of additional capacity in ERCOT and closer to 10.5 GW in PJM. This indicates the advantage of achieving hourly and locational matching in already clean grids, which may influence a buyer choosing where to site new workloads. 

Renewables have the largest share of the additional capacity in both markets (5-6 GW), paired with significant long-duration energy storage (~2 GW), while natural gas with CCS provides meaningful clean, firm capacity (~3 GW). ERCOT’s storage share of capacity is slightly larger, reflecting the midday-solar/evening-load mismatch, while PJM leans a bit more on natural gas with CCS, where clean, firm generation does more of the heavy lifting due to lower wind speeds and solar irradiance than Texas.

The right panel also illustrates why clean, firm technologies (natural gas with CCS, advanced nuclear, and enhanced geothermal) are likely to be included alongside renewables and batteries in any serious 24/7 portfolio. With only renewables and batteries, hitting the same target requires about double the total generation and storage capacity. In both markets, targets that look achievable today on an annual REC basis will require materially more capital and a different mix of resources, under 24/7 accounting. 

Top Questions Large Power Buyers Need to Model Before the Rules Change

The GHG Protocol revisions are not finalized, and the timing of any mandate remains uncertain, which is exactly why modeling cannot wait.

A useful self-test for any large power buyer is: can your team answer the following today with defensible numbers?

• What is your hourly CFE score across your largest load centers, and how far does it sit from your reported market-based emissions?
• Which of your existing VPPAs and REC contracts hold value under 24/7 accounting, and which become effectively stranded?
• What mix of resources delivers the incremental clean, firm capacity that closes your gap in PJM, ERCOT, or wherever your load is concentrated at the lowest cost?
• If your next gigawatt of load were sited in a different ISO, how would your emissions position change?

Clean firm projects do not appear off the shelf. Advanced nuclear, enhanced geothermal, and natural gas with CCS all carry multi-year development timelines, and corporate offtake agreements are often what get these projects financed in the first place. Buyers who engage now help shape the project pipeline that will be available in their target markets in 2030, and can lock in offtake terms before competition for the most valuable sites tightens. Buyers who wait until the methodology is final will be working with shorter lead times, fewer development partners, and less leverage to specify projects that fit their load profiles and hourly matching needs.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is 24/7 hourly matching, and how does it differ from today's REC accounting?

Today's scope 2 accounting lets companies retire renewable energy certificates (RECs) from any grid, at any time of year, to offset their emissions. The GHG Protocol's proposed 24/7 hourly matching would require RECs to come from clean generation on the same grid, in the same hour a facility consumes power, making most of today's location-agnostic RECs ineligible for market-based accounting.

Why are PJM and ERCOT under the most pressure from this shift?

Both markets are absorbing the fastest-growing data center load in the country, and both still lean on fossil generation to meet demand outside peak renewable hours. PJM's generation mix is 60% coal and gas, while ERCOT's solar and wind often don't peak when demand does, so buyers in these markets face the largest gaps between their annual REC claims and their actual hourly carbon-free energy score.

How much additional clean capacity does it take to close the gap?

Relae's modeling finds that serving a 4 GW data center load at 100% hourly carbon-free energy requires 9.6 GW of additional clean capacity in ERCOT and 10.5 GW in PJM. That capacity mix leans on renewables and long-duration storage in both markets, with natural gas with CCS playing a larger role in PJM, where wind and solar resources are weaker.

What should power buyers do before the GHG Protocol revisions are finalized?

Start modeling now. Buyers should know their hourly carbon-free energy score, understand which existing VPPAs and REC contracts hold value under 24/7 accounting, and identify the lowest-cost mix of clean, firm resources that closes their gap. Clean firm projects like advanced nuclear, enhanced geothermal, and natural gas with CCS take years to develop, so buyers who engage early have more influence over the project pipeline and better offtake terms.

Modeling the 24/7 Emissions Gap with Relae

For large power buyers assessing what the proposed GHG Protocol revisions mean for their power procurement portfolio, Relae's Advanced Power Emissions Analysis solution models the gap between current market-based reporting and what 24/7 accounting would reveal—by market, load profile, and technology stack. 

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.

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.