How to Reduce Grid-Wide Emissions for Carbon Capture and Storage

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.

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

Key Takeaways

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Methodology: Tracking Data Center Legislation

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

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

Eight Key Data Center Trends From State Legislative Activity in 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

• 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 

• 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. 

Key Takeaways

• AI's carbon footprint has two distinct parts: embodied emissions from building data centers and operational emissions from running them, both accelerating as global data center electricity use is set to double by 2030, and AI-focused use to triple.
• Managing that footprint will require deliberately steering technology architecture, power sourcing, and materials choices, instead of leaving them to react to demand after the fact.
• Eight concrete strategies, from smarter chip design to firm clean power and carbon removal, can cut AI's footprint today, without waiting on new regulation.
• US data centers used 4% of the USA's total electricity in 2024, and are projected to use as much as 15% by 2030.

Introduction

The rapid growth of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large-language models (LLM) and generative AI, has taken many by surprise. This surge has led to escalating electricity demands at data centers and raised concerns about the strain on the power grid. It has also sparked the construction of new, larger data centers, resulting in growing embodied emissions tied to building and maintaining AI physical infrastructure.

Managing the risks of increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from AI requires investment, expertise, and new approaches to building and operating many aspects of AI operation and supply chains. The immediate task is to understand these risks, gather the necessary information, and to avoid poor outcomes by proactively managing construction, operation, and emissions associated with the growth in AI. In parallel to that work, it's important to recognize that AI can itself be a real force to reduce emissions incrementally and dramatically across a wide range of sectors.

What Is the Carbon Footprint of AI?

The carbon footprint of AI consists of two main parts: "embodied" emissions that come from manufacturing IT equipment and constructing data centers, and "operational" emissions that come from electricity consumed by servers, memory and networking equipment as they perform AI-related calculations. Both of these aspects of emissions are growing as more data centers are built and existing data centers increase their share of power-hungry AI applications like generative LLM searches, AI agents, and AI image generation.

Understanding Electricity Demand for Data Centers

Today, the electricity demand from AI-specific applications is estimated to be less than 1% of global electricity use. To understand this number, it helps to start with the electricity consumed by the 12,000+ data centers worldwide, which was about 1.5% of global electricity consumption in 2024. (This excludes another 0.4% from cryptocurrency mining.) However, most of the computation at these data centers is not AI; instead, it's more conventional applications like e-commerce, video streaming, social media, and online gaming.

The amount of AI-based computation at data centers is hard to determine, but AI-dedicated accelerated servers consumed about one third of overall data center electricity in 2025, or roughly 0.5% of global electricity. Notably, this is projected to grow at 30% annually, much faster than conventional (non-AI) data center electricity use. However, that electricity use results in a relatively small share of greenhouse gas emissions: about 0.5% of global fuel combustion emissions, with AI data centers representing only a small portion of that value.

Still, the demand for AI applications is rapidly growing, and this is likely to drive up the electricity used by data centers and the associated greenhouse gas emissions. The most important implications of this trend are in the US, which hosts about half the world's data centers. Currently, data centers use about 4% of US electricity, but projections for the future range from a low of 9.5% to a high of 15.3% in 2030.

[cta]

How Electricity Sources Impact Data Center Emissions

A large increase in electricity use doesn't necessarily result in a similarly large increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, a significant portion of the electricity powering data centers comes from zero-carbon sources such as wind and solar. This is partly because of large, corporate power-purchase agreements (PPAs) signed by leading data center operators, particularly Amazon, Meta and Google. 

US technology companies have been buying renewable energy for years. Global corporate clean energy procurement hit a record 62 GW in 2024, then fell to 55.9 GW in 2025, the first annual decline in nearly a decade, as elevated power prices and policy uncertainty made even large buyers more selective. Meta, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft still accounted for roughly 49% of global clean energy procurement in 2025, with Meta and Amazon alone securing 20.4 GW combined, including 4.7 GW of nuclear power.

The use of low-carbon power means that the net emissions from these data centers is smaller than the electricity consumption numbers might suggest. Of course, a crucial consideration is whether this low-carbon power is truly "additional," meaning that it is being added to the grid and not simply taken away from other uses. Data center operators are also expanding beyond their traditional wind and solar PPAs by exploring novel approaches to try to meet this standard, including geothermal projects in the US and Taiwan.

However, the projected electricity demand from AI applications at data centers will be difficult to meet entirely with low-carbon power, at least in the near term. Despite installing over 43.2 GW of wind, solar and battery projects in the US in 2025, these generators face a long wait for interconnection approval in many parts of the country. Geothermal and hydro power, which offer steady ("baseload") low-carbon electricity, remain constrained in the near term. And the interest in scaling up nuclear power, from restarting full-scale reactors to novel small modular reactors (SMRs), faces significant regulatory, cost, and supply chain hurdles.

One important source of low-carbon electricity that has not received enough attention is natural gas-fired power equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS). This technology has the potential to significantly reduce emissions from existing power plants and enable new projects to achieve near-zero emissions.

The Role of Embodied Emissions in Data Center Construction

Embodied emissions include all emissions associated with the extraction, production, transportation, construction, and disposal of materials used in construction.

The embodied emissions from constructing data centers are substantial, and include concrete, steel, and IT hardware. Scope 3 GHG emissions for data centers—which include embodied emissions—range from approximately one-third to two-thirds of overall lifetime emissions. At Microsoft, Scope 3 emissions made up about 86% of the company's total FY2025 footprint and grew roughly 12% year over year, with capital goods driving most of that increase. In FY2024, capital goods alone accounted for about 41% of Microsoft's Scope 3 emissions, and purchased goods and services (including IT hardware) accounted for another 34%. In response, Microsoft has started using wood in some data center construction to reduce this impact. While using wood offers a partial solution, it cannot fully offset the emissions of even a single facility, and wood supply chains remain limited.

Major data center operators are working hard to address this challenge, including emphasizing the need for standardized emissions measurements and disclosures for key building materials. Ultimately, achieving deeper decarbonization will require further action to address both operational and embodied emissions.

Eight Strategies to Reduce the Carbon Footprint of AI

1. Adapt Technology Architecture

Efficiency is the foundational strategy in any clean energy approach. As such, chipmakers are developing ways to cut energy use from the outset, such as incorporating more memory directly onto computer chips or hard-wiring basic calculations. These innovations have already reduced energy consumption in new computer chips substantially, in some cases a 96% improvement. Examples of this include NVIDIA's Blackwell platform and the company's newer Rubin platform, launched in 2026, continues that trajectory. Likewise, servers are being designed with new architectures that minimize internal data transfers, delivering additional efficiencies. Even more efficiency gains may be possible with emerging technologies like photonic computing.

2. Optimize Training Geography

There are also significant opportunities to manage AI's energy use through time and space optimization. For example, a large portion of the energy consumption for LLMs occurs during the training phase, prior to a model's deployment for inference. Because these training tasks are not location-dependent, they can be carried out in regions with abundant, low-cost, low-carbon electricity, as part of broader efforts to dynamically move computing tasks to reduce emissions, known as carbon-aware computing. Additionally, server requests for generative AI tasks, like ChatGPT searches, can potentially be routed through systems powered by low-carbon electricity. Although this may add only a few milliseconds of latency, it could substantially reduce emissions from computing operations.

3. Select Appropriately-Sized Models

Not all generative AI tasks, like ChatGPT queries, are equal in terms of energy demand. Leading AI companies are increasingly focusing on using smaller, more efficient AI models to perform these tasks, achieving nearly equivalent quality for far less energy consumption. A notable recent test of that idea came in January 2025, when China's DeepSeek released a model with competitive performance that was trained using less powerful chips and far fewer computing hours than its established rivals. Similarly, many AI applications, such as digital twinning and satellite-based pattern recognition, consume far less electricity than generative LLMs, because of their specialized, relatively efficient models. This can even save energy compared to non-AI approaches: for example, some of the most advanced AI-driven weather prediction models require far less energy than traditional weather simulations, running on a laptop rather than a supercomputer.

4. Address Fugitive Methane Emissions

As data center operators increasingly plan on using natural gas for new electricity supply, reducing upstream emissions from gas production and transmission will be crucial. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2024 Methane Rule was designed to cut these non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 80%. However, Congress repealed the rule's methane fee in 2025 and barred the EPA from collecting it until 2034. The EPA has since extended compliance deadlines and loosened flare and vent-gas requirements, with litigation over those changes still ongoing. Meanwhile, tools from companies like Kayrros and organizations like Carbon Mapper help detect methane leaks and attribute them to specific operators. The best actors in the industry emit minimal methane, less than 0.5% of what is produced. This standard is achievable for nearly all gas producers.

5. Use Carbon Capture on Power Plants

For both new and existing natural gas-fired power plants, carbon capture and storage technology offers the potential for generating firm, low-carbon power. While many plants currently in operation continue to emit unchecked, this doesn't have to be the case: their emissions can be captured and securely stored geologically. Hyperscalers and project developers should pursue new investments and business models for CCS to reduce existing emissions by 95% or more. For new generation projects, options like NetPower, Arbor, and CES will soon enable emissions abatement of 100%, or even more if combined with biopower to deliver carbon dioxide removal as well. Achieving this will require the development of carbon dioxide pipelines, barges, and storage facilities, which face their own challenges, such as permitting and community approval, that must be addressed directly.

6. Add More Zero-Carbon Power to the Grid

Roughly 8,200 solar, wind, and battery projects in the U.S. are seeking grid interconnection. By the end of 2025, the interconnection queue held roughly 2,060 GW of proposed generation and storage across thousands of projects, and its composition shifted meaningfully. Solar, wind, and storage volumes in the queue all declined year over year (although remained at high absolute levels) while natural gas capacity in the queue grew by 86%. Our blog post, The $5.5 Billion-Dollar Case for Enabling Data Center Load Flexibility, covers one way hyperscalers are working around the wait rather than simply enduring it. These delays need to be addressed, and permitting reform remains an unresolved, live debate. The Manchin-Barrasso bill, which once looked likely to pass, was tabled in December 2024 and never became law. As of 2026, no comprehensive federal permitting law has replaced it. One potential innovation is to use AI to accelerate the development of power flow models and streamline the paperwork required to complete the regulatory process.

7. Invest in Low-Carbon Building Materials

While wood is a promising low-carbon building material, we'll also need glass, concrete, steel, aluminum, and computer chips with minimal embodied carbon emissions. Hyperscalers currently face significant challenges accessing low-carbon versions of these materials, which will eventually be produced using low-carbon hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, and low-carbon electricity. However, these systems require significant investment, workforce development, and permitting to be built. Without these advancements, the embodied emissions from data centers will increase rapidly and significantly in the US, Europe, and globally.

8. Increase Carbon Dioxide Removals

It's already clear that AI applications at data centers will generate emissions from electricity use and embodied carbon that cannot be avoided in the near term. Estimates of current greenhouse gas emissions exceed 300 million tons per year and are likely to grow this decade. These emissions should be measured using full life-cycle analysis and then offset through high-quality carbon removal projects, preferably those with high durability.

To effectively reduce the environmental impact of AI, all eight strategies discussed must prioritize the communities most affected: frontline communities near new infrastructure, consumers facing price increases, and tribal authorities with limited legal protections. Our own research on community opposition to AI data centers found that transparency, not cost or environmental impact alone, is the dominant driver of pushback across 46 stalled or blocked projects. We explore this concern further in our blog, Who Pays for the AI? The Hidden Costs of Rising Data Center Demand, including how ratepayers, not just data center operators, often absorb the cost of new grid infrastructure. Planning should begin by understanding the needs of these communities, ensuring that efforts focus on minimizing harm while maximizing benefits. Equity and justice must be embedded in every stage of planning, production, and permitting across all strategies.

AI's Power Demand Is Indicative of Broader Electricity Demand

AI is just one part of a broader trend of rapidly growing electricity demands, including from electric vehicles, heat pumps, industrial electrification, green hydrogen, and various e-fuels. The challenges AI presents to hyperscalers, communities, regulators, and investors serve as a preview of the complex, far-reaching impacts emerging in other sectors. The same questions keep recurring. Who secures reliable, affordable power fast enough? Who ends up carrying the cost and emissions burden of getting there the wrong way?

Managing AI's power demand will require building the technology architecture, clean firm power supply, and materials strategy to meet that demand deliberately, rather than reactively. AI's carbon footprint underscores the critical need for expertise in clean electricity, grid management, decarbonization, and carbon removal—expertise that will become increasingly vital as more companies realize the complexity and cost of the journey ahead.

Fortunately, AI itself can be part of the solution. With applications in grid management, material science, and advanced manufacturing, AI has the potential to play a powerful role in the climate response.

Read the full 2025 report: ICEF Sustainable Data Centers.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much electricity do AI data centers actually use? 

AI-specific computation likely accounts for around 0.04% of global electricity use today, but data centers overall (most of it non-AI computation) used about 1.5% of global electricity in 2024. In the US, which hosts roughly half the world's data centers, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory puts current usage at 4% of US electricity, projected to reach 9.5-15.3% by 2030 as AI-specific demand grows.

Will more efficient AI models like DeepSeek reduce data center energy demand? 

Not necessarily. DeepSeek's 2025 debut showed that competitive models can be trained with less powerful chips and fewer computing hours, but whether that translates into lower total energy demand is contested. Historically, efficiency gains in computing have tended to get absorbed by increased usage rather than reducing total consumption, so the honest answer is that it depends on whether demand growth outpaces the efficiency gained.

What is being done about the embodied emissions from building AI data centers?

‍Embodied emissions, from concrete, steel, and IT hardware, can account for one-third to two-thirds of a data center's lifetime emissions. Strategies include using lower-carbon materials like wood where feasible, developing low-carbon concrete, steel, and chips, and standardizing emissions disclosures for building materials so operators can compare and choose lower-footprint options.

Key Takeaways

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

A New Rulebook for Bring Your Own Generation in PJM

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

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

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

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

What Is Co-Location?

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

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

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

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

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

How Does Co-Location Differ from BTM Generation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which Four Interconnection Mechanics Did FERC Approve?

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

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

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

Which Generators Gain Most From Surplus Interconnection Service?

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

The generators that benefit most include:

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

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

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

What Transmission Service Does a Co-Located Load Receive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which Two PJM Proposals Did FERC Reject?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which BYOG Deals Need Restructuring Before the May 18 Refile?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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