Why Behind-the-Meter Power Emissions Belong in Scope 2

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.

Key Takeaways

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

Annual REC Accounting No Longer Holds at Data Center Scale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annual Matching vs 24/7 Hourly Matching

‍

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

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

Where Pressure Is the Highest: ERCOT and PJM

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

PJM: 60% Fossil Generation Means High Marginal Emissions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modeling the 24/7 Emissions Gap with Relae

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

Key Takeaways

• Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) overcome traditional geothermal energy limitations by engineering subsurface conditions rather than searching for them, enabling widespread deployment of clean firm renewable power.
• Induced seismicity from high-pressure injection has caused major EGS project cancellations, but advanced approaches like Sage Geosystems’ gravity-assisted fracturing mitigate this risk by avoiding overpressures and directing fractures downward away from fault zones.
• Sage’s $97 million Series B financing, co-led by Ormat Technologies and Carbon Direct Capital, will fund the first commercial EGS facility at an existing Ormat plant—accelerating the transition from innovation to grid-scale deployment.
• For hyperscalers racing to power AI infrastructure, EGS offers a credible path to firm, 24/7 low-carbon power at scale.

Geothermal Energy: The Heat (And Pressure) Is On

For decades, geothermal energy has occupied a compelling yet narrow place in the clean energy landscape. It offers what the grid increasingly needs— firm, renewable, low-carbon power—yet has remained constrained by limited siting flexibility, high upfront resource risk, and persistent concerns around induced seismicity. 

Enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) change that equation. Instead of searching for ideal subsurface conditions, EGS engineers them directly. In doing so, EGS rewrites the rules of where geothermal energy can be deployed and how far it can scale, with the potential to transform this historically niche resource into a widely deployable form of clean firm power.

One such solution, Sage Geosystems, uses a pressure-managed EGS approach to extract geothermal energy from engineered subsurface reservoirs, while explicitly addressing the seismicity risks that have constrained earlier projects. 

How EGS Scales Geothermal Energy

Conventional geothermal power relies on a narrow set of subsurface conditions: sufficiently high temperatures, naturally occurring fluid, and enough permeability to circulate fluid through hot rock. In practice, those conditions coexist in only a few places—nearly all US commercial geothermal power generation is concentrated in California, Nevada, and a handful of sites across Utah and Hawaii.

EGS reduces this constraint by engineering permeability and fluid access rather than relying on their natural presence. While fluid access and permeability are harder to find, heat is not: the Earth’s natural geothermal gradient ensures that hot rock exists almost everywhere at sufficient depth. 

By reducing the number of variables that must be discovered rather than designed, EGS expands siting flexibility and lowers the resource risk that has historically constrained geothermal development. The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates this approach could unlock more than 5,500 GW annually of US resource potential, which, when converted to electric power, is roughly comparable to the total installed power capacity of the US today.

One remaining challenge has been induced seismicity. When you inject pressurized water into rock and create fractures, you are adding lubrication to geological systems that have been static for millions of years. If those fractures propagate into existing fault zones, the faults can slip, producing earthquakes. Projects in Basel, Switzerland (2006) and Pohang, South Korea (2017) triggered magnitude 3.4 and 5.4 events, respectively, both leading to project cancellations and regulatory backlash that set the industry back years.

Sage's approach to EGS is designed to address this risk directly. Rather than relying on high-pressure hydraulic stimulation, Sage uses a gravity-assisted fracturing approach that helps avoid the high overpressures that can drive fault slip. Further, its approach biases fracture growth downward and away from shallow, critically stressed fault systems. By understanding causes and conditions, Sage aims to work with the subsurface, not against it. 

This is not a minor technical detail. It is the difference between a technology that can scale with community acceptance and one that faces opposition at every site. For a hyperscaler evaluating geothermal offtake agreements, seismicity risk translates directly into permitting risk, timeline risk, and reputational risk. 

The Clean Firm Power Gap Driving EGS Adoption

To understand why this matters, start with the problem hyperscalers are trying to solve. Solar and wind have scaled dramatically, but they face a structural limitation: they do not generate power when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. Batteries help bridge short gaps, but current technology cannot economically cover multi-day periods of low renewable output. Nuclear provides firm generation, but faces permitting timelines that extend well past 2030.

This creates what might be called the 'clean firm power gap'—the difference between what hyperscalers need (24/7, low-carbon, scalable to gigawatts) and what current markets can supply. A single large AI training cluster can consume more than 100 MW continuously. Meta, Google, and Microsoft are planning data center campuses that will require gigawatts of capacity. The gap between demand and available clean firm power supply is widening, not narrowing.

Geothermal energy aligns closely with this need. Unlike solar or wind, geothermal power plants run continuously, with capacity factors that routinely exceed 90%. And unlike nuclear, geothermal projects can, in principle, be permitted and built on shorter timelines. The challenge has never been performance, rather availability: with the emergence of EGS, geothermal power is expanding where clean firm power can realistically be built, arriving at a moment when the grid’s need for dependable, low-carbon supply has never been greater.

Sage Raises $97 Million to Deploy Geothermal at Ormat Site

Sage Geosystems announced $97 million in Series B financing co-led by Ormat Technologies, the world's largest geothermal operator, and Carbon Direct Capital, a leading energy investing firm. Ormat will host Sage's first commercial facility at an existing Ormat plant.

The investment signals that EGS has become investable to the industry built to scale it. For Ormat, the logic is clear: conventional geothermal is constrained by resource availability. EGS expands the addressable market, but requires the subsurface capabilities that conventional operators don't typically possess by Sage does.

Why the Partnership Structure Works

EGS proposes that the fastest way to scalable power is to eliminate the resource risks that beset conventional geothermal projects. These risks do not simply disappear: they are transferred into subsurface and remain unproven at scale. Conventional operators locate naturally permeable reservoirs. EGS requires creating permeability in crystalline rock and managing induced seismicity risks that don't exist in hydrothermal systems. Sage is actively addressing the seismicity problem that ended projects in Basel and Pohang. Ormat brings everything else: turbines, plant operations, grid expertise, and six decades of operational knowledge.

Building at an existing Ormat site provides another advantage: established subsurface characterization, proven geological stability, and grid infrastructure already in place. For a first commercial deployment, this de-risks demonstration in ways greenfield sites cannot.

Both companies move faster together because the technical capabilities required to make EGS work don't naturally exist within a single organization.

What Hyperscaler Demand Means for the Power Sector

Meta's 150 MW power purchase agreement with Sage—announced in August 2024, with delivery planned for sites east of the Rocky Mountains—adds another dimension to this story. Hyperscalers have concluded that waiting for clean firm power technologies to mature before signing contracts means those technologies may not be available when needed. So they are becoming anchor customers, providing the revenue certainty that enables projects to secure financing.

For geothermal power specifically, this demand signal is transformative. Contracted offtake from creditworthy counterparties changes project economics fundamentally. It lowers the cost of capital, enables debt financing, and de-risks the investment case for additional capacity. The hyperscaler model has already accelerated deployment in solar, wind, and battery storage. Its application to geothermal power may prove similarly catalytic.

The Final Constraint

EGS is not a silver bullet, but it is beginning to look like a credible answer to a growing-problem: how to deliver clean firm power at scale, in more places, and on timelines that match accelerating demand. Advances in subsurface engineering are reducing the resource and seismicity risks that once confined geothermal to a narrow footprint, while partnerships with incumbent operators are showing how those advances can be integrated into existing energy infrastructure. 

At the same time, hyperscalers are reshaping the market by signaling demand early, underwriting first deployments, and pulling technologies forward rather than waiting for them to mature on their own. That combination of technical progress, industrial adoption, and committed buyers is what turns promising concepts into deployable systems. 

Whether EGS ultimately fulfills its potential will depend on repeatable and continued performance under real-world conditions. But the recent alignment of science, incumbents, and demand suggests EGS is moving beyond possibility and into a phase where the final constraint is no longer what the Earth can provide, but what the energy system is prepared to build. 

Frequently Asked Questions

What is an enhanced geothermal system?

An enhanced geothermal system, or EGS, produces geothermal energy by engineering underground conditions needed to circulate fluid through hot rock. Unlike conventional geothermal projects, which depend on naturally occurring heat, fluids, and permeability occurring together, EGS can create or enhance permeability and fluid circulation, greatly expanding the locations where geothermal power may be developed. 

Why is EGS important for data centers and AI infrastructure?
AI and data centers require large amounts of electricity around the clock, creating demand for power sources that are both low-carbon and firmly available. EGS could provide high capacity factor (greater than 90%), 24/7 clean electricity in more locations than conventional geothermal, making it a potentially valuable complement to intermittent renewable resources. 

What is induced seismicity, and how are new EGS technologies addressing it?

Induced seismicity refers to earthquakes caused by changes in underground pressures or stresses caused by human activities. Earlier EGS projects demonstrated that high-pressure fluid injection can activate existing faults and in some cases triggered noticeable earthquakes and intense public backlash. New EGS approaches are being designed to better control reservoir pressure, fracture development, and proximity to faults, reducing seismicity risk while maintaining the fluid circulation needed to extract geothermal energy.

Can EGS be deployed anywhere?

EGS substantially expands geothermal’s geographic potential, but it does not make every location equally suitable. Projects still depend on factors including underground temperature, how deep they need to drill to access that temperature, water availability, seismic risk, and whether the rocks are of type suitable to hold and sustain engineered fracture networks.

Key Takeaways

• Carbon accounting is a regulatory and strategic necessity, with policies like the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and California’s SB 253 requiring emissions tracking. 
• Many companies track emissions inconsistently, underscoring the need for structured, repeatable carbon accounting to ensure accuracy and impact.
• Accurate carbon data drives efficiency and risk management, helping organizations reduce costs, streamline supply chains, and comply with climate regulations.
• Scope 2 emissions are increasingly challenging to quantify, especially for data centers and power-intensive operations. Grid-average emissions factors mask location-specific and time-specific variations that drive real procurement and siting decisions. Precise scope 2 accounting requires understanding which generators actually serve the load, when, and under what grid conditions.
• Scope 3 emissions have historically been a complex challenge, requiring better supplier engagement, standardized reporting, and expert guidance to support accuracy.

Carbon Accounting: More Than Compliance, a Strategic Advantage

Companies increasingly recognize the business value of reporting carbon emissions: it reduces regulatory risks, attracts sustainability-focused investors, enhances market competitiveness, and drives cost savings through efficiency. Transparent emissions reporting strengthens brand trust and aligns companies with global sustainability standards, ultimately turning climate accountability into a strategic advantage.

Yet, many companies struggle with incomplete and inconsistent tracking. According to the State of Corporate Climate Commitment, 80% of corporate professionals surveyed have tracked emissions at least once, but only 52% do so annually. Without a structured process and reliable data, businesses face compliance risks, financial penalties, and missed cost-saving opportunities. 

This guide provides a clear roadmap to effective carbon accounting, equipping businesses with the knowledge to navigate regulations, enhance data accuracy, and implement effective strategies for compliance and operational success.

[stat]

What Are the Benefits of Effective Carbon Accounting?

By embedding annual carbon accounting into operations, organizations can enhance sustainability efforts while achieving financial and strategic benefits. Key benefits include:

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability

By providing accurate and verifiable emissions data, companies can showcase corporate responsibility and build a foundation of transparency. Aligning with recognized standards like the GHG Protocol strengthens confidence among investors and regulators. As climate disclosure laws tighten globally, ensuring credible emissions reporting reduces regulatory risks and enhances stakeholder trust. This commitment to authenticity minimizes the risk of greenwashing and strengthens brand reputation.

Guiding Regulatory Compliance and Risk Mitigation

Businesses navigating evolving environmental regulations must proactively align with policies to avoid financial and legal risks. Mandated emissions reporting, under policies like the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) as well as California’s SB 253, ensures compliance and enhances corporate accountability. Staying ahead of these evolving requirements prepares businesses for future policy shifts and safeguards their long-term resilience.

Improving Operational Efficiency and Reducing Costs

By analyzing energy consumption patterns, organizations can identify operational inefficiencies, optimize supply chains, and implement cost-saving measures while reducing carbon emissions. For example, evo, an outdoor experiences company, collaborated with Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) to assess its carbon footprint. This analysis revealed opportunities to reduce emissions across facilities, products, and shipping. By promoting sustainable practices throughout their supply chain, evo enhanced both environmental performance and operational efficiency.

Building a Competitive Advantage in a Low-Carbon Economy

Building a competitive advantage in a low-carbon economy requires prioritizing emissions transparency and sustainability. Companies that integrate emissions transparency into their operations build stronger relationships with supply chain partners and meet consumer demand for responsible brands. Aligning corporate values with sustainability fosters long-term customer loyalty and enhances market positioning.

Driving Strategic Planning and Net-Zero Alignment

Setting and tracking net-zero commitments requires structured, data-driven carbon reduction roadmaps. Businesses that measure emissions annually are more likely to set public sustainability goals and take action. Carbon accounting supports clean energy transitions, fosters supply chain collaboration, and integrates carbon removal strategies to address residual emissions. By embedding emissions measurement into long-term planning, organizations facilitate resilience and profitability in an evolving business landscape.

Carbon emissions measurement correlates to climate action: 61% of companies that calculate their footprint annually have both set a public goal and begun working toward it.

What Is Carbon Accounting? The Basics You Need to Know

Carbon accounting is the systematic measurement, analysis, and reporting of an organization's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Using standardized metrics like carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e), companies can assess emissions across operations and supply chains, identify high-impact areas, and set and track progress toward emissions reduction targets. When conducted annually, carbon accounting supports regulatory compliance, risk management, and decarbonization strategies essential for long-term sustainability.

The GHG Protocol is the most widely used framework for carbon accounting, setting the baseline for how organizations measure and report their emissions. It classifies emissions into three scopes: 

Keep in mind that scope 2 emissions are increasingly difficult to quantify using traditional methods, which fail to account for real-time grid fluctuations and locational energy variations. Cutting-edge, advanced carbon accounting methodologies now provide more precise tracking, particularly benefiting large power consumers like enterprise data centers and hyperscalers. 

Scope 3 emissions also continue to pose a great challenge, requiring extensive data collection and supplier coordination, complexities that are difficult to navigate without expert guidance.

The Corporate Carbon Accounting Process: A Step-by-Step Guide

The carbon accounting process involves systematically measuring, analyzing, and managing an organization’s greenhouse gas emissions across its operations, supply chain, or product life cycle. 

1. Collect emissions data across all three scopes (scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3).
2. Categorize and quantify emissions from each source to estimate the total impact. 
3. Verify data and report findings to promote compliance, accuracy, and transparency.
4. Develop and implement reduction strategies based on insights from the data.

Activity Data Versus Spend Data

Carbon measurement primarily relies on two data types: activity data and spend data.

• Activity data includes direct measurements reflecting the physical amount of an emitting source, such as fuel consumption (in liters or gallons) or travel distance (in kilometers or miles). It accurately represents emissions from a particular operational emission source and allows for measurable decarbonization strategies.
• Spend data serves as an alternative when activity data is unavailable. It estimates emissions based on financial expenditures related to goods, services, or travel. While less precise, it is useful for approximating scope 3 emissions, where direct measurement is often challenging.

Tips for Accurate Data Collection

Effective carbon accounting relies on seamless collaboration across departments, suppliers, and external data sources. Key strategies include:

• Stakeholder engagement: Finance, operations, procurement, and sustainability teams must coordinate to track and validate emissions data. Engaging suppliers is essential for capturing and reducing scope 3 emissions.
• Addressing data gaps: When data is unavailable, proxy data can be used to estimate emissions, but it should be a temporary solution while organizations work toward obtaining accurate, real-world data.
• Standardization and verification: Implementing consistent methodologies and third-party audits enhances the credibility of carbon reporting, building stakeholder trust.

By leveraging precise data, understanding emission scopes, and adopting structured data collection methods, organizations can create a transparent, science-based approach to carbon accounting and lay the foundation for meaningful climate action. 

Climate Standards Businesses Need to Know

Global standards and regulations define carbon accounting methodologies by establishing guidelines for how organizations set boundaries, measure, and disclose emissions. Several key frameworks and policies guide both the international and regulatory levels.

Guidance frameworks

GHG Protocol: The Foundation of Carbon Accounting

• The GHG Protocol is the most widely adopted framework for measuring and managing emissions across organizations globally.
• Developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), it provides common standards for businesses, governments, and supply chains.
• Sector-specific guidance has been developed for industries such as energy, finance, manufacturing, and agriculture, which face stricter reporting requirements than service-based sectors.
• The GHG Protocol is currently undergoing its first major revision since its launch. Partnering with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to co-develop a consolidated corporate standard that merges the Corporate Standard, Scope 2 Guidance, Scope 3 Standard, and Actions and Market Instruments standard with ISO 14064-1. As of mid-2026, the effort is in active technical development, with a draft opening for public consultation targeted for mid-2027 and a final published standard expected by the end of 2028. Current standards stay in effect until that replacement is finalized, so nothing changes for reporting yet.

ISO 14064: Standardized Emissions Quantification and Reporting

• The ISO 14064 series, created by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), offers detailed methodologies for greenhouse gas accounting.
• It includes guidelines for organization-level emissions quantification, reporting, and reduction projects.
• ISO 14064 serves as the foundation for independent verification and compliance with voluntary carbon markets, enhancing the credibility of emissions reduction projects.

Policies

EU CSRD: Expanding Mandatory Climate Disclosure

• The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) enforces detailed sustainability reporting requirements for companies operating in the EU.
• Following the EU's 2025 to 2026 Omnibus simplification package, CSRD's scope narrowed sharply. It now applies to roughly 5,000 large companies, with new thresholds of more than 1,000 employees and more than 450 million euros in net turnover (up from the original 250 employees and 50 million euros)
• In scope companies must still report scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions data aligned with the EU Taxonomy and European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS).

California SB 253: State-Level Mandatory Emissions Disclosures

• California’s SB 253 Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act sets strict emissions reporting mandates within the US.
• It applies to companies with over US$1 billion in revenue doing business in California, requiring scope 1 and 2 emissions reporting by November 2026..
• CARB has said scope 3 reporting and third-party assurance requirements will be addressed in a subsequent rulemaking covering 2027 and beyond.

EU CBAM: Preventing Carbon Leakage and Promoting Decarbonization 

• The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism Requirements (CBAM) requires importers of specific carbon-intensive goods to disclose embedded emissions to prevent carbon leakage and promote global decarbonization by ensuring that domestic and foreign producers face comparable carbon costs. 
• During the transitional phase (2023–2025), importers were required to submit quarterly reports on embedded emissions. 
• As of 2026, they must purchase CBAM certificates to compensate for the carbon footprint of imported goods.

Although carbon accounting requirements vary across regions and industries, they are all fundamentally rooted in the principles established by the GHG Protocol and ISO 14064. As global regulations like the EU CSRD and state-level legislation evolve, organizations must proactively align with these stricter standards to mitigate regulatory risks and support compliance with emerging sustainability expectations.

What Are the Industry-Specific Challenges of Carbon Accounting?

Carbon accounting presents unique challenges across industries due to varying operational structures, emissions sources, and reporting requirements. While the challenges outlined below focus on financial services, data centers, and philanthropies, similar complexities exist across manufacturing, transportation, healthcare, and other sectors. Tailored strategies are essential to effectively addressing these complexities. 

Data Centers: Measuring and Reducing Scope 2 and 3 Emissions

Data center operators consume vast amounts of electricity making scope 2 emissions a major concern. In addition, data center developers and owners face significant scope 3 emissions from embodied carbon from the building materials and the IT hardware required to develop these assets. Effective strategies to reduce data center emissions include:

• Optimizing computing needs and power usage: Use real-time metering and AI-powered analytics to optimize electricity usage across time and locations.
• Procuring low-carbon electricity: Secure long-term access to compliant low-carbon electricity through power purchase agreements (PPAs) or high-impact renewable energy credits (RECs).
• Tracking life cycle emissions: To provide a comprehensive emissions assessment, account for embodied carbon in server manufacturing and end-of-life disposal.

Financial Services: Assessing Emissions From Investments and Portfolios

Financial institutions face significant challenges in evaluating scope 3 financed emissions from investments, loans, and asset portfolios. Key strategies to address these challenges include:

• Adopting industry standards: Frameworks like the Partnership for Carbon Accounting Financials (PCAF) can be used to standardize emissions calculations.
• Understanding asset level data: To accurately report on financed emissions, investors need visibility of emissions data, ideally at the company level.
• Prioritizing green investment strategies: Shift toward sustainable finance by integrating sustainability criteria and emphasizing green bonds or low-carbon funds or investments.
• Ensuring regulatory compliance: To enhance transparency, align with global disclosure frameworks like the International Sustainability Standards Board's (ISSB) IFRS S2 climate-related disclosure standard.

Philanthropies: Managing Emissions From Private Financing

Philanthropic organizations face challenges in tracking emissions across diverse funding activities, operational footprints, and investment portfolios. Effective strategies include:

• Assessing grantmaking impact: Many philanthropies support climate initiatives but may not track the carbon impact of grantees or funded projects. Establishing emissions metrics for grants can enhance transparency and effectiveness.
• Measuring operational emissions: While some philanthropies have relatively low direct emissions, travel, events, and office space still contribute to their carbon footprint. Implementing sustainable operations policies can help reduce emissions.
• Decarbonizing investment portfolios: Endowments and investment funds often hold assets with varying GHG emissions. Aligning investments with sustainability goals and engaging with asset managers on emissions reduction can drive impact.

Organizations across these sectors can enhance emissions transparency, improve sustainability efforts, and align with global climate goals by implementing industry-specific carbon accounting methods. 

Navigating Evolving Standards and Scope 2 Complexity

Carbon accounting standards are actively evolving. In October 2025, the GHG Protocol released two proposals for scope 2 accounting revisions, with final standards expected by 2027. The proposals shift toward hourly and regional renewable energy matching, moving away from today's annual, region-agnostic approach. They also introduce consequential methodology that calculates actual emissions displaced by renewable projects, which varies significantly by region.

For organizations with 2030 climate targets, timing matters. Existing long-term contracts are expected to be grandfathered in under new rules. Meanwhile, new renewable projects face interconnection delays of 3 to 5 years, and the US power grid is experiencing sustained demand growth driven largely by data centers. These pressures converge: power demand is rising while new clean electricity supply is constrained.

Navigating these changes requires understanding emerging methodologies and their strategic implications. See our companion pieces on Navigating Scope 2 Accounting Changes and Scope 2 Emissions Explained for detailed context.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does carbon accounting implementation take?

Initial measurement typically takes 3 to 6 months, depending on data availability and organizational coordination. Starting with data you already have (utility bills, fuel records) accelerates the process. Scope 2 and scope 3 require more extensive work than scope 1, so actual timelines vary based on which scopes are your focus.

What are the biggest obstacles to getting accurate emissions data?
Data siloes across departments (finance, operations, procurement track separately). For scope 2, grid-average factors mask location- and time-specific variations that actually drive emissions. For scope 3, extensive data collection and supplier coordination are required. Seamless collaboration across departments is essential.

Do we need to measure all three scopes to start?
Yes. Organizations should measure all three scopes. Start where your business is most materially affected, but eventually measure all three for compliance and complete visibility into your emissions sources.

Key Takeaways

• Accelerated phase-out schedules for key clean energy and decarbonization tax credits will shorten the runway for project development, which could stall or cancel projects.
• Urgency is paramount, and qualified projects should expedite construction and operational timelines to secure eligibility for existing credits.
• A more complicated policy landscape requires concerted effort to navigate, including with the support of policy professionals.

Reconciliation Rolls Back Much of the IRA

On Friday, July 4, 2025, the President signed a sweeping reconciliation bill, H.R. 1, that will add at least $3.3 trillion to the national debt and marks a pivotal, contentious moment for US clean energy policy. The law was enacted through the complex legislative process known as budget reconciliation, requiring only a simple majority of votes in the House and Senate. The new law substantially modifies or terminates many of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA)'s clean energy incentives and has extensive implications for the economic viability of American energy and manufacturing projects.  

In the Senate, three Republicans crossed party lines to vote against the bill, requiring Vice President JD Vance to break the tie. In the House, only two Republicans broke ranks to vote against final passage. While some of the more complex provisions of the bill, such as new foreign entity of concern (FEOC) restrictions, will require more time to fully assess, we've prepared a rapid run-down of key alterations to IRA incentives for carbon management, hydrogen, and clean fuel technologies.

What Is the 2025 Reconciliation Bill?

While the 2025 reconciliation bill is staggering in length, scope, and severity, containing provisions to cut Medicaid, reduce nutrition assistance, raise the debt limit, and cut taxes primarily for the wealthy, some of the most drastic sections of the bill modify tax incentives and other public funding for clean energy and emissions reductions.

‍

Many of the incentives to deploy clean energy that were created or enhanced under the IRA will be phased out early or repealed altogether. Credits with accelerated phase-out schedules include the newly created 45Y clean electricity production tax credit, which will no longer support wind or solar projects after 2027, and the 45V credit for clean hydrogen production for which projects must now commence construction before Jan 1, 2028 (moved up from Jan 1, 2033). 

Since the passage of the reconciliation package, there has been active litigation on several provisions, including an order from a federal district court to vacate IRS guidance that would have prohibited certain wind and solar projects from securing safe harbor.  The table below provides a detailed breakdown of key changes to major tax credits between the original IRA, the draft that moved through Committees in the House, and the final text that was passed by the Senate and signed into law.

Major Tax Credit Changes in the Reconciliation Law

‍

How FEOC Restrictions Threaten Clean Energy Supply Chains

Many clean energy tax credits include ambiguous language restricting projects connected to FEOC, complicating supply chains and creating new problems for developers of clean energy projects. The law also introduces a complex matrix of new definitions, such as "Prohibited Foreign Entities," which includes both "Specified Foreign Entities" and "Foreign-Influenced Entities."

The FEOC restrictions embedded in the reconciliation bill represent a seismic shift for clean energy developers. These new rules, designed to limit the influence of Covered Nations (China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran), will disqualify projects from receiving tax credits if they source components, minerals, or intellectual property from entities tied to these nations. In other instances, the partial ownership or investment of an entity with financial ties to a Prohibited Foreign Entity may also disqualify a project from qualifying for tax credits.

This FEOC language matters for developers and investors because of the resulting global supply chain disruptions, investment uncertainty, and compliance burdens. The clean energy sector is deeply reliant on global supply chains, especially for solar panels, batteries, and wind components, industries where China currently dominates. The IRA intended to counter this by moving the manufacturing and production of these supply chains to the US. Project developers must now thoroughly review their supply chains and capital providers, and may need to quickly pivot to compliant resources. 

In February 2026, the IRS released interim guidance on the FEOC provisions to provide safe harbor guidance for clean energy manufacturing, investment, and production credits to help taxpayers gauge whether material assistance was provided by a prohibited foreign entity. 

Other Major Rollbacks to the IRA

Beyond clean energy tax credits, the reconciliation package also repeals and rescinds many other IRA provisions. This includes a full rescission of all unobligated IRA appropriated balances at the Department of Energy's Loan Programs Office, and several other programs, including:

• The Tribal Energy Loan Guarantee Program
• Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund
• Transmission Facility Financing

A complete list of rescissions of energy-related funding is outlined in Sections 60001-60024 and 50402 of the law. These rescissions represent tens of billions of dollars in lost climate investments made under the IRA, which would have provided funds to state, local, and Tribal governments, federal agencies, non-profits, and commercial project developers to reduce emissions and update critical infrastructure.

What Can Project Developers and Other Companies Do?

Developers will need to act quickly to meet updated commence construction and place into service requirements, though circumstances are technology specific (e.g., safe harbor updates to 48E and 45Y). Tax credits generally have advanced commence construction and operational deadlines, resulting in a strong first-movers advantage. Companies should also review their supply chains and revise equipment and material procurement sourcing plans as necessary to address restrictions presented in the reconciliation bill.

An executive order from President Donald Trump issued on July 7 will further complicate how companies proceed. In the EO, the President directs his administration to "strictly enforce the termination of […] 45Y and 48E […] for wind and solar facilities." The Administration will likely issue extremely strict interpretations of "commence construction" clauses and FEOC requirements in forthcoming tax credit guidance issued by the Treasury Department, though these moves are quite likely to face litigation.

The new restrictions being proposed by the Administration, including specific details on FEOC, qualified equipment, commence construction, and other reporting requirements, will require additional guidance from the IRS and provide an opportunity for engagement through public comment. It is important that impacted companies weigh in during these public comment periods, not only to help inform and influence the final rules issued by the Administration, but also to build an administrative record that could support litigation efforts to strike down the final rules.

Staying Ahead of Policy Changes

Given the rapidly shifting landscape of energy policy, it's paramount that companies stay abreast of the latest changes and dedicate resources to understanding how they may be affected. Policy professionals, including the experts at Relae (formerly Carbon Direct), can support organizations as they engage in the regulatory process, anticipate and prepare for new legislation, and navigate the requirements to access essential tax credits and incentives. Even under new constraints, expert guidance can help maximize impact and minimize disruption.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does the reconciliation bill change the timelines for major clean energy tax credits?
Most clean energy tax credits saw their windows shortened relative to the original IRA: 

• The 45Y and 48E credits now terminate entirely for wind and solar facilities placed in service after December 31, 2027, with a separate phase-down (75% in 2034, 50% in 2035, 0% after) for other technologies. 
• The 45V clean hydrogen credit's "commence construction" deadline moved from December 31, 2032 to December 31, 2027. 
• The 45Z clean fuel credit now ends on December 31, 2029 (versus 2027 in the original IRA, but bonuses for SAF have been removed and new emissions-calculation methods favor corn ethanol). 
• Notably, the 45Q carbon capture credit saw little change and retained transferability, with credit values for enhanced oil recovery and utilization raised to match secure geological storage.

What are the FEOC restrictions, and why do they matter so much for developers?
FEOC ("Foreign Entity of Concern") restrictions disqualify projects from tax credits if they source components, minerals, or intellectual property from entities tied to China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran. Even partial ownership or investment ties to a "Prohibited Foreign Entity" can trigger disqualification. The definitions are complex and still being clarified through IRS guidance, meaning developers need to review supply chains and capital providers carefully and may need to pivot to compliant sourcing.

What should project developers do now in response to these changes?
Developers should move quickly to meet the earlier "commence construction" and "placed in service" deadlines, since credits now benefit early actors. This includes reviewing and potentially restructuring supply chains and procurement plans to address FEOC restrictions, and closely monitoring forthcoming IRS/Treasury guidance. 

Key Takeaways

• Scope 3.1 emissions, purchased goods and services, can account for up to 67% of a company’s total carbon footprint, making them a critical category for measurement and action.
• Companies can reduce risk, meet stakeholder demands, and strengthen supply chain resilience by proactively managing scope 3.1 emissions.
• Relae empowers organizations to take meaningful action on scope 3.1 through science-based measurement, practical emissions management strategies, and deep supplier engagement.

What Are Scope 3 Emissions and Why Do They Matter?

Scope 3 emissions include all indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that occur across a company’s value chain. While scope 1 emissions are from directly owned or controlled activities, and scope 2 are indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, heat, or steam, scope 3 emissions encompass upstream and downstream activities throughout the value chain. 

Within scope 3, there are 15 categories, including activities such as raw material extraction, purchased services, shipping, business travel, product use, and end-of-life treatment. Critically, scope 3 emissions usually make up the majority of a company's total carbon footprint. Across sectors, CDP finds supply chain emissions average 26 times a company's operational emissions, and in supply-chain-heavy sectors like apparel, the share exceeds 95%. 

Category 3.1 (purchased goods and services) is often the largest contributor. For many organizations, it can be as much as 67% of their total corporate footprint. Despite being outside a company’s direct operational control, scope 3 emissions are increasingly scrutinized by regulators, investors, and customers alike, making them essential to measure, manage, and reduce. 

What Is Included in Scope 3.1 Emissions?

Scope 3.1 emissions capture all cradle-to-gate emissions associated with products and services procured by an organization. These include emissions from the extraction of raw materials, energy usage, manufacturing processes, waste, and transport and travel up to the point of delivery to the reporting company. As such, the types of activities within this category are quite extensive and disparate. 

Examples of scope 3.1 items include:

• Raw materials (e.g., limestone, copper ore, lumber)
• Intermediate products (e.g., steel, electronic components, platform chemicals)
• Packaging materials
• Office supplies and equipment
• Professional services 
• Cloud computing and software services

The size of scope 3.1 emissions varies widely by industry. For example, a consumer goods manufacturer sourcing large volumes of physical products may see a larger share of emissions in this category than the supplier providing the raw materials. For data centers that run on very low-carbon electricity, equipment and construction can account for 40% of lifetime emissions. For many organizations that are service-based or contract out manufacturing, scope 3.1 can be the most significant emissions category.

What Is the Strategic Value of Scope 3.1?

While scope 3.1 emissions fall outside a company’s direct operational control, they are not beyond its influence. Addressing emissions from purchased goods and services may open up a range of strategic benefits:

• Innovation opportunities through lower-carbon materials and production processes.
• Enhanced supplier relationships and engagement on shared sustainability goals.
• Improved resilience and risk mitigation across supply chains.

By assessing and acting on scope 3.1 emissions, companies can drive meaningful reductions and catalyze change throughout the entire supply chain.

What Are the Methods for Calculating Scope 3.1 Emissions?

There are four methods to calculate scope 3.1 emissions based on the data collected. Each offers a different balance of speed, accuracy, and scalability.

1. The Spend-Based Method

This approach multiplies the amount of money spent on a good or service by an economic emissions factor (e.g., kg CO₂e per dollar spent). Most companies use this approach as a starting point but transition to more accurate methods as they advance in their sustainability journey.

Advantages

• Fast and scalable across categories
• Useful for initial hotspot identification
• Helps fill data gaps when activity data is unavailable

Limitations

• Lower accuracy, especially during periods of inflation or economic volatility
• Cannot reflect actual emissions reductions by suppliers
• Misalignment between price and emissions (e.g., high-cost items may not be high-emission)

2. The Average Data Method

This method uses average emissions factors for goods or services, based on industry datasets. For instance, industry life cycle assessments (LCAs) might be used to estimate the emissions associated with a kilogram of steel purchased.

Advantages

• More accurate than spend-based
• Suitable for companies refining emissions data to enable targeted reductions 

Limitations

• Lack of raw data granularity
• Geographic variation limited

3. The Supplier-Specific Method

The supplier-specific method is the most accurate approach and involves collecting actual emissions data directly from suppliers. This includes LCAs, environmental product disclosures (EPDs), product carbon footprints (PCFs), supplier emissions reports, or Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reports.

Advantages

• High accuracy and granularity
• Builds engagement with suppliers
• Enables tracking of supplier improvements over time

Limitations

• Challenging to scale across many suppliers
• Data may be confidential, inconsistent, or incomplete
• Requires continuous updating of supplier information

4. The Hybrid Approach

Adopting a hybrid approach allows many companies to maximize their data collection efforts by applying the supplier-specific method for high-impact purchases and using average or spend-based methods elsewhere. This tiered approach enables efficient use of resources while maintaining data quality for critical emission sources.

Where Can You Find Scope 3.1 Data?

Data for scope 3.1 emissions typically resides in procurement and finance functions. Purchase orders, invoices, and supplier contracts often contain critical information such as volume, product category, and spend. However, collecting, organizing, and analyzing this data can be resource-intensive, especially for companies with complex and global supply chains. Data type and availability play a key role in determining the method used for calculating emissions, impacting the accuracy and ability to reduce emissions.

What Are the Challenges in Measuring Scope 3.1 Emissions?

As most organizations will attest, measuring scope 3.1 has many challenges, from resource constraints to data availability. As organizations intensify their climate commitments, they are increasingly confronted with a range of technical, logistical, and strategic barriers that make accurate measurement and consistent reporting difficult. Understanding these roadblocks is critical to developing more resilient and impactful scope 3.1 measurement practices. 

• Data availability and quality: Collecting high-quality data is often a bottleneck, with many organizations lacking the systems to track product-level or supplier-specific emissions. Without the proper tracking in place, emissions calculations rely on less accurate methods, making it difficult to reflect or meet reduction efforts.
• Supplier inconsistencies and allocation complexities: Even when suppliers share emissions data, the methodologies, boundaries, and underlying assumptions across them will vary widely. This adds an extra layer of difficulty to data aggregation. Additionally, the allocation of supplier emissions may vary based on the supplier’s chosen method, such as economic (based on spend and supplier revenue/emissions) or service-level (based on units purchased and supplier output/emissions). These inconsistencies can significantly affect reported totals, making it challenging to compare suppliers.
• Complex, multi-tiered supply chains: Upstream emissions can span multiple suppliers across different geographies and industries. Visibility often becomes cloudier beyond Tier 1 suppliers, making it difficult to account for emissions generated deeper in the value chain.
• Timing and synchronization: Aligning procurement, emissions calculation, and reporting cycles can be challenging. Delays in supplier disclosures or emissions factor updates can create reporting lags and misalignment.

Top Five Strategies to Reduce Scope 3.1 Emissions

Reducing scope 3.1 emissions requires balancing precise measurement with targeted action. This means identifying high-impact categories, collaborating with key suppliers, and harnessing available emissions data to improve accuracy and accountability. Here are five strategies organizations can use to start driving impact:

1. Prioritize key categories and suppliers: Not all purchases contribute equally to emissions. Conduct a hotspot analysis to identify the highest-emitting goods or services and prioritize the top suppliers for engagement. Consider prioritizing the share of emissions, the share of procurement spend, and the current methodology type. 
2. Engage suppliers and set expectations: Encourage suppliers to measure and disclose their emissions, invest in LCAs or PCFs, and set their own science-based targets. Collaborative initiatives, such as supplier engagement programs, can support progress.
3. Leverage readily available supplier reports: Many electronic companies, cloud providers, and industrial products provide detailed emissions data through EPDs, LCAs, and specific service emissions reports. For example, AWS and Google offer detailed emissions reports for data hosting and services. Leveraging these can help reduce uncertainty and improve accounting accuracy in software-heavy organizations. However, they should be utilized with caution, as some providers have faced scrutiny in 2026 for reporting efficiency gains without disclosing cloud-specific energy use or the growth in embodied hardware emissions behind it.
4. Identify opportunities for low-carbon inputs: The same reports that help improve reporting accuracy can also provide more detail on the material inputs of purchased goods. This level of information can enable organizations to pursue opportunities for lower-carbon inputs to reduce emissions.
5. Invest in centralized data systems: A centralized platform for carbon accounting data management can streamline emissions tracking, improve visibility, and enable scenario modeling. Several of the other strategies cannot be as effective without the right tools in place to manage this key information. 

Turning Complexity Into Opportunity

Tackling scope 3.1 emissions may feel daunting, but it’s also where some of the biggest climate opportunities lie. By investing in better data, fostering supplier collaboration, and integrating sustainability into procurement practices, companies can unlock innovation, resilience, and long-term value. Organizations that lead on scope 3.1 will not only meet emerging disclosure standards but will shape the low-carbon supply chains of the future.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are scope 3 emissions, and why do they matter?

Scope 3 emissions are all the indirect greenhouse gas emissions in a company's value chain, everything from raw material extraction and purchased services to product use and disposal. They matter because they're usually the majority of a company's footprint. They also fall outside a company’s direct control, which makes them the hardest to measure and the most scrutinized by regulators and investors.

What is included in scope 3.1 emissions?

Scope 3.1 covers the cradle-to-gate emissions of everything a company buys, i.e. all emissions generated up to the point of delivery. That includes raw materials, intermediate goods like steel and electronic components, packaging, office equipment, professional services, and cloud computing. It captures the supplier's extraction, energy use, manufacturing, waste, and transport. It does not include emissions from using or disposing of your own products, which sit in other scope 3 categories.

What are the methods for calculating scope 3.1 emissions?

There are four. The spend-based method multiplies spend by an emissions factor per dollar, which is fast, scalable, and the usual starting point. The average-data method applies industry emissions factors to physical quantities, like kilograms of steel. The supplier-specific method uses actual supplier data such as LCAs, EPDs, or product carbon footprints, and is the most accurate. Most companies land on a hybrid, the final method, which takes supplier-specific data for high-impact purchases and uses estimates elsewhere.

How can companies reduce scope 3.1 emissions?

Start with a hotspot analysis to identify where emissions are coming from. This will usually show that a small share of suppliers and categories drives most of the footprint. From there, engage those suppliers on measurement and targets, use supplier reports and EPDs to replace estimates with real data, and use that detail to identify lower-carbon inputs. Centralized carbon accounting data makes each of these repeatable rather than a one-off exercise.

Do AI data centers' hardware purchases count as scope 3.1 emissions?

Yes, for a data center operator, servers and chips are purchased goods, and therefore count in scope 3.1.