Carbon Capture for Natural Gas-Fired Power Generation: An Opportunity for Hyperscalers

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

• The opportunity: Clean, firm power is a strategic priority for large electricity buyers. Natural gas-fired generation equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is emerging as a key tool in meeting this demand. The existing gas-fired power fleet in the US should be assessed to identify plants well-positioned for carbon capture retrofits that would benefit grid decarbonization. 
• The challenge: The climate benefits of CCS-equipped natural gas plants depend entirely on how often they actually run. Adding carbon capture technology increases the cost to operate the equipment. These higher running costs can make the plant less competitive in auctions where the grid operator picks the cheapest power first. Without mechanisms to keep these plants running continuously, they may be outbid by cheaper, higher-polluting plants, causing grid-wide emissions to stay the same or even increase. 
• The solution: Hyperscalers and other large energy buyers are creating a robust market for clean, firm power. By paying a "clean, firm premium" through long-term offtake agreements, these buyers can offset the higher operational costs of CCS, ensuring these plants are continuously utilized. This corporate leadership not only maximizes the grid-wide climate impact of each retrofit but also provides an important hedge against policy volatility, securing the investment case for clean innovation even when the future of subsidies like the 45Q tax credit is uncertain.

We Need Clean, Firm Power Now

The market signals for clean, firm power are clear. Meta’s nuclear energy projects and Microsoft’s Crane Clean Energy Center demonstrate growing interest in reliable, low-carbon electricity to support the rapid expansion of AI. Similar commitments by Google and Meta to advanced geothermal power also illustrate this trend. 

One of the near-term options to meet this demand is natural gas with carbon capture and storage (CCS). As explored by Relae (formerly Carbon Direct), retrofitting existing gas facilities offers a path to reliable baseload power with low direct emissions, leveraging existing infrastructure to bypass the years-long delays typical of new grid interconnections. 

Recent initiatives from Google and Calpine are already working to prove this concept at scale. This type of corporate leadership is driving the market; over the last decade, voluntary corporate procurement led to more than 40% of new clean energy capacity in the US. Further, recent procurement decisions illustrate that these players are willing to pay a “clean, firm premium” to secure round-the-clock, low-emissions sources of power.

Why Systems-Level Analysis Matters for CCS

While news of corporate procurements often makes headlines, recent analysis finds the number of supply contracts for natural gas power with CCS may outpace the number of secured offtake agreements. Without a power purchase agreement (PPA) to ensure competitive operation, or strong policy support, a generator may need to operate as a “merchant plant” in power markets, competing solely on cost.

A power plant’s ultimate climate impact is determined primarily by how it is positioned in the market, not just its facility-level technology. 

How Power Markets Determine Which Plants Run

Understanding the potential of CCS to deliver clean, firm power and grid-wide decarbonization requires looking beyond the technology performance at a single facility. A retrofitted plant does not operate in isolation; its impact depends on how it interacts with the broader power market’s merit order.

The merit order is the ranking system in competitive power markets where the grid operator dispatches the cheapest offers first. Since carbon capture units are energy-intensive, the retrofitted natural gas plant incurs higher operating costs. This cost increase can inadvertently price the lower-emitting plant out of the market. Without mechanisms to ensure continuous utilization, the CCS plant is potentially outbid by cheaper, more carbon-intensive resources. This creates a risk of increased overall grid emissions.

To illustrate this dynamic, we’re sharing the results of our detailed grid modeling analyses of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which serves most of Texas, and the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), which covers parts of 14 states across the central US. Our analysis highlights the value of corporate “clean, firm premiums” in achieving maximum climate benefit and mitigating policy risk present in government subsidy support. 

This type of systems-level grid modeling is necessary in understanding how facility-level reductions translate into real climate benefits. Support to incentivize continuous operation, such as corporate offtake agreements or the 45Q tax credit, is key to ensuring that retrofitting a gas power plant with CCS reduces overall grid emissions. 

Offtake Agreements and Policy Support as Solutions

Power offtake from CCS retrofitted gas plants can meaningfully reduce system-level emissions. By directly matching electricity demand with the supply of power, large energy buyers – the offtakers – ensure the power plant is effectively utilized. This type of arrangement helps ensure any changes to reduce emissions intensity at the facility level translate into broader emissions reductions on the grid.

For these offtakers, the decision to pay a premium for clean power is driven by the goal of additionality – ensuring their procurement has a measurable, additional emissions reduction impact. Beyond physical energy, buyers secure Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs) for CCS, which serve as the verified proof of low-carbon generation required to satisfy corporate zero-emissions targets. As seen in the recent Google and Calpine agreement, these certificates allow buyers to claim the specific climate benefit of the CCS retrofit, justifying a premium over standard wholesale market rates to secure firm, clean delivery.

In the absence of offtake agreements, policy frameworks like the 45Q tax credit (up to $85 per ton of CO₂ sequestered) serve a similar function by offsetting production costs.

However, access to this credit is not a guarantee and carries operational hurdles. To unlock the full credit value, facilities must meet stringent prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements. Furthermore, the credit is limited to a 12-year window once the facility is placed in service, and requires construction to commence by 2033.

Beyond these eligibility requirements, the long-term outlook for 45Q involves inherent uncertainty. Recent regulatory shifts, including potential changes to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), pose risks to the verification mechanisms required to substantiate captured tons. 

Corporate offtake agreements offer a crucial private-sector complement to this landscape; they provide a stable revenue model independent of policy cycles, ensuring the investment case remains robust over the full life of the asset.

Understanding the Merit Order in Power Markets

Most US power plants operate in competitive deregulated markets, where grid operators dispatch generators based on their marginal cost of production – the cost of generating one additional unit of electricity. The operator ranks these offers from lowest to highest price, creating the "merit order.”

In these auctions, the cheapest resources (typically renewables and base load) are dispatched first. Progressively more expensive units (gas and peaking plants) are called upon until demand is met. The price of the final, most expensive unit required sets the market-clearing price received by all generators in that period. 

The Figure below shows an example generation merit order in the ERCOT energy market.

Case Study: How Support Structures Influence Dispatch

The merit order figure illustrates a hypothetical scenario for a natural gas generator, showing how its market position changes based on technical and policy variables:

• Pre-Retrofit (Stage A): The plant operates with standard marginal costs, sitting competitively in the middle of the supply stack.
• Post-Retrofit (Stage B): Retrofitting with CCS introduces higher operating costs due to the energy-intensive nature of carbon capture. Without external support, the plant’s marginal cost increases (A to B), making it less competitive. The retrofitted plant may be utilized less while cheaper units are dispatched to meet demand.
• Post-Retrofit + policy or offtake support (Stage C): Financial support, whether through the 45Q tax credit (approx. $33/MWh¹) or a corporate offtake agreement, can effectively offset the plant’s higher operational costs (B to C). This effect restores the plant’s competitiveness, ensuring it dispatches consistently.

Testing This With Grid Modeling

At Relae, we apply state-of-the-art grid analysis tools to answer these and more complex analytical questions related to the future energy system. Our custom modeling framework has been used to simulate clean power strategies, assess data center demand response programs, and understand how procurement decisions today impact the future energy system.

While the theoretical impact of a CCS retrofit, a PPA agreement, and the 45Q tax credit on a plant’s dispatch is clear, it’s important to put the theory to the test by modeling their effects on system-wide emissions.

Our Modeling Approach

Because each grid region has distinct power plants and load requirements, they must be modeled separately. For this analysis, we chose to model the ERCOT and SPP power markets to determine the region-specific, grid-wide emissions impact of hypothetical CCS retrofits of natural gas power plants. 

As part of this modeling, we:

• Deployed detailed hourly simulation: We used our custom PyPSA-USA grid model to produce a set of hourly simulations of the ERCOT and SPP electricity markets.²
• Identified suitable retrofits: We identified suitable combined cycle gas power plants for a CCS retrofit in each of the markets, based on key commercial and operational criteria, including size, age, generation profile, and proximity to CO₂ transport/storage.
• Modeled plant and energy assumptions: To reflect the retrofit, we adjusted generator cost and energy use for the identified plants (up to 1.4 GW capacity), fitting all combustion turbines with capture and requiring each plant to consume 20% more fuel per unit of electricity produced to power CCS.³
• Carried out comparative scenario analysis: We simulated several scenarios, including (1) pre-retrofit, business-as-usual, (2) post-retrofit, with and without a PPA, and (3) post-retrofit, with and without the 45Q tax credit, to isolate the impact of different procurement agreements and policy landscapes on grid-wide emissions. 

What Our Analysis Reveals

Results of this analysis reveal how CCS deployment in the power grid interacts with market economics and the role mechanisms that drive high utilization of CCS retrofit plants can have in ensuring system-wide emissions reductions:

CCS With a Firm Offtake Agreement Can Significantly Reduce Grid-Wide Emissions

Pairing a retrofitted plant with a dedicated offtaker can drive meaningful emissions reductions in both ERCOT and SPP compared to business-as-usual (-0.8% to -1.7% CO₂ in ERCOT; -5.2% to -7.3% CO₂ in SPP). Under these arrangements, system-wide emissions fall because the PPA acts as an operational anchor, ensuring the retrofitted plant maintains high utilization rates despite its higher running costs. Ensuring the plant stays utilized prevents the grid from reverting to more carbon-intensive generation to fill the gap.

Our analysis finds the value of the operational “clean, firm premium” for natural gas with CCS power is up to $60 per MWh. This value varies by hour, region and scenario but results generally align with our previous estimate of a $30 per MWh value associated with this type of generation. Other estimates put this value between $19 and $72 per MWh.

CCS Without an Offtake Agreement Can Reduce Emissions, But Is More Reliant on Policy Support

Without a dedicated offtake agreement or policy support, retrofitting natural gas plants with CCS runs the risk of a small increase in grid emissions (+0.7% CO₂ in ERCOT; -0.0% CO₂ in SPP). System-wide emissions are higher because other power plants displace the plants with carbon capture. The higher operational costs of CCS mean the CCS plants have a less competitive place in the merit order and run for fewer hours in the year.

The story changes with the application of 45Q, and grid-wide emissions are lower for both ERCOT and SPP (-1.7% CO₂ in ERCOT; -3.4% CO₂ in SPP). Access to the 45Q tax credit improves each CCS plant’s position in the merit order, meaning that it runs for more hours and successfully displaces higher-emitting generation with clean, firm power.

The Path Forward for Clean, Firm Power

Our analysis illustrates that in competitive power markets, the overall carbon emissions impact of natural gas generation with CCS cannot be measured solely at the power plant level. While clean, firm power remains a strategic priority for large electricity buyers, and CCS is a key tool to meet this demand, the overall climate value of a successful retrofit is linked to the availability of offtake agreements and the plant’s position in the merit order. 

A systems-level perspective captures what facility-level analysis misses: how market dynamics determine the true climate impact of decarbonization investments. Support mechanisms for the continuous operation of low-carbon power plants, like PPAs and the 45Q tax credit, are important tools that ensure clean, firm power reaches the grid, effectively bridging the competitiveness gap.

Frequently Asked Questions 

How can companies ensure CCS retrofits actually reduce grid-wide emissions? 

By securing the plant’s dispatch through a long-term offtake agreement, or by utilizing a policy incentive like 45Q. Relae’s modeling found that offtake agreements have a substantial impact on the emissions reduction potential of CCS retrofits. 

Why would the dispatch decisions of one power plant affect others? 

Power plants dispatch according to marginal cost, and grid stability requires that total supply remain constant at any given moment. So, if one large plant suddenly dispatches less (say, because its operating costs have increased), other potentially dirtier plants may ramp up to fill the gap, increasing total system emissions.

Key Takeaways

• Batteries have competed away the revenue that financed their first wave. In Texas, ancillary prices have fallen about 90% since 2023, and price spikes driving arbitrage revenue are becoming ever less frequent.
• The business has moved from trading energy to selling capacity. In Texas, tolls work as private capacity contracts, and resource adequacy payments make up roughly 70% of battery revenue in California. Project economics increasingly pencil on a fixed $/kW-month basis rather than price spikes.
• Long-term contracts help shift the risk, but they don’t fully close the gap. Under a 15-year toll, a new battery needs about 22% less revenue, but that is still nearly three times what Texas batteries earned in the market in 2025.
• Buildout now depends on who will pay for capacity. Merchant revenue alone no longer covers a new battery, so growth hinges on how many buyers will sign capacity contracts worth nearly three times what Texas batteries earn in the market. 

Battery Revenues Are Falling While Deployments Keep Rising

US developers are expected to install about 24 GW of utility-scale battery storage energy systems (BESS) in 2026, about 60% more than the record 15 GW added in 2025, according to the EIA. Yet in Texas, where batteries earn most of their money in the market, a typical battery earned roughly 85% less in 2025 than in 2023. 

Is this unjustified overbuilding by an industry that has grown too fast? Some battery executives argue this is not overbuilding, because merchant revenue earned in wholesale markets is no longer the business. In their view, falling merchant revenue matters less because longer-term offtake contracts, such as 15-year tolls with utilities and large power buyers, make lower revenue financeable. As a result, today’s installations bank on batteries being paid as capacity assets rather than as pure energy arbitrageurs. 

We tested those claims against market data from Texas (ERCOT) and California (CAISO) between 2022 and 2026. Our core finding is that project economics in both markets are increasingly reliant on fixed $/kW-month earnings rather than arbitrage revenue.

How Does a Grid Battery Make Money?

A battery has three ways to earn:

1. Energy arbitrage (merchant: paid per MWh traded, hour-by-hour): charging when power is cheap and discharging when it is expensive. Its value depends on the daily spread between the highest- and lowest- priced hours.
2. Ancillary services (merchant: paid per MW held in reserve, bought a day ahead): payments for standing ready to keep the grid stable, such as frequency regulation and reserves, whether or not the battery is called on to deliver energy.
3. Capacity contracts (contracted: fixed $/kW-month for many years): a utility or large buyer pays a fixed monthly fee, often called a toll, for the right to use the battery, and takes on the market risk itself. It is the most stable of the three.

Texas batteries earned almost entirely from the first two. California batteries have earned from all three, and as market revenue has fallen, resource adequacy (RA) contracts–the mechanism through which load-serving entities meet the state’s capacity requirements–have become their main source of income. 

That additional revenue stream is crucial in CAISO, making up roughly 70% of battery revenue by 2025, as net market revenue declined from $103/kW-year in 2022 to under $40/kW-year in 2025. Outcomes differ, too: California still curtails large amounts of midday solar despite its growing battery fleet, while ERCOT’s batteries have flattened price peaks. 

How Texas Batteries Lost Their Merchant Revenue

Ancillary services filled up first. In 2022-23, ancillary services supplied more than 80% of Texas batteries’ revenue. But these markets are small and fixed in size. ERCOT buys about 3 GW of the fast reserves batteries excel at, and 6–8 GW of ancillary services in total. 

The battery fleet passed the first mark in mid-2023 and the second in spring 2024; it is now about 19 GW of registered capacity. Average ancillary services prices fell 85-95% between 2023 and 2025, and ERCOT's day-ahead ancillary services spending fell from about $1.5 billion to $174 million. California’s ancillary markets saturated even earlier: batteries already won about 70% of its regulation-up procurement in 2022, and about 90% since 2024. Its ancillary services spending, much smaller than ERCOT’s to begin with, fell by about 60%, from $237 million in 2022 to $95 million in 2025.

Price spikes disappeared, too. ERCOT's average daily spread between its four highest- and four lowest-priced hours fell from $163/MWh in 2023 to $48/MWh in 2025, even as natural gas prices rose. Yet the typical day, adjusted for gas prices, looks much as it did in 2022. What vanished is scarcity: hours when real-time prices topped $1,000/MWh fell from about 60 in 2023 to 2 in 2025. 

Batteries discharge into exactly those hours, and there are now enough of them to flatten the peaks. Controlling for gas prices, renewables, and demand, each additional gigawatt of batteries is associated with a 9% narrower daily spread. 

Merchant revenue collapsed. Texas batteries earned about $193 per kW-year in 2023 and only about $29 in 2025, according to Modo Energy’s fleet index. California batteries’ market revenue fell from about $80 to under $40 per kW-year, before resource adequacy payments. Merchant revenue alone is no longer enough to finance a new battery in either market. 

Costs fell too, but not by as much: NLR’s benchmark installed cost for a four-hour system fell about a third from its 2022 peak to 2024, from roughly $517 to $334 per kWh in 2024 dollars. Costs then turned up again: Lazard’s levelized cost of storage rose in 2026, to near the top of its range since 2020, as tariffs cut access to cheaper Chinese cells and new foreign-entity-of-concern (FEOC) rules pushed buyers toward other suppliers.

‍

The Battery Business Has Moved From Energy to Capacity

As merchant revenue declines, storage developers are increasingly turning to capacity contracts to support revenue requirements. This has an important advantage: contracted cash flow can carry more debt at a lower cost. Under illustrative financing assumptions, moving a battery coming online in 2028 from merchant to a 15-year toll lowers its cost of capital from about 12.6% to 7.2%. 

Using NLR’s projected installed capital costs for 2028, that cuts the annual revenue a two-hour system needs to break even by about 22%, from $105 to $82 per kW-year ($64-101 across NLR’s low- and high- cost cases). However, that is still nearly three times what Texas batteries earned in the market in 2025. Given this gap, new BESS installations might appear to be uneconomic.

‍

Why Are Developers Still Building BESS? 

However, new BESS installations continue to be built. This is partly because many battery storage projects coming online now were financed on 2022-23 revenue (the average project can take over four years from entering the interconnection queue to operation), and partly because new contracts, such as tolls, are priced on capacity, not energy: the supplier is obligated to keep certain amounts of capacity available over a given time period, independent of energy delivery. 

In Texas (which has no capacity market), such tolls are, in effect, private capacity contracts. In California, resource adequacy already plays that role: batteries’ RA contracts averaged about $9 per kW-month in early 2025. 

An owner needs roughly $7 per kW-month for a two-hour battery (about $11 for four hours) to break even, in line with the roughly $7 per kW-month cap on a 20-year battery storage agreement Austin Energy approved in May 2026. By contrast, the energy and ancillary revenue an offtaker could capture by dispatching it is about $2.50–3.50 per kW-month. The difference is what buyers pay for firm capacity: insurance against scarcity events like Winter Storm Uri, capacity to meet their own load obligations, or a hedge against scarcity returning as demand grows. 

The Next Battery Wave Depends on Who Pays for Reliability

Batteries have done what they were built to do: absorb volatility and steady the grid. In doing so, they competed away the revenue that financed the first wave. At today’s prices, merchant revenue no longer covers a new battery. The build continues on projects financed in 2022–23 and on capacity contracts worth nearly three times what Texas batteries earn in the market. Whether the buildout continues depends on how many buyers will pay that premium. 

Deployment continues to grow in both markets. ERCOT registered about 4.2 GW of new batteries in January to July 2026, against 2.8 GW a year earlier. But the pace is slowing: Texas’s fleet grew about 50% in 2025 after nearly doubling in 2024, and interconnection queues are thinning: ERCOT battery applications fell by half in the second half of 2025. 

Wholesale markets financed the first boom. The next wave depends on buyers who value reliability, including utilities, retailers, and large loads such as data centers, and on how cheaply that risk can be priced and capitalized. Data centers in particular put a high value on firm power: research inferring their willingness to pay from cloud computing prices puts it at up to $13,600 per MWh for frontier AI chips on guaranteed service, far above ERCOT’s $5,000 per MWh price cap. 

For developers and investors, the question is no longer how much the market will pay, but who will sign, and for how long. For more on how interconnection queues shape how many storage projects get built and how queue wait times vary by technology, see Relae’s interconnection research.

Relae’s Power & Energy advisory team helps developers, investors, and large energy buyers understand and price the value of storage. This includes behind-the-meter modeling, resource portfolio optimization, and interconnection queue analysis. 

Frequently Asked Questions

Why are battery storage revenues falling if deployment keeps growing? 

Batteries have become victims of their own success. They earned most of their early revenue from two sources: ancillary services and high wholesale market prices. Texas now has more batteries than ancillary services the grid needs, so those prices have collapsed. And because batteries discharge during the most expensive hours, there are now enough of them to flatten the price spikes that used to pay the most.

What is a battery tolling agreement? 

A toll is a long-term contract in which a utility or large buyer pays a battery owner a fixed monthly fee for the right to direct how the battery is used. The buyer keeps whatever the battery earns in the market and takes on the risk if that falls short. The owner gets a steady income it can borrow against.

Who is signing these contracts? 

Mostly utilities, retailers and power traders, who need capacity to serve their customers or want protection against price spikes. In California, utilities sign capacity contracts with batteries to meet the state’s resource adequacy requirements. Large loads such as data centers place a high value on reliable power, but few have signed contracts with grid batteries so far; most of their battery deals are for on-site power.

Will battery storage buildout slow down? 

Not yet. Texas is still adding more batteries each year, largely projects that were planned and financed when revenues were higher. But the pipeline behind them is thinning: new battery applications in ERCOT’s interconnection queue halved in the second half of 2025. Whether buildout holds up depends on how many buyers will pay for capacity at a premium to what the market pays today.

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

• 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 

• AI data centers are driving the fastest electricity demand growth in decades: US data centers consume an estimated 4 to 5% of US electricity today, projected to reach as much as 9 to 17% by 2030 (EPRI).
• Without deliberate cost allocation, residential and small-business ratepayers subsidize private AI infrastructure. 
• Peer-reviewed modeling projects data center growth could raise US power costs 6 to 29% nationally by 2030, and up to 57% in the hardest-hit regions.
• Utility commissioners, state regulators, and policymakers now have working models to draw from, including large-load tariffs, dedicated rate classes, and direct assignment of transmission costs.

AI Data Center Energy Demand Is Testing the Limits of the Grid

AI is driving electricity demand at a pace the US grid has not seen in decades. US data centers already consume an estimated 4 to 5% of the nation's electricity, and EPRI projects that share could reach 9 to 17% by 2030. Behind nearly every AI model and digital product is the invisible infrastructure that powers it: data centers. These facilities are resource-intensive, requiring massive amounts of electricity to power servers, substantial water for cooling, and extensive new grid infrastructure.

In the race to decarbonize the grid, data centers are emerging as a critical pressure point. This infrastructure sits at the intersection of digital growth and climate action, forcing a difficult question: who pays to power AI?

Legacy Utility Models Weren’t Built for this Growth

Utilities must upgrade aging grid infrastructure to meet this new surge in electricity demand, while maintaining reliability. Under legacy utility frameworks, it's often ratepayers who foot the bill for those upgrades. And the costs are not distributed equitably.

Traditional utility planning assumes that increased demand justifies expanded investment in generation and transmission infrastructure. When a new type of large customer, like a tech company, moves into a utility’s service territory, utilities plan new infrastructure to meet that projected demand. 

Utilities typically recover the cost of new infrastructure through a process called rate base cost recovery. This allows utilities to charge all customers in the “rate base” for the expenses incurred, including thousands of individuals, families, and small businesses, even when those costs stem from the demands of just a few large users.   

This legacy model struggles to keep pace in the AI boom era, where massive new electricity demand can double within a few years, a scale of growth that used to take decades. Additionally, while data centers create short-term construction jobs, there are almost no lasting employment benefits for local communities.

It's clearly inequitable for all ratepayers to bear the costs of upgrading the grid to benefit just a small number of massive data centers. But that's not the only problem. If utilities decide to meet new power demand from large data centers with new fossil fuel generation, such as gas peaker plants, they risk creating stranded assets: infrastructure that becomes obsolete or uneconomical as climate targets, clean energy mandates, or the cost-effectiveness of renewables accelerates. Once built, ratepayers will have to continue paying for these long-lived investments for years, even if they are underutilized or retired early due to policy shifts. This risk is no longer hypothetical: to serve projected data center load, Georgia regulators approved a plan to extend the lives of two massive coal plants to as late as 2038, and Virginia regulators stripped roughly $350 million tied to speculative early-stage data center projects out of Dominion Energy's revenue forecast.

If utilities are locking in decades of new fossil fuel generation to meet short-term data center growth, ratepayers may be left holding the bag for infrastructure that contradicts their climate goals and state mandates, with little ratepayer or community input into the decision. Effectively, local communities may be subsidizing a technology that they did not directly ask for in the first place and has little to no direct community benefits. The result is a long-term misalignment between utility investment strategy and the public interest.

Ratepayers Bear the Cost of Private AI Expansion

The economic burden of data center expansion can fall disproportionately on households and small businesses. But data centers, as the largest and fastest-growing users, often negotiate bespoke contracts, subsidized rates, or fixed-price electricity agreements that shield them from long-term cost volatility.

This can result in other customers, especially residential and low-income ratepayers, bearing a disproportionate share of the infrastructure and maintenance costs. In many states, residential and low-income customers already experience energy cost burdens that exceed affordability thresholds. Adding the weight of infrastructure investments to serve energy-intensive data centers, without sharing those costs equitably, exacerbates an already regressive utility cost allocation system.

Georgia shows how these costs reach ratepayers even when regulators act. Georgia Power customers absorbed six rate increases totaling roughly $43 per month between 2023 and 2025, and while regulators approved a base-rate freeze through 2028, the freeze excluded fuel and storm costs. In 2026 fuel-cost proceedings, testimony showed that large industrial and data center customers raise other customers' monthly fuel costs by 5 to 11%, prompting the Georgia Public Service Commission to open an investigation into how fuel costs are allocated between large loads and residential customers. Ratepayers noticed: in November 2025, both Georgia PSC seats flipped in elections run explicitly on utility bills and data center cost-shifting. In Virginia, regulators approved a rate increase of roughly $16 per month for typical Dominion Energy residential customers amid surging data center demand.

These examples are not anomalies. A peer-reviewed study in Environmental Research Letters projects that data center growth could raise US power costs 6 to 29% nationally by 2030, and up to 57% in the hardest-hit regions, with Virginia among the steepest. This is a systemic shift in energy demand, one that places a growing burden on communities and lacks clear public benefits.

Environmental and Community Impacts Are Mounting

Beyond economic impacts, the geography of data center development reveals another layer of inequity: environmental justice. Data center siting often prioritizes affordable land, low resource costs (e.g., electricity, water), and climate considerations like heat variability. They also rely on proximity to pre-existing fossil fuel generation and transmission infrastructure. Research now confirms the pattern this creates: an analysis of 550 EPA-regulated data centers found that air pollution burdens near data centers rise with the share of people of color living nearby, and a 2026 Washington state study found more than half the state's data centers sit in census tracts with the highest concentrations of people of color.

These communities often absorb the negative externalities beyond their electricity bills, including increased air pollution from peaker plants and on-site diesel or gas backup generators, traffic and construction noise, water stress, and land use changes. Simultaneously, they do not receive direct net positive benefits. Frontline communities are paying attention to this trend, and opposition has become a defining force in where AI infrastructure gets built. Gallup finds 71% of Americans now oppose a data center in their own area, and Data Center Watch counted roughly $130 billion in projects blocked or delayed in the first quarter of 2026 alone. The stakes of community opposition are increasing and intensifying. 

The consequences of ignoring communities are now playing out in federal court. At xAI's Colossus facility in Memphis, developers operated dozens of on-site gas turbines without air permits in a majority-Black area already burdened by industrial pollution. After the Shelby County Health Department granted permits for a subset of turbines in July 2025, the fight moved to xAI's second campus across the state line: in April 2026, the NAACP filed a Clean Air Act lawsuit over roughly 27 unpermitted gas turbines at the Colossus 2 site in Southaven, Mississippi, seeking penalties of more than $100,000 per day. On-site power can help reduce demand on the grid, which can be a benefit. But when that generation runs without permits or oversight, nearby communities bear unmeasured health and environmental impacts from hazardous emissions, and the litigation now underway shows how quickly unpermitted power becomes a legal and reputational liability.

To date, data center developers do not appear to have maximized potential community benefits or engagement. Data centers have not typically employed many local residents beyond construction phases, resulting in limited economic benefits, particularly when facility ownership is distant from the local community or has few local ties. When these same communities already experience high pollution burden or economic precarity, the cumulative impact of a new data center can deepen existing vulnerabilities.

Water use is also a mounting environmental justice concern. Many data centers rely on evaporative cooling systems that draw millions of gallons of water per day, and peer-reviewed research finds significant gaps in how the industry discloses its water footprint. In drought-prone regions, this can stress already-depleted aquifers and heighten tensions over water access.

The result is a high-stakes tradeoff between digital infrastructure and local resource resilience, one that communities should be a part of deciding.

States and Regulators Are Writing the New Rules 

Virginia, the "Data Center Capital of the World," is home to 674 data centers that consume an estimated 25% of the state's electricity, a share EPRI projects could reach 39 to 57% by 2030, the highest of any state. After legislators considered but did not pass data center bills in the 2025 session, the 2026 General Assembly passed roughly 15 data center bills, including legislation, signed in May 2026, directing regulators to ensure data center costs are not subsidized by other customers, along with new requirements for site impact assessments and water-use reporting. Virginia's State Corporation Commission had already created a dedicated rate class for high energy use customers, with 14-year contract terms and minimum charges that apply whether or not the projected load materializes, and in August 2026 it went further, ordering Dominion to develop a tariff that directly assigns transmission costs to the data centers that trigger them.

Virginia is not alone. Ohio regulators approved a landmark tariff requiring large data centers to pay for 85% of the capacity they request, whether or not they use it. Oregon's POWER Act created the nation's first legislated rate class for data centers. Texas gave its grid operator authority to curtail large loads during emergencies. Minnesota, California, Alabama, Tennessee, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Florida have all enacted their own ratepayer-protection measures, and at the federal level, FERC ordered the nation's largest grid operator to write new rules for data centers that co-locate with power plants, citing the need for consumer protection and clear cost allocation. State energy officials are also proactively planning for data center expansion.

The direction is clear. The unresolved question is whether these reforms move faster than the costs already flowing to ratepayers.

What Is the Public Good of Data Centers?

AI infrastructure powers innovation, job creation, research, and the technologies we rely on every day. But it may also bring inequitable social and direct financial costs. Like highways, factories, and pipelines before them, the question remains: What is the public good of AI data centers? How should we hold data center developers accountable to the public interest, which values a clean energy future? We need clear-eyed assessments of how data centers impact energy affordability, climate progress, and environmental equity.

Yesterday's utility policy frameworks were not designed for hyperscale AI data centers. The reforms now underway are a start, but without sustained attention they may still force the public to subsidize private expansion, through economic and environmental costs, often without equitable community engagement, climate accountability, or local benefit.

AI Data Center Growth Needs Accountability, Equity, and Reform

To align data center growth with the public interest, the stakeholders involved now have proven models to build on:

• Utilities and regulators can require large customers to pay an equitable share of new infrastructure costs, as Ohio's minimum-take tariff and Virginia's dedicated rate class now do.
• Public Utility Commissions can mandate equity and community impact assessments during siting and permitting, following Virginia's new site assessment requirements.
• States can condition tax incentives and zoning approvals on local hiring, emissions reductions, and community benefits agreements.
• Data center developers can prioritize clean power and commit to transparent, equitable community engagement and benefits plans before opposition, litigation, and cancellations decide the outcome for them.

As we build the digital backbone of the next century, we must avoid repeating injustices of the past. A just energy transition requires more than megawatts: it demands equity, policy interventions, and real climate progress.

[cta]

Frequently Asked Questions

How do utilities typically recover the cost of infrastructure built to serve large data center customers, and why does this burden fall on other ratepayers?

Utilities recover infrastructure investments through rate base cost recovery: regulators approve new generation, transmission, and distribution spending, and the costs are spread across all customers in the rate base through their monthly bills. That model worked when demand growth was gradual and diffuse, but when a single data center campus drives hundreds of megawatts of new investment, standard cost allocation spreads those costs across households and small businesses unless regulators adopt a special tariff or rate class that assigns them to the customer who caused them.

What are stranded assets in the context of data center power demand, and how do they create long-term risk for utilities and ratepayers?

Stranded assets are long-lived infrastructure investments, like new gas plants built for projected data center load, that become underused or uneconomical before they are paid off, whether because demand never materializes or because policy and market shifts overtake them. Because utilities recover those costs through rates over decades, ratepayers keep paying even if the asset sits idle. The risk is acute today because data center demand forecasts are highly uncertain: Virginia regulators removed roughly $350 million tied to speculative data center projects from one utility's revenue forecast in 2025.

Why do data centers often locate in rural or low-income communities, and what are the environmental justice implications?

Data center siting favors cheap land, fast permitting, low-cost power and water, and proximity to existing generation and transmission, conditions most common in rural, low-income, and historically marginalized communities. Research confirms the consequences: analysis of 550 EPA-regulated data centers found air pollution burdens rise with the share of people of color living nearby. These communities absorb the air pollution, water stress, noise, and land use impacts while receiving few lasting jobs or direct benefits.

What regulatory or policy tools can states and Public Utility Commissions use to ensure data center growth doesn't unfairly shift costs to residential and small-business ratepayers?

The toolkit has expanded rapidly since 2025. Commissions can create dedicated large-load rate classes and tariffs with minimum take-or-pay provisions, long contract terms, collateral requirements, and exit fees, as Ohio and Virginia have done; directly assign infrastructure enhancement costs to the customers that trigger them; and require site impact assessments during permitting. Legislatures can codify ratepayer protections, require water and load-forecast transparency, and condition tax incentives on community benefits, models now in place in at least eight states.

This commentary reflects public policy analysis and opinion, not legal advice or regulatory determinations.