Scope rules, AI data centers, and a standards fight
A simmering dispute over how to count corporate emissions has burst into the open as tech giants and climate advocates push competing interpretations of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol. At stake: whether electricity for AI-heavy data centers is tallied in ways that either understate or overstate real-world impact, and how purchases like “time-matched” clean power should be credited. Companies argue that strict hour-by-hour matching is costly and impractical in regions with limited renewables, while climate groups say flexible accounting lets firms claim progress on paper while grids burn more fossil fuels. The debate touches Scope 2 rules for purchased electricity and Scope 3 supply-chain emissions that dwarf direct footprints. With AI workloads exploding, the standards fight isn’t academic—it shapes siting decisions, power contracts, and whether local communities see new lines and storage.

What could change and why it matters beyond tech
Standards bodies face pressure to modernize guidance without creating loopholes. Proposals include distinguishing “market-based” purchases from “grid-incremental” supply that demonstrably adds new clean capacity, and requiring granular disclosure of data-center load profiles—daily peaks, hourly draw, and curtailment use. Utilities warn that gaming certificates risks slowing real build-out of wires and storage; chipmakers counter that rigid rules will push investments to friendlier jurisdictions. Policymakers are watching because the Protocol informs SEC-style climate disclosures, export-credit criteria, and green-bond frameworks. For Asia’s fast-growing cloud markets, the lesson is to pair generation targets with grid reforms so batteries, flexible demand, and transmission arrive in time. However this is resolved, one outcome is certain: investors and regulators will ask for project-level evidence—signed interconnection queues, storage commitments, and measurable emissions intensity—before they accept claims that AI growth is “green.”