Top Questions on FERC's Co-Location Compliance Order for PJM, Answered

This article was originally published in collaboration with the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University as part of its Energy Explained series. 

Key Takeaways

• Attention to data centers is skyrocketing in state capitals across the United States.
• In data center bills passed by state legislatures in 2025, two topics dominated: locational incentives (such as reduced sales taxes) and ratepayer protection. Many bills addressing data centers' water use and environmental risks were proposed, but few were enacted.
• Almost all the enacted bills encouraging data centers to locate in a state were passed by Republican legislatures, and more bills addressing data centers' environmental risks were proposed in Democratic legislatures than Republican legislatures. Concern about the impacts of data centers on power prices was bipartisan.

Introduction

From east to west and north to south, in red states and blue states, attention to data centers is skyrocketing in state capitals across the United States. Our research identified more than 190 bills on data centers introduced in state legislatures in the first 11 months of 2025—roughly nine times the number of such bills introduced in 2024. The bills address a wide range of topics, including economic development, ratepayer protection, grid reliability, and disclosure of data centers' energy use and environmental impacts. More than two dozen of these bills were enacted into law.

This newfound interest in data centers in state capitals is unlikely to abate anytime soon. The data center industry is growing at a staggering pace. A recent McKinsey report projected roughly $2.8 trillion in spending on data center infrastructure in the US by 2030. In 2024, data centers used roughly 4–5% of the electricity produced in the United States—a percentage projected to grow sharply in the years ahead. A rapid buildout of data centers and electricity infrastructure to support them offers economic and strategic benefits but also creates risks for ratepayers, water resources and the environment.

State policymakers are on the front lines of these issues. State governments promote economic development, regulate electricity rates and have jurisdiction over many local resource and environmental issues. Different stakeholders have strongly conflicting views on data centers, setting up high-profile debates in state capitals as well as in Washington, DC.

This blog post—the first entry in a project that will explore state data center policies, power prices and related topics—presents these findings.

Methodology: Tracking Data Center Legislation

We (the authors of this article) queried StateNet's database of state legislation to identify bills proposed between January 1 and November 30, 2025 that used several terms including "data center" and "large load." After removing bills that used those terms but addressed different issues, we categorized the remaining bills into topic areas (including tax incentives, ratepayer protection, zoning and siting, disclosure requirements, environmental protections, labor, water resources, clean energy, and research studies) as well as status (enacted, pending, rejected, and passed but vetoed). We supplemented this research with queries to ChatGPT and Gemini to help identify possible gaps in the StateNet review, double-checking links provided by those large language models to ensure the information provided was accurate.

Almost all state legislatures have now adjourned for the year. (Only six state legislatures remain in session in December.) Trends with respect to state legislative activity on data centers in the first 11 months of 2025 included the following.  

Eight Key Data Center Trends From State Legislative Activity in 2025

1. One of the most common objectives of state bills related to data centers was to encourage those facilities to locate in a state.  

• Roughly 50 bills were introduced in state legislatures offering data centers tax incentives or other benefits.  
• Of the more than two dozen bills on data centers enacted by state legislatures, at least nine provided tax incentives or other inducements for siting decisions. Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky and Minnesota, among other states, all extended or increased sales or use tax exemptions for data centers. Indiana and West Virginia, among others, established favorable zoning and fast-track permitting procedures to facilitate data center construction.

2. State legislatures are paying growing attention to the impact of data centers on power prices. Ratepayer protection and tariff rate issues were among the most popular topics for state legislation on data centers. More than 40 such bills were proposed and at least six such bills passed. Those included:

• Minnesota HF 16, which requires new large grid customers (including data centers), as a group, to cover all their grid costs;
• Texas SB 6, which requires the Texas Public Utility Commission "to support business development in this state while minimizing the potential for stranded infrastructure costs;" and  
• New Jersey A5466 and California SB 57, both of which require the state PUC to study within one year the effect of data centers on electricity costs.

3. Many bills related to the environmental impacts of data centers were introduced in state legislatures, including approximately 30 bills related to water consumption. Only a few of these bills were enacted. Minnesota HF 16, for example, requires close attention to water use in permitting new data centers. Kansas SB 98 makes tax credits for data centers contingent on practices that will "conserve, reuse and replace water."

4. Approximately 40 bills were introduced requiring data centers to disclose their energy use and/or environmental impacts to state authorities, with roughly a dozen bills requiring disclosure to the public. Details regarding metrics and anonymization of reports varied widely. At least three of these disclosure-related bills were enacted, including the following.

• Texas SB 6 requires interconnection applicants to disclose whether they are pursuing other interconnection applications in the state as well as information on onsite back-up generating facilities.
• Minnesota HF 16 requires data centers to disclose information on water consumption volumes.
• Iowa HB 976 requires data centers to submit an annual report to the Department of Revenue detailing the amount of backup power generation fuel and electricity purchased.

5. Several states passed bills limiting tax benefits for data centers.

Iowa limited sales tax exemptions for new data centers to 10 or 15 years (depending on their size), and Florida raised the minimum size for data centers receiving sales tax exemptions from 15 megawatts (MW) to 100 MW.  

6. Texas became the first state in the nation to pass a bill requiring data center operators to enable remote disconnections for use during grid emergencies (referred to as a "kill switch provision").

7. There is little consistency in the legislative text of state bills on data centers.

• Definitions of data centers, thresholds for incentives, and regulations related to disclosure, zoning, siting, environmental impact mitigation and ratepayer protection vary significantly.
• This may be the expected product of variance among state-level policy regimes, and suggests the absence of close coordination among state legislatures or stakeholder groups.

8. The pattern of proposed and enacted bills displayed some partisan patterns.

Almost all the enacted bills encouraging data centers to locate in a state were passed by Republican legislatures. More bills addressing environmental risks from data centers were proposed in Democratic legislatures than Republican legislatures. However bills concerning the impacts of data centers on other ratepayers were enacted in states with Democratic legislatures and governors (including California, New Jersey and Oregon), Republican legislatures and governors (including Texas and Utah) and in which the legislature is controlled by one party and the governor another (including Kansas).

Data centers will be a hot topic as many state legislatures reconvene in January. The Executive Order on state AI laws released by the White House December 11 2025 does not seek to preempt state laws related to data centers (see in particular Section 8b), however questions related to the optimal role of state governments and the federal government on AI and data centers will likely be prominent as well.

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

• 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

• Scope 2 emissions (indirect emissions from energy use) are increasingly critical to address. With surging electricity demand, especially from data centers, scope 2 is a growing share of corporate emissions and a priority for decarbonization.
• Approaches to scope 2 accounting are evolving—and formal changes are now on the table. Both location-based and market-based methods remain accepted under the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. Still, the Protocol's recently closed public consultation proposes more granular approaches, including 24/7 power and carbon matching, that would better reflect the realities of modern power markets.
• Proven decarbonization levers, such as reducing energy use, entering power purchase agreements, procuring green tariffs, and buying high-quality renewable energy certificates, are already available and impactful. Decarbonization, not just measurement, must be the goal. Companies don’t need to wait to decarbonize. 

Accounting for Indirect Emissions From Energy Use

As businesses and organizations strive to reduce their environmental impact, carbon accounting has become an essential tool for tracking and managing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Carbon accounting helps organizations measure, report, and mitigate their emissions across various activities. A key framework for categorizing these emissions is the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GHG Protocol), which classifies emissions into three scopes:

Each scope presents unique challenges and opportunities for reduction. Among them, scope 2 emissions are particularly significant because they stem from purchased energy, which is often generated using fossil fuels. However, numerous reduction mechanisms exist today to help organizations eliminate these emissions, such as improving energy efficiency in order to use less energy, and transitioning to renewable energy sources through market-based mechanisms. Understanding scope 2 emissions is crucial for businesses looking to contribute meaningfully to the global energy transition and achieve sustainability goals.

What Are Scope 2 Emissions?

Scope 2 emissions refer to indirect GHG emissions associated with the consumption of purchased energy. Unlike scope 1 emissions, which result from direct fuel combustion, scope 2 emissions arise from the generation of electricity, steam, heat, or cooling that a company procures from external sources.

The primary sources of scope 2 emissions include:

Purchased electricity: When businesses buy electricity from a utility provider, the emissions from power plants that generate this electricity are classified under scope 2.

Purchased heat, steam, and cooling: Some companies purchase heat, steam, or cooling services instead of generating them on-site. These services often come from centralized facilities that may rely on fossil fuels, thereby contributing to scope 2 emissions.

What sets scope 2 emissions apart from other scopes is the presence of market-based mechanisms that offer multiple pathways for organizations to reduce their carbon footprint. Unlike scope 1, where emissions reductions often require technological shifts or operational changes, scope 2 reductions can be achieved through strategic procurement decisions. The transition to renewable energy sources is an essential component of sustainability strategies, setting the stage for a broader energy transition across industries and economies.

How Are Scope 2 Emissions Measured Today?

The GHG Protocol currently outlines two primary approaches for calculating scope 2 emissions: the location-based method and the market-based method.

Location-Based Method

The location-based method calculates emissions for electricity consumption based on the average emissions intensity of the grid where the energy consumption occurs. This approach is mandatory under various reporting frameworks and does not take into account a company’s procurement choices.

• Relies on grid averages: Emissions are calculated based on regional grid emissions factors rather than specific energy purchases.
• Time-delayed data: Since grid emissions factors are typically updated annually, this method may not reflect real-time energy sourcing changes.
• Limited control: Companies using this method have less direct influence over their reported emissions, as they depend on the overall energy mix of their region.

Market-Based Method

The market-based method, on the other hand, reflects an organization’s actual procurement decisions and energy-sourcing strategies. It accounts for specific contracts, such as power purchase agreements (PPAs), renewable energy credits (RECs), and green tariffs, which allow businesses to claim lower emissions from their purchased electricity.

• Reflects company choices: Emissions calculations take into account contractual agreements for renewable energy purchases.
• Mechanism for electricity transition: Encourages organizations to invest in low-carbon electricity options and actively support the transition to renewables.
• Multiple reduction options: Companies can reduce their scope 2 emissions through a portfolio of mechanisms like PPAs, RECs, and green tariffs, making this method a flexible and strategic tool for decarbonization.

While market-based mechanisms provide flexibility in reducing scope 2 emissions, they also highlight the need for more precise and updated carbon accounting methodologies. For example, some decarbonization strategies, such as time-shifting energy consumption to better match renewable generation, are not accounted for under these methods. This and other limitations mean that the traditional methods outlined in the GHG Protocol are increasingly seen as outdated in an era of rapid changes in energy generation and grid dynamics. As a result, the market is shifting toward more advanced power emission accounting methodologies that provide a more accurate reflection of emissions associated with electricity use.

Proposed Changes to the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance

The current GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance provides a market-based instrument methodology, originally designed in the early 2000s, that allows US-based companies to procure renewable energy at any point within a year from anywhere in North America and apply it to any of its annual electricity consumption within that same year. This methodology, as written, allows for a potentially significant mismatch of “emissions caused” (by consuming electricity) versus “emissions avoided” (by generating renewable electricity) in that it does not account for any of the realities of electric grids and generators, which vary significantly over different regions, seasons, and time of day. 

In response to this, the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance is currently undergoing a revision process, which will include how emissions associated with electricity consumption are calculated. A focus of the revision process is on how to better account for the real emissions associated with a corporate’s electricity consumption, and more impactful ways of mitigating them through market-based instruments and other approaches. Advanced power emission accounting methodologies, such as 24/7 power matching and carbon matching, are being explored as ways to better represent the GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption. 

• 24/7 power matching emphasizes matching electricity consumption with an equivalent amount of renewable energy production on an hourly basis.
• Carbon matching emphasizes measuring the emissions impact of incremental electricity consumption or production at a specific time.

These emerging methodologies propose a shift toward more granular temporal and region-specific matching, which could require companies to rethink their emissions reporting approach and explore more advanced tracking tools. They may also introduce new strategies beyond market-based instruments for reducing scope 2 emissions, such as time-shifting energy consumption.

As power grids continue to decarbonize and new digital tools emerge, businesses will need to adapt to these evolving methodologies to remain compliant, enhance sustainability strategies, and achieve meaningful reductions in emissions. Companies that proactively integrate advanced power emission tracking into their carbon accounting strategies will be better positioned to lead in the transition to a low-carbon economy.

How to Reduce Scope 2 Emissions

The GHG Protocol provides multiple mechanisms for reducing scope 2 emissions, allowing organizations to shift their energy consumption toward lower-carbon alternatives. These include:

• Reducing energy consumption: Improving energy efficiency in operations can significantly lower electricity use. In some cases, this involves capital investments in more energy-efficient equipment, but in other cases, it can be based on operational changes such as reducing unnecessary lighting, HVAC, and other services during non-working hours. (Electrification efforts, such as shifting from fossil fuel-powered systems to electric alternatives, may actually increase scope 2 emissions, but this can ultimately reduce overall emissions by correspondingly decreasing scope 1 emissions and allowing for renewable energy procurement.) 
• RECs: Companies can purchase unbundled RECs (emissions “attributes” separated from the actual electricity product) to offset emissions associated with purchased electricity. While there has been criticism of RECs due to their significant range in quality, high-quality RECs are available, which may include ensuring regional matching, financial additionality, on-line date additionality, or tighter temporal generation to consumption matching. The use of high-quality unbundled RECs is the most accessible and realistic option for most smaller-scale companies to address scope 2 emissions. 
• On-site generation and co-location: Installing on-site renewable energy generation, such as solar panels, allows companies to directly offset their electricity consumption from the grid. In some commercial settings, such as companies using leased real estate or co-located data centers, partnering with facilities that prioritize renewable energy procurement can help reduce scope 2 emissions for the facility owner while the facility occupant reduces scope 3 emissions. 
• PPAs: Entering into long-term contracts with renewable energy providers ensures companies receive electricity from clean energy sources while supporting the expansion of renewable generation capacity. PPAs are available with standardized contract terms, and some service providers will aggregate demand from multiple smaller companies to reach the minimum required amount for typical PPA contracts. Hedging products are also available to reduce market risks.
• Green tariffs: Many utilities offer green tariffs that enable businesses to purchase renewable energy directly through their electricity provider, often at a premium but with lower emissions impact. For many smaller companies, this is a more viable approach than a PPA with a single renewable generator.

By adopting a combination of these strategies, businesses can significantly lower their scope 2 emissions while aligning with broader sustainability goals and regulatory requirements. The path to decarbonization requires proactive investment in cleaner energy sources, efficient consumption practices, and leveraging market-based instruments to drive the transition toward a low-carbon future.

Why Does Reducing Scope 2 Emissions Matter?

Reducing scope 2 emissions is the underpinning of decarbonizing the power sector and enabling the global energy transition. In 2025, S&P reported that corporate buyers added 15.2 GW of renewable capacity in the US, up from 9.1 GW in 2024, illustrating the growing impact of the corporate sector on the electricity grid. Cleaner grids translate to lower emissions for all energy users. Organizations that actively reduce their scope 2 emissions can contribute to decreasing demand for fossil fuel-based electricity and accelerate the deployment of renewable energy infrastructure.

For companies that own and operate data centers, this transition is especially important. AI data centers consume large amounts of electricity, and their reliance on purchased power makes them a significant source of scope 2 emissions. Since many businesses rely on third-party data center services, reducing emissions from these facilities also helps lower scope 3 emissions across industries. Corporates can influence data centers by requiring that they have a clear and explicit low-emission power strategy in place before procurement.

Beyond direct corporate benefits, reducing scope 2 emissions has a tangible long-term impact on power grids. Increased investment in renewable energy procurement sends a strong market signal, encouraging utilities and developers to expand clean energy projects. As more companies commit to sourcing renewable energy, the overall mix of grid power shifts, making low-carbon electricity more accessible and reducing reliance on fossil fuel-based generation. Ultimately, widespread corporate action in scope 2 emissions reduction supports the broader decarbonization of power markets and strengthens global climate commitments.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will RECs (renewable energy certificates) still count toward scope 2 reductions under the GHG Protocol's proposed changes?

Under the current Scope 2 Guidance, yes—RECs remain a valid market-based instrument. The proposals from the GHG Protocol's recent consultation range from retaining market-based accounting with stricter quality criteria to restructuring how instrument-based claims are reported altogether, and nothing is final until the revised standard is published. What's clear is that scrutiny is rising, particularly for unbundled RECs with weak temporal or geographic connection to a company's actual consumption, so prioritizing high-quality RECs now is the best way to future-proof a procurement strategy.

How would the proposed hourly and regional matching requirements affect companies that rely on unbundled RECs today?

Hourly (24/7) and regional matching would require renewable generation claims to line up much more closely with when and where a company actually consumes electricity. Companies relying on annually matched, unbundled RECs sourced from distant grids would likely see their reported market-based emissions rise under such requirements. The practical preparation is to start collecting more granular (ideally hourly) consumption data and shift toward RECs and contracts with tighter regional and temporal matching.

What's the practical difference between location-based and market-based scope 2 accounting, and will that distinction survive the GHG Protocol's revision?

The location-based method calculates emissions using the average emissions intensity of the local grid, regardless of procurement choices, while the market-based method reflects a company's actual contracts, such as PPAs, RECs, and green tariffs. The consultation explored options from strengthening the criteria for market-based claims to reporting emissions and market instruments in separate, complementary statements. Both concepts will exist in some form, but companies should expect the requirements behind market-based claims to tighten.

When is the new Scope 2 Guidance expected to take effect, and what should companies do now to prepare?

Per the GHG Protocol's July 2026 development plan, a draft of the revised consolidated Corporate Standard is expected for public consultation in 2027, with a final published standard currently estimated for late 2028, and adoption timelines will follow publication. Companies should take action now. Energy efficiency, PPAs, green tariffs, and high-quality RECs reduce real emissions under any accounting regime. Building hourly consumption tracking and auditing the quality of existing REC portfolios now will make any future transition smoother.

Key Takeaways

• Data centers are driving surging demand for new, firm electricity supply, accelerating natural gas-fired power generation.
• Carbon capture and storage (CCS) offers a practical way to balance long-term climate commitments with the need for new electricity generation in the near term.
• New natural gas-fired power plants must be capture-committed, not just capture-ready, potentially delivering power in 18 months and decarbonized power 18-24 months later.
• Capture-committed plants integrate planning and finance for the CO₂ capture, transport, and storage value chain from the start.
• Relae believes early investment in engineering, infrastructure, and community engagement is essential to meet capture commitments.

A New Era of Electricity Demand and Climate Pressure

The US and much of the developed world are experiencing profound growth in electricity demand. Two main forces are driving this trend: (1) the push to electrify existing uses, such as vehicles and heating, to improve energy security, enhance system efficiency, and reduce air pollution; and (2) the growth of energy-intensive sectors like manufacturing, telecommunications, and AI data centers.

Among these drivers, AI is creating unique demands that catalyze specific investments in electric power generation. Astonishing AI data center buildout, led by a handful of large technology firms (sometimes called “hyperscalers”) and their utility and construction partners, is accelerating energy consumption. These firms prioritize speed. When asked for their top five criteria for bringing new AI infrastructure online, one executive responded: “Speed, speed, speed, cost, and carbon emissions.”

Data centers require reliable, always-on power (referred to as “firm power”). This differs from other use cases, such as residential or commercial, which do not need the same amount of power across all hours. While hyperscalers and their partners are investing in renewables, nuclear, and geothermal energy at a remarkable pace, renewable resources alone do not yet meet the exploding demand for firm power. 

Natural Gas Provides Firm Power but Drives Emissions Higher

The mismatch between data center power needs and variable renewable generation is fueling a boom in natural gas-fired power generation. The pipeline of new natural gas-fired power plants is enormous. Plants under construction in 2025 would, by themselves, add roughly 25 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year to the air and oceans. The full suite of plants in planning is at least 10 times larger. Existing gas plants are also being used more and staying online longer.

This rapid buildout is creating tension with corporate climate goals. Hyperscalers remain seriously committed to reducing emissions, but their ability to hit those targets is undermined by the need to procure new, large-scale electricity generation quickly.

Carbon Capture Aligns with Data Center Energy Demands

Carbon capture and storage is one way to bridge the gap. Data centers operate continuously and may have the ability to shift or curtail load. This demand profile suits the duty cycles of natural gas turbines and CCS facilities well. The potential to reduce direct emissions is profound: today’s CCS technology can capture 95% or more of CO₂ emissions at competitive costs in many markets.

This has led to a resurging interest in the concept of capture-ready gas power generation. New natural gas power plants can be built and brought online in 18 months. In a capture-ready plant, the developers integrate the necessary interfaces and reserve additional land, water, and energy to enable a carbon capture project to be built at a future date. In favorable locations, carbon capture can be added to a capture-ready plant in 18-24 months.  

However, past experience shows that capture-ready plants rarely deliver. The ambition and commitment of the developers were contingent on policy and market signals that were either too small or never materialized. While the base plant may have made economic sense in terms of energy value for investment, it does not appear anyone was willing to pay the climate premium for CCS.  

As David Hawkins of the Natural Resource Defense Council famously said, “If your plant is capture ready, my driveway is Ferrari ready.” To bring David’s humorous analogy back to the specifics here: don’t build a new driveway without at least a downpayment on the car.

How to Build Capture-Committed Power Plants for CCS

A better approach is building capture-committed plants, namely facilities that integrate CCS from the start. To be capture-committed, project developers must:

• Identify geologic storage for the many millions of metric tons of CO₂ that these plants will produce each year over the next 20-30 years.
• Plan reliable CO₂ transportation from power generation to geologic storage by pipeline, rail, barge, or truck.
• Engage credible vendors of carbon capture technology that serve their needs and fit their goals.
• Fund front-end engineering design (FEED) studies.
• Arrange, or help to arrange, financing for the construction, commissioning, and operation of all necessary components in the CO₂ capture, transportation, and storage value chain.
• Ensure natural gas supply has near-zero fugitive methane emissions.
• Partner with local and frontline stakeholders to incorporate community impact into project planning, design, and financing.

Capture-committed plants send strong market signals. They help build the permitting pathways and develop the workforce, infrastructure, and community acceptance needed to avoid extra expense and delays. Done well, early commitments and investments will likely create repeatable models that reduce build times and costs.  

A Path Toward Power That’s Clean Firm and Future-Ready

Eventually more carbon-free power in the form of renewables, nuclear, and geothermal energy will be deployed to serve national and international electric load growth for all types of electrification. Over time, these resources will likely displace natural gas. Until then, hundreds of millions of tons of CO₂ will be emitted each year unless commitments are made to take tangible action now. 

Capture-committed natural gas-fired plants offer a pragmatic solution. With the right planning, financing, and community engagement, they can provide reliable power without locking in emissions, and they can deliver enormous benefits compared to uncontrolled operation. Federal and state governments can accelerate this transition by honoring and increasing CCS grants, supporting shared infrastructure, and streamlining permitting for CCS plants as they have for other clean energy supplies. These investments will enable the construction of cleaner, more resilient power infrastructure for the industries driving demand, from AI data centers to heavy industry.

[cta]

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a capture-ready and a capture-committed power plant?

A capture-ready plant creates an option to add carbon capture in the future, whereas a capture-committed plant treats capture as part of the project from day one. In a capture-ready plant, developers install the right interfaces and reserve extra land, water, and energy, but nothing obligates them to build the capture project, ever. A capture-committed developer secures options for CO₂ transportation and geologic storage, relationships with capture equipment vendors, funding for engineering studies, and financing across the full value chain before the base plant comes online.

Why have capture-ready plants historically failed to add carbon capture?

Nobody was willing to pay the climate premium. Capture-ready developers built plants that made economic sense on energy value alone, then waited for policy and market signals to justify carbon capture. Those signals were either too weak or never arrived, so the option went unexercised and no capture project was ever designed. The base plant runs uncontrolled for decades while the reserved land sits empty. David Hawkins of the Natural Resources Defense Council captured the problem well: "If your plant is capture ready, my driveway is Ferrari ready." Preserving an option costs very little. Exercising it costs a great deal, and capture-ready facilities rarely came with the funding to do so.

If renewables, nuclear, and geothermal will eventually displace gas, why invest in CCS for gas plants now?

Because greenhouse gas emissions happen in the meantime. Gas plants being built today will operate for 20 to 30 years, long before carbon-free resources scale enough to displace them. Left uncontrolled, they will emit hundreds of millions of tons of CO₂ over that span. Capture on those plants avoids most of it. Today's technology can capture 95% or more of CO₂ emissions at competitive costs in many markets.

What can federal and state governments do to accelerate capture-committed projects?

Three kinds of support matter most: funding, infrastructure, and permitting. Governments should honor and extend existing CCS incentives. Developers make capture commitments years before any revenue arrives, so uncertainty in government funding undermines the confidence these projects require. Governments should also support shared CO₂ transport and storage infrastructure. Common pipelines, rail terminals, and storage hubs make it easier for developers to secure physical CO₂ offtake. Finally, permitting for CCS should be streamlined the way it has been for other clean energy supplies. Permitting delay is a leading cause of cost overruns, and a capture-committed plant should be able to pursue capture and storage with the same intensity and speed as electricity generation.

Key Takeaways

• Speed to operation is the value proposition. While grid interconnection can take 3-5 years in constrained regions, hydrogen fuel cell systems can be deployed in a fraction of that time—a large advantage for operators racing to meet data center capacity demands.
• Hydrogen is moving beyond backup. Fuel cells could supply 6-15% of incremental data center power, functioning as primary or near-primary power rather than emergency standby.
• Higher fuel costs can be rational. When the alternative is a multi-year wait for grid power and the development loss that comes with it, paying a premium for hydrogen is better than falling behind.

The Grid Can’t Keep Up With Data Centers

The data center infrastructure buildout is moving at a pace the US power grid was never designed to accommodate. Cleanview tracks about 63 GW of operating US data center capacity and another 392 GW in planning, roughly six times what exists today. Developers in high-demand corridors—Northern Virginia, Central Texas, Phoenix—are finding that the grid can't deliver new capacity fast enough.

Interconnection queues now stretch 3-5 years in many regions, and that’s before accounting for permitting, transmission upgrades, and substation buildouts. For operators that need power online faster than the grid can deliver it, this timeline gap is a fundamental constraint on the business.

This mismatch between AI deployment, generator bottlenecks, and grid timelines is why hydrogen is entering the conversation as a viable power option for a growing subset of data center deployments, alongside natural gas with carbon capture, geothermal, and long-duration energy storage.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells: From Standby to Primary Power

For most of its history in data centers, hydrogen has been discussed as a cleaner replacement for diesel backup generators. That framing undersells the opportunity. 

The shift happening now is more fundamental: hydrogen fuel cells are being evaluated as primary or near-primary power sources for behind-the-meter and facilities that can’t wait for grid connection. Notably, many modern fuel cell systems—including solid oxide fuel cells—can run on natural gas today and transition to hydrogen as clean supply becomes available. Bloom Energy's 2024 deal with American Electric Power to provide up to 1 GW of fuel cells for data center power illustrates this approach: the systems will initially run on natural gas, with the capability to switch to 100% hydrogen in the future.

Furthermore, fuel cell systems are modular, can be deployed incrementally as load grows, and provide continuous power output. This is a promising path, and one that will scale only as fast as the fuel cell supply chain can keep up. Unlike solar or wind, fuel cells aren’t weather-dependent. Running on hydrogen, they produce zero direct emissions at the point of use. Running on natural gas, they still emit CO₂, but their higher efficiency gives them a lower carbon intensity than a comparable gas turbine.

Goldman Sachs estimates that fuel cells could supply 6-15% of incremental data center power (the estimate doesn't specify fuel mix, though most near-term deployments would run primarily on natural gas). This is a meaningful share of new capacity, driven largely by operators who face years-long waits for both grid connections and new gas turbines. Bloom Energy, whose fuel cell products serve data center applications, has been a notable outlier in an otherwise struggling hydrogen sector, with its stock rising sharply on strong revenue performance and growing investor enthusiasm around data center power demand.

Speed to power depends on the fuel. Solid oxide fuel cells run on pipeline natural gas today, so operators do not wait for a hydrogen supply chain. Bloom states it can deliver onsite power for an entire data center in as little as 90 days, with the ability to add modules as load grows under certain circumstances. In all but a few select locations, hydrogen comes later when the same systems switch fuels as clean supply scales. Projects that need hydrogen from day one face additional challenges. Limited hydrogen availability and supporting infrastructure across much of the US can undermine the potential speed advantage of hydrogen-dependent projects. Nevertheless, locations with suitable hydrogen supply and supporting infrastructure may offer viable near-term opportunities.

The Hydrogen Premium: When Paying More Makes Sense

Hydrogen-generated power is more expensive than other forms of electricity generation in most markets. The logistics penalty (including compression, transport, and storage) can push hydrogen from $4/kg at the production site to $8-16/kg delivered, making the economics look unfavorable on a simple $/MWh comparison. In practical terms, hydrogen at $4-6/kg translates to roughly $120-180/MWh on an energy-content basis (LHV). At a fuel cell electrical efficiency of around 50%—typical for solid oxide systems—the effective cost of electricity rises to approximately $240-360/MWh for co-located production, compared to $40-60/MWh for natural gas fuel cells, $51-129/MWh for gas combined cycle, and $144-276/MWh for gas peakers. Operators can improve hydrogen economics by co-locating with production, avoiding the logistics penalty that can double or quadruple delivered costs.

While expensive, this cost comparison misses the central point. The relevant question is not whether hydrogen is cheaper than grid power, but whether it is better than having no access to power at all.

For an operator with signed contracts and a 100 MW facility sitting idle during a multi-year interconnection queue, the opportunity cost is substantial. At average US wholesale colocation rates (~$196/kW/month - a record high), a facility of that size represents roughly $235 million per year in potential revenue—meaning even a single year of delay can outweigh years of hydrogen fuel premiums. 

The Inflation Reduction Act’s 45V Production Tax Credit further compresses the gap, offering up to $3/kg for clean hydrogen production—but projects must begin construction by December 31, 2027, to qualify. That deadline adds urgency to what’s already a time-sensitive calculus.

Reframing the Cost Debate for Speed-to-Power

The debate about whether hydrogen is cost-competitive with grid power misses the strategic challenge facing data center operators today: the fastest path to reliable, clean power. Hydrogen can play a consequential role in that timeline in some markets.

Assessing that requires modeling the full picture: grid interconnection timelines, hydrogen supply chain costs at a specific location, the 45V credit’s impact on project economics, and how hydrogen compares to batteries and other bridging technologies for a data center’s particular load profile.

Relae’s advisory team helps data center operators and technology companies evaluate these tradeoffs with rigorous, independent analysis. If speed to operation is a factor in your energy planning, let’s talk.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much faster is hydrogen fuel cell deployment than waiting for grid interconnection?
Grid interconnection in constrained regions can take 3-5 years once permitting, transmission upgrades, and substation buildouts are factored in. Fuel cell systems, especially those that start on natural gas and then transition to hydrogen, can be deployed in a fraction of that time. They are modular and can be installed and scaled incrementally as a facility’s load grows, though the pace depends on equipment and fuel supply.

If hydrogen costs more than grid power, why would an operator choose it?
For an operator with a 100 MW facility sitting idle during a multi-year interconnection queue, the lost revenue—roughly $235 million a year at average US wholesale colocation rates—can outweigh years of hydrogen’s fuel premium. That makes the higher cost a rational tradeoff against a multi-year wait for grid power, not just an expensive alternative to it.

Do hydrogen fuel cell systems have to run on pure hydrogen from day one?
No. Many modern fuel cell systems, including solid oxide fuel cells, can run on natural gas today and transition to hydrogen as clean supply becomes available. Bloom Energy’s up to 1 GW agreement with American Electric Power follows this model: the systems start on natural gas, with the capability to switch to 100% hydrogen as the hydrogen supply chain matures.