A pollution watchdog has scrapped a proposed ruling that could have cut data center CO2 emissions “dozens of times faster” than the current system, The Financial Times reports. Following lobbying by tech industry groups, the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) decided not to recommend a protocol that would have made it harder for tech companies to use clean energy investments to offset fossil fuel pollution.
To capitalize on the AI boom, tech companies like Amazon and Meta have built massive data centers in the United States. There is often not enough locally produced electricity to power these facilities, so companies have installed controversial and highly polluting gas turbines to make up the difference.
To avoid pollution taxes, tech giants say they are offsetting fossil fuel production with investments in wind, solar and other forms of green energy. They use certificates to offset emissions supported by net-zero energy projects, even if those projects are located in other states or regions and produce electricity at a different time. For example, a Texas data center powered by fossil fuels and operating at night can offset CO2 pollution through certificates issued when purchasing solar power during the day in California.
However, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol (GGP) watchdog (used by Europe and California) has said that fossil fuel and offset green energy should be produced in the same market at around the same time. This would help ensure accurate reporting and create a “credible link” between companies and their energy sources, the GGP said. Based on this research, SBTi proposed that technology companies use certificates that represent clean energy produced in the same time frame as the fossil energy consumed.
In response, companies with nearly $5 trillion in revenue, including Apple, Amazon and GM, launched a lobbying effort called “May not Shall,” arguing that energy rules based on time and place were optional. Such rules are onerous and could discourage investment in clean energy, they say. Google, on the other hand, has argued for temporal (hourly) adequacy of clean energy (Google is by far the largest buyer of renewable energy in the world).
Several research groups, including the Low-Carbon Technology Consortium at Princeton University and the European Union, have argued that hourly accounting for energy compensation could reduce CO2 emissions much faster than the current system.