Energy & Electricity
energy-electricity
Power
power
Carbon Accounting
carbon-accounting
5 min. read

Key takeaways
Larger power users are securing behind-the-meter (BTM) power to bypass grid constraints, pairing data centers with third-party-owned generation assets that deliver electricity through a private line rather than the grid.
BTM power arrangements can create confusion about electricity emissions classification: the power users neither own the generating asset nor purchase electricity from the grid, leading some to misclassify those emissions as scope 3 in their corporate GHG inventories. But the GHG Protocol's Corporate Standard is clear: BTM electricity emissions belong in scope 2.
Misclassifying BTM emissions can create reputational and regulatory risk. Carbon Direct can help organizations get this right before the contract closes.
Why large power users are turning to behind-the-meter power
Large power users are consuming more electricity due to data center growth and are looking to add capacity faster than the grid can support, which is having a direct impact on corporate emissions. For example, between 2020 and 2024, Microsoft’s location-based scope 2 emissions rose 130%, and Google’s rose 92%, driven almost entirely by soaring electricity demand from AI infrastructure.
To bypass grid congestion and long interconnection queues, many are turning to behind-the-meter (BTM) power. It’s a pragmatic solution to a real supply problem, but it’s opening an urgent carbon accounting question: when the BTM asset is owned and operated by a third party, where should we account for those emissions?
There has been some confusion that has resulted in companies pursuing an interpretation that would place those emissions in scope 3. The GHG Protocol’s Corporate Standard says otherwise, and the stakes of getting this wrong are high.
What is behind-the-meter power generation?
Behind-the-meter refers to electricity generated on the power consumer’s side of the utility meter, bypassing the grid, and typically located on or near the site where the power is consumed.
In most BTM arrangements for a data center, a third-party developer builds and operates a generation asset, such as natural gas, geothermal, or renewable energy, and delivers electricity directly to the facility through a private transmission line. There is no utility meter, no grid connection, and no standard energy invoice.
This structure allows companies to access large, reliable blocks of power without waiting years for grid interconnection approvals. Since the company does not own or operate the generation asset and is not purchasing electricity through a conventional utility relationship, this arrangement has created some uncertainty around how to account for the associated emissions.
Can BTM electricity emissions be classified as scope 3?
In this scenario, no. The GHG Protocol's Corporate Standard is unambiguous: BTM electricity emissions belong in scope 2, not scope 3. Yet, some companies have been confused about this classification.
There is broad agreement that since the power users do not own or operate the generating asset, those emissions do not belong in scope 1. Divergence starts when we consider that the company is purchasing BTM power, i.e., not from the grid. Since no electricity is acquired from the grid, some argue that rather than accounting for these emissions in scope 2, they are better placed in scope 3, category 8: emissions from leased assets.
The appeal is obvious for BTM power consumers. Scope 3 emissions face less scrutiny from investors, auditors, and regulators who focus most of their attention on scopes 1 and 2. Classifying BTM emissions as scope 3 would reduce near-term pressure to act. However, the GHG Protocol is unambiguous in its stance.
What the GHG Protocol actually says
The GHG Protocol’s Scope 2 Guidance states that “organizations must quantify emissions from the generation of acquired and consumed electricity, steam, heat, or cooling (collectively referred to as ‘electricity’).” The method of delivery, whether grid or BTM, does not change the classification.
If a company consumes electricity from a BTM source, the emissions from generating that electricity belong in scope 2. Section 5.4 of the Scope 2 Guidance addresses BTM power generation directly: “the company with operational or financial control of the energy generation facility reports those emissions in scope 1, following the operational control approach, while the consumer of the energy reports the emissions in scope 2.”
This resolves the question completely. The emissions sit in scope 1 if the company has operational or financial control of the asset, or in scope 2 if a third party controls it.
The GHG Protocol’s Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard reinforces this conclusion. “Category 8 includes emissions from the operation of assets that are leased by the reporting company in the reporting year and not already included in the reporting company’s scope 1 or scope 2 inventories.”
Because BTM electricity emissions are captured by the Scope 2 Guidance, the scope 3 category 8 does not apply.
Get the accounting right before the contract closes
The GHG Protocol is unambiguous: behind-the-meter electricity emissions belong in scope 2 for companies that consume, but do not control the generating asset. This means that BTM contract terms are crucial to determining how the emissions will be classified, since the GHG Protocol assigns scope based on who holds operational or financial control of the generating asset.
Companies that move fast on BTM capacity without understanding this distinction risk locking in a scope 1 or scope 2 obligation they didn't anticipate or building a reporting strategy around a scope 3 interpretation the GHG Protocol doesn't support. This can become a reputational or even a regulatory liability that is far harder to address after the contract is signed.
BTM power strategy: How Carbon Direct can help
When Carbon Direct undertakes this work for our customers, we combine rigorous GHG Protocol expertise with BTM power advisory to help companies get ahead of this question before it becomes a liability. Our Advanced Power Emissions Analysis and Flexible Data Center Load solutions give energy and sustainability leaders the authoritative, defensible accounting guidance they need to move forward with confidence.
While this issue is clear-cut, the upcoming changes to Scope 2 Guidance and multi-statement reporting from the Protocol’s Actions & Market Instruments are creating real uncertainty about accounting decisions that can impact the procurement of renewable energy certificates (RECs), environmental attribute certificates (EACs), carbon credits, and more. Carbon Direct can help organizations navigate these accounting changes with clarity.
If your organization is navigating behind-the-meter power arrangements and their emissions accounting implications, learn more about our power advisory services.









