Key Takeaways

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

Accounting for Indirect Emissions From Energy Use

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

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

What Are Scope 2 Emissions?

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

The primary sources of scope 2 emissions include:

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

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

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

How Are Scope 2 Emissions Measured Today?

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

Location-Based Method

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

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

Market-Based Method

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

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

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

Proposed Changes to the GHG Protocol Scope 2 Guidance

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

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

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

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

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

How to Reduce Scope 2 Emissions

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

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

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

Why Does Reducing Scope 2 Emissions Matter?

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

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

• The 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

• 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.

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. 

Key Takeaways

• Accurate load forecasting is needed to distinguish and prioritize real demand, align capital deployment, and reduce delays in bringing new power capacity online. Traditional load forecasting was built for predictable, gradual demand growth, not for the scale, uncertainty, and dynamic behavior of data centers. 
• The system-level fix to data-center load forecasting requires probabilistic, more frequent, category-specific methods paired with mandatory data standards and policy alignment. Together, these give planners visibility into the range of possible futures and the likelihood of each. 
• Without that fix, today's forecasts conflate real demand with speculative submissions, reducing accuracy. Inaccurate forecasting in either direction is expensive: underbuild adds friction to economic development; overbuild risks raising retail rates. Both can erode public trust in planning.
• Behind-the-meter generation (BTM) and load flexibility can help achieve speed-to-power in the near term. Just 1% data-center flexibility could unlock 100 GW—more than the entire US nuclear fleet.

Load Growth Is Increasing, Uncertain, and Concentrated

For two decades, US electricity demand was flat. Utilities, transmission planners, and corporate buyers built their planning models around that reality. Then AI workloads changed it.

AI load growth is large, uncertain, and concentrated in major power markets. While load forecasting projections vary across studies, the trajectory is clear: electricity demand is scaling faster than the bulk power grid was designed to handle. Accurate load forecasting is needed to distinguish and prioritize real demand, align capital deployment, and reduce delays in bringing new power capacity online.

On April 30, 2026, Relae (formerly Carbon Direct) hosted a Trellis Group panel on load forecasting in the AI era. Panelists included Derya Eryilmaz, PhD, Vice President of Power Commercialization at Relae; John Miller, Director of Transmission Policy at the Corporate Energy Buyers Association (CEBA); Daniel Padilla, Strategy and Business Development Lead at Emerald AI; and Sam Hodas, Head of US Government Affairs at National Grid. Jake Mitchell, Director of Climate Tech Innovation at Trellis Group, moderated.

The conversation explored where load forecasts fail, what they cost, how to fix them, and near-term solutions to overcome grid constraints. Here is what the panel found.

What Is Load Forecasting?

Load forecasting is the practice of predicting how much electricity will be consumed across a region, at what times, and under what conditions. It informs the major capital and procurement decisions on the grid: where to build transmission, how much generation to procure, what capacity to bid into wholesale markets, and how corporate buyers secure clean, firm power.

Long-term forecasts inform multi-year decisions about transmission and generation. Short-term operational forecasts inform real-time grid operations and trading. The two often sit in separate workflows, but short-term operational forecasts should feed into long-term system planning to improve accuracy as demand patterns shift.

The Bulk Power Grid Is Under Strain

Large power users face constraints on clean, firm power, transmission capacity, multi-year interconnection queues, and aging infrastructure. The strain is most acute in PJM Interconnection (PJM) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the two US markets expected to see the most significant load growth. Each constraint raises the cost of getting load forecasts wrong.

Hodas from National Grid describes the operational reality on the utility side: aging infrastructure inherited from a different demand era. “We’ve got transmission lines that are 70 to 100 years old in New York and Massachusetts, some of the oldest in the country, still in operation.” Replacing or upgrading that infrastructure requires investment, and ratepayers are already pressed. 

Why Today’s Load Forecasts Fail

Traditional load forecasting was built for predictable, gradual demand growth, not for the scale, uncertainty, and dynamic behavior of data centers. 

Most utilities and Independent System Operators (ISOs) produce load forecasts on annual or biannual cycles. They aggregate submissions from individual customers, run that data through a deterministic single-peak load estimate against a single capacity scenario, and pass the consolidated forecast up to regional planners. Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) roll those bottom-up utility forecasts into a regional view. 

This worked when demand was flat and predictable. It no longer works with nonlinear growth driven by data centers. Eryilmaz from Relae identifies key structural limitations. 

Four Structural Limitations to Traditional Forecasting Methods

• Over-stating and double-counting. Data centers bid into multiple regions while shopping for power, inflating regional forecasts and blurring the line between real and hypothetical demand—the speculative-load problem.
• Deterministic models (vs probabilistic models). Most planning runs a single peak load estimate against a single capacity scenario, missing the geographic concentration and uncertainty inherent in integrating large loads into the system.
• Aggregated submissions. Utilities report large loads as a single block of gigawatts, with no resolution into workload type, ramp schedule, or operational shape. Planners reverse-engineer peak-demand assumptions rather than measure them.
• Infrequent cadence. Annual or biannual forecasts cannot catch an 80% queue reduction or a multi-gigawatt addition between cycles.

The Speculative-Load Problem

The core challenge in load forecasting is distinguishing real versus hypothetical load. While data center electricity demand is projected to grow by 13-27% annually through 2028, the majority of the projects in the data center queue may not materialize, inflating regional load forecasts.

American Electric Power's Ohio utility (AEP Ohio) introduced a tariff requiring data centers to put up firm financial commitments before getting in line for grid connection. Its interconnection queue dropped from 30 gigawatts to 5.6 gigawatts. More than 80% of the submitted load was speculative: projects that disappeared once commitment became required.

ERCOT shows the same overstatement problem on a larger scale. Roughly 225 gigawatts of data center demand sits in the ERCOT queue against a historic system peak of 85 gigawatts. Texas Senate Bill 6 introduced similar financial obligations for new loads, but those rules apply only to interconnections after 2025, and the cleanup of speculative demand has not yet materialized.

The speculative-load problem shows up in interconnection times. An average new project in PJM can wait 4 to 5 years to become operational. Some of that delay is a real backlog. The rest comes from the inability to distinguish real submissions from speculative ones.

As Eryilmaz puts it, “Load forecasting is actually the center of all of these problems. It is a tool to help planners make the right investment decisions.”

The Cost of Inaccurate Forecasting

As Miller from CEBA notes, “A single misforecasted project can swing a transmission plan by hundreds of megawatts.” Significant inaccuracies can erode public trust in the planning process in two main ways. Underbuilding adds friction to economic development and can limit corporate access to clean power markets. Conversely, overbuilding risks raising retail rates if capacity remains underutilized. 

The goal is to achieve right-sized infrastructure investment. When planning aligns with actual large load growth, it can be net beneficial to retail rates. By spreading fixed costs across more usage, significant new demand can put downward pressure on the rates via the “denominator effect.” 

On the other hand, forecasting variability can distort capacity procurement and interconnection queue prioritization. When load forecasts spike upward, grid operators like PJM have to scramble to buy additional electricity capacity on short notice. These emergency procurements lock in major dollar commitments on the basis of unstable forecast numbers. 

PJM, Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), and Southwest Power Pool (SPP) have also reshaped their interconnection queues to make room for new large loads, but those queue priorities depend on the same forecasts that are unreliable in the first place. 

“There is no substitute for good backbone regional transmission planning,” Miller says. “Full stop. That is the enabler of all of the load growth that we’re talking about.”

BTM Generation and Load Flexibility: A Near-Term Bridge

Hyperscalers’ need for power is way faster than that of utilities and RTOs. Generation alone cannot scale fast enough to meet this new demand, and hyperscalers need speed-to-power.

As Eryilmaz frames it, behind-the-meter generation and load flexibility are interim solutions to the timing mismatch between data center urgency and the grid's slower build cycles. BTM generation and flexibility work differently:

• BTM is power generated on the data center's side of the utility meter, bypassing grid interconnection entirely. The structure gives operators large, reliable blocks of power without waiting years for grid approval.
• Load flexibility is the demand-side approach. A data center modifies its grid draw in response to grid signals. In practice, that can mean curtailing compute workloads during stress events, pre-cooling facilities ahead of a heat wave, drawing from on-site batteries or generators, or shifting workloads to data centers in less-constrained regions.

The Value of Load Flexibility

Relae’s power system modeling quantifies the dollar value of load flexibility in ERCOT. Load flexibility can eliminate forced load shedding risk, even at 40 gigawatts of data center buildout, preventing $5.5 billion in annual consumer welfare losses by curtailing an average of 5% of demand for under 1% of operating hours.

Padilla from Emerald AI reinforces the scale and value of load flexibility: “With just 1% flexibility, we can unlock 100 gigawatts of data centers across the US. That’s more than the entire US nuclear fleet.”

Silicon Valley Power, a municipal utility, is the first US utility to tie flexibility to interconnection speed: flexible data centers get connected faster. NVIDIA, EPRI, Digital Realty, and PJM are partnering on the Aurora AI Factory, the first purpose-built reference design for flexible AI data centers. 

But standardized policy for load flexibility is lagging. Padilla highlights this challenge: “Today, if a data center wants to be flexible, they have nowhere to point. We need standardized tariffs, interconnection rules, and product definitions for large loads that reward them with upsizing interconnection in response to flexibility.” 

Flexibility Takes Many Forms, but it Isn't Universal

Flexibility means accepting brief, predictable downtime, and some workloads can't tolerate it. Hospital systems and mission-critical enterprise applications need 99.999% uptime, the "five nines" standard. As Padilla puts it: "99.9% uptime, with brief and predictable curtailments, is plenty" for most AI workloads. That distinction determines which data centers can participate in flexibility programs.

Miller points out that compute-level flexibility is not always feasible. BTM batteries and virtual power plants (VPPs) are among the alternatives that can offset what data centers withdraw when the grid is stressed, even at facilities whose compute workloads cannot pause directly.

Better Load Forecasting: The Longer-Term Fix

While BTM generation and load flexibility can help address near-term speed-to-power, the longer-term fix is improving load forecasting methods and the standardization of data provided by the data centers themselves.

Eryilmaz outlines three technical shifts for better load forecasting:

• Embed short-term operational forecasting into long-term planning. Short-term spikes, weather risk, and reserve considerations carry direct implications for multi-year capital decisions. The line between operations and planning breaks down when growth is nonlinear.
• Replace deterministic models with probabilistic methods. Risk metrics like loss of load hours (expected hours per year that demand exceeds supply) and expected unserved energy (total expected energy shortfall) measure both how much capacity the system has and the conditions under which it might fall short. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) has suggested both metrics as part of its reliability framework.
• Forecast load by category. Treating all data center load as a single block hides the differences in load profiles, operational schedules, and ramp-up timing that drive system planning.

Policy Alignment

Technical forecasting improvements only scale with policy alignment, and Miller proposes a two-part fix:

On the top-down side, RTOs need authority to take an independent view of utility-submitted forecasts. They should require milestones, such as firm financial commitments and secured financing, before counting a submitted load against the regional forecast. 

On the bottom-up side, state regulators set the rules that govern how individual utilities prepare their forecasts. Large load tariffs play a big role in how utility-level forecasts come together. Federal and state authorities need to row in the same direction. Hodas frames the same alignment from the utility side: “Grid investment unlocks economic growth, but for us to make those investments, we need regulatory certainty.”

Standardizing Large-Load Data

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has since moved: in June 2026 it issued show cause orders directing six RTOs and ISOs—CAISO, ISO-NE, MISO, NYISO, PJM, and SPP—to revise or justify their large-load interconnection rules, and in July 2026 it directed NERC to develop computational-load reliability standards and registration criteria by the end of the year. Both are useful first steps. But as Eryilmaz argues, voluntary disclosure has not closed the gap.

The industry cannot meaningfully compare ISO forecasts when each utility submits load data in different shapes (e.g., using different methods and data standards) on different schedules. Mandatory submission requirements and published methodologies, applied consistently across utilities, ISOs, and state regulators, are the only path to forecasts whose components are actually comparable.

Getting Load Forecasting Right Starts Now

The system-level fix to improving forecasting is through probabilistic, category-specific methods paired with data standardization and policy support. Together, these account for the scale, uncertainty, and dynamic behavior of data center loads, and give planners visibility into the range of possible futures and the likelihood of each.  

All forecasts will be wrong to some degree, but as Miller puts it, “It's ultimately not about having a perfect prediction. It's about baking in methods to account for uncertainty.” These system-level improvements won't eliminate errors entirely, but they will minimize them, leading to more confident investment decisions and a grid better prepared for what's ahead.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is load forecasting, and why is it harder now with AI data center loads?

Load forecasting predicts how much electricity a region will consume, when, and under what conditions—the basis for where to build transmission, how much generation to procure, and how corporate buyers secure clean, firm power. It was designed for two decades of flat, gradual demand growth. Data center load is none of those things: it is large, geographically concentrated, arrives in gigawatt blocks with no disclosed operating shape, and can be withdrawn as quickly as it appeared.

What is speculative load in an interconnection queue, and how do planners tell it apart from real demand?

Speculative load is capacity requested by projects that may never be built — often the same data center bidding into several regions at once while shopping for power, which counts the same gigawatts more than once. The tested filter is a financial commitment: when AEP Ohio required firm commitments before queue entry, the utility's reported data center pipeline fell from about 30 GW to roughly 5.7 GW. Milestone requirements, independent RTO review of utility submissions, and mandatory data standards are the tools planners have.

Is load flexibility proven and scalable today, or still emerging?

The modeling case for load flexibility is strong; the commercial case is still early. Duke's Nicholas Institute found the 22 largest US balancing authority areas could absorb roughly 76–126 GW of new load if it accepts modest curtailment, and Relae's ERCOT modeling shows demand response eliminating forced load shedding risk at 40 GW of data center buildout, avoiding $5.5 billion in annual consumer welfare losses. What is still missing is the market plumbing—standardized tariffs, interconnection rules, and product definitions—so a data center willing to be flexible has somewhere to sign up.

What should a company look for when evaluating a region's load forecast?

Ask whether the forecast is probabilistic or a single deterministic peak, how often it is refreshed, and whether large loads are broken out by category and operating shape rather than reported as one block of gigawatts. Then ask what milestone or financial commitment a project must clear before its megawatts count toward the forecast. A forecast that cannot answer those three questions cannot tell you how much of the queue ahead of you is real.

[cta]

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

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

Meeting Electricity Demand and GHG Emission Reduction Targets

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

[cta]

The Role of Natural Gas in Electricity Supply

Natural Gas Generation Versus Renewable Generation Deployment

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

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

The Case for Carbon Capture Deployment

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

Benefits of Integrating CCS into Natural Gas Power Generation

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

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

Seven Key Considerations for Implementing CCS

Stakeholders considering CCS technology must carefully evaluate seven critical factors:

1. Meeting Rapid Deployment Timelines

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

2. Sizing Plants Optimally

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

3. Selecting Effective Carbon Capture Technology

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

4. Navigating CO₂ Transportation Logistics

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

5. Ensuring Safe and Effective Sequestration

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

6. Conducting a Comprehensive Life Cycle Analysis

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

7. Performing Siting Feasibility Early

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

[cta]

How Relae Supports Data Center Decarbonization

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

Key Takeaways

• Scope 1 emissions are direct and controllable, making them a powerful starting point for decarbonization.
• Reducing scope 1 emissions can improve energy efficiency and lower operating costs.
• Reporting on scope 1 emissions is now required under new climate regulations, and companies that act now will gain an edge.

Why Scope 1 Emissions Matter Now

When we talk about corporate decarbonization, scope 2 and scope 3 emissions tend to take up the headlines, with a focus on renewable energy certificates (RECs) or challenges like complex supply chains. But scope 1 emissions, those produced directly from sources a company owns or controls, don’t get as much airtime. This is a missed opportunity. 

As AI data center growth pushes companies towards on-site power, more organizations are confronting scope 1 boundaries for the first time. Scope 1 emissions enable companies to take immediate, tangible action to cut carbon, drive operational efficiencies, and get ahead of growing regulatory pressure.

What Are Scope 1 Emissions?

Scope 1 emissions are the direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from sources that a company owns or controls. They mostly come from activities where fuels are combusted on-site within an organization’s operations. For industries that combust high amounts of fuels within their operations (e.g., oil and gas, chemicals, manufacturing), scope 1 can represent a significant share of the company’s emissions. For industries that outsource most of their production, scope 1 can be a smaller share of the overall footprint.

Scope 1 emissions typically fall into four categories:

• Stationary combustion: Emissions from burning fuels on-site for heating, manufacturing, or electricity generation. This includes boilers, furnaces, and turbines at company facilities.
• Mobile combustion: Emissions from company-owned or operated vehicles and equipment, such as cars, aircraft, delivery fleets, ships, or construction machinery.
• Fugitive emissions: Unintentional leaks or releases of gases, often from refrigeration and air conditioning systems. These can have an outsized impact because many refrigerants have global warming potentials (GWPs) hundreds or even thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide.
• Self-produced energy: Emissions from electricity, heat, or steam generated on-site, such as through natural gas-fired generators or cogeneration plants, even when the energy is used internally.

Identifying and categorizing scope 1 emissions correctly are the first steps toward uncovering potential operational improvements and carbon reduction approaches.

On-Site Power for AI Data Centers

As AI pushes data center operators toward on-site (“behind-the-meter”) power, a high-stakes accounting question follows: are those behind-the-meter emissions scope 1 or scope 2? The answer comes down to control, not location. 

Under the GHG Protocol, emissions from on-site generation are scope 1 only when the reporting company owns or financially controls the generating asset (i.e., the self-produced energy category above). In most data center power deals, a third party owns and operates the generator and sells the electricity to the data center. In that structure, the company buying the power reports the emissions as scope 2, and the company generating the power reports the combustion as scope 1. Given the growth in emissions from the scale of AI infrastructure, getting the boundary right matters for corporate credibility. 

Why Scope 1 Emissions Are a Strategic Priority

While scope 3 is often talked about as the largest source of emissions for corporations, that isn’t the case for all industries. For heavy sectors like oil and gas, chemicals, and manufacturing, scope 1 emissions aren't just significant - they are the bedrock of the emissions story. Other industries depend on these sectors' outputs to operate their own businesses, meaning that decarbonizing heavy industries’ scope 1 emissions can also drive reductions across other organizations’ scope 3 emissions.

Since scope 1 emissions are typically within a company’s direct operational control, they present a great starting point for decarbonization. Unlike scope 3 emissions, which require influencing suppliers, customers, or partners, companies can take immediate action on scope 1 sources. Even for industries with relatively small scope 1 footprints, reductions can often happen more quickly through internal decisions, such as equipment upgrades, process improvements, or fuel switching.

Regulatory momentum is also making scope 1 management increasingly urgent. Policies like the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), California’s Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253), and global ISSB-aligned frameworks are requiring companies to measure and publicly disclose their scope 1 emissions. Even within voluntary frameworks, reporting on scope 1 emissions is getting tighter. Within the Science-Based Targets Initiative (SBTi)’s new draft Net Zero Standard, scope 1 emissions must now have a separate target from scope 2 emissions, and the boundary must cover 100% of scope 1 emissions whereas previously the boundary was 95% of emissions. These market shifts highlight the importance of reducing scope 1 emissions.

Operationally, reducing scope 1 emissions offers business value. Many scope 1 reduction strategies, such as upgrading to more efficient equipment or reducing fuel waste can lower energy bills, improve asset performance, and reduce maintenance costs. For companies focused on both sustainability and profitability, targeting scope 1 emissions delivers a strong return on investment.

How to Calculate Scope 1 Emissions

To reduce scope 1 emissions, companies need to know exactly what and how much they are emitting. Calculating scope 1 emissions starts with gathering the right data at the facility level and understanding the activities that generate emissions.

What to Measure

Scope 1 emissions come from activities such as fuel combustion in boilers or vehicle fleets, refrigerant leaks from cooling systems, and on-site energy generation. Ideally, companies should collect activity data, like gallons of diesel used, cubic meters of natural gas consumed, or kilograms of refrigerant leaked and replaced. In cases where direct measurement isn’t possible, companies often rely on estimations, using financial spend data or industry intensity metrics as a proxy for fuel consumption.

Where to Find the Data

Facility-level data is the backbone of comprehensive and comparable scope 1 accounting. Much of the required data can be sourced from utility bills, fuel receipts, maintenance logs for HVAC and refrigeration systems, and reports from on-site equipment operators. Increasingly, companies are deploying sensors to capture real-time data on fuel consumption, refrigerant leaks, and on-site energy generation, improving both accuracy and responsiveness.

How to Calculate the Emissions

Emissions are calculated by applying the emissions factors (i.e., the amount of greenhouse gases emitted per the quantity of fuel or refrigerant) to the collected activity data. Many companies use carbon accounting software to automate calculations, track emissions over time, and ensure consistency with recognized standards like the GHG Protocol. Expert support is often critical, especially for sectors with complex operations. Carbon accounting experts help ensure the data is complete, auditable, and aligned with evolving regulatory requirements.

Accurate scope 1 data builds a strong foundation for compliance as well as for setting credible reduction targets and tracking long-term performance.

How to Reduce Scope 1 Emissions

With scope 1 emissions data in hand, companies can begin identifying and implementing reduction strategies. Because these emissions are within the organization’s operational control, companies often have multiple levers they can pull.

Operational Strategies

• Fuel switching: Replacing fossil fuels like natural gas or diesel with lower-carbon alternatives, like green hydrogen or renewable electricity, can significantly reduce direct emissions from stationary and mobile combustion. Depending on the switch, this could result in higher scope 2 emissions, but these can be more readily addressed through market-based instruments, thus lowering the overall footprint.
• Equipment upgrades: Modernizing boilers, generators, fleets, and other combustion-based equipment can improve energy efficiency and cut emissions. Newer technologies often perform better and emit less.
• Process innovation: In emissions-intensive industries like cement and steel production, rethinking industrial processes can yield dramatic reductions. Low-carbon production methods are increasingly becoming commercially viable.
• Leak detection and repair: Methane leaks from oil and gas operations and refrigerant leaks from cooling systems are major contributors to scope 1 emissions. Deploying monitoring technologies and maintaining rapid-response repair programs can fix leaks before they lead to large amounts of emissions.

Strategic Procurement

• Vendor selection: Companies can prioritize suppliers that offer lower-emissions alternatives for fuels, materials, and services.
• Fleet electrification: Procuring electric vehicles for delivery, service, and logistics fleets reduces both emissions and long-term fuel and maintenance costs.
• Equipment design: Working with suppliers to source modular, emissions-efficient machinery can reduce on-site fuel use and improve flexibility over time.

Driving Innovation Through R&D

• Low-carbon products: Research and development teams can design products and processes that inherently require less energy, or lower-carbon energy, to produce, lowering scope 1 emissions at the source.
• Material innovation: Developing new chemistries or alternative materials can avoid high-emission production methods, contributing to broader decarbonization goals.
• Closed-loop systems: Designing circular, waste-reducing systems can minimize both raw material use and the on-site emissions associated with production and disposal.

Reducing scope 1 emissions often requires up-front investment, whether it’s upgrading equipment, switching to alternative fuels, or embedding low-carbon principles into procurement and R&D strategies. While the initial costs can be substantial, they deliver long-term value through improved operational efficiency, reduced regulatory risk, lower energy expenses, and enhanced brand value in a marketplace that increasingly rewards climate leadership.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main categories of scope 1 emissions?

Scope 1 emissions fall into four categories: stationary combustion (fuels burned on-site in boilers, furnaces, or turbines), mobile combustion (company-owned or -operated vehicles and equipment), fugitive emissions (leaks of refrigerants or methane, which often carry outsized global warming potential), and self-produced energy (electricity, heat, or steam generated by equipment the company owns or controls).

Which regulations require companies to report scope 1 emissions, and when do they take effect?

The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) already requires scope 1 disclosure for companies in its first reporting waves. In the US, California’s SB 253 requires companies with over $1 billion in annual revenue doing business in California to report scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, with first reports due November 10, 2026. ISSB-aligned disclosure rules are extending similar requirements across other jurisdictions.

What’s the fastest way for a company to start reducing scope 1 emissions?

Start by measuring at the facility level, since this activity data shows where emissions concentrate. From there, the quickest wins are usually operational, such as repairing refrigerant and methane leaks, upgrading inefficient combustion equipment, and electrifying vehicle fleets, because they sit within the company’s direct control and often pay back through lower fuel and maintenance costs.

Is behind-the-meter power scope 1 or scope 2?

It depends on who controls the generating asset. If a company owns or financially controls its on-site generation, the emissions are scope 1. If a third party owns and operates the generator and sells the power- the structure behind most data center power deals- the buyer reports those emissions as scope 2 under the GHG Protocol’s Scope 2 Guidance.