Amazon, once again, is one of the top corporate buyers of clean and renewable energy in the world. For the fifth year in a row, the company leads global corporate renewable energy procurement. BloombergNEF again recognized Amazon as a top corporate purchaser of carbon-free power, with a portfolio that adds significant new clean energy to grids.
Amazon’s clean energy projects now span more than 700 global initiatives. These include utility-scale solar and wind farms, battery storage, onsite solar, and other carbon-free energy sources across 28 countries.
So far, Amazon has invested in over 40 gigawatts (GW) of carbon-free energy capacity. This amount of power could supply the annual electricity needs of more than 12.1 million U.S. homes if it were used for residential demand.
These investments make Amazon not just a buyer of clean power for itself, but a major driver of new renewable energy build-out around the world.
From First PPA to 40GW Global Portfolio
Amazon’s renewable energy footprint has expanded rapidly over the past decade. The big tech company was the biggest corporate buyer of renewable energy in 2025, based on BloombergNEF data. It signed multiple power purchase agreements (PPAs) and grew its clean energy portfolio.
- Amazon has backed over 700 wind and solar projects around the world. This clean energy can power more than 12.1 million U.S. homes each year.
This expansion includes utility-scale wind and solar farms. It also covers renewable energy bought through PPAs. Additionally, it features on-site rooftop and ground-mount solar projects at Amazon facilities.
Over time, these efforts have helped the tech giant use more clean energy for its electricity, which is a key part of its climate strategy.
Solar, Wind, Storage — and Next-Gen Power
Amazon’s clean energy portfolio includes a broad mix of technologies:
- Solar power: 300+ utility-scale solar and wind farms and 300+ onsite solar projects.
- Wind energy: Large wind farms in multiple countries, with 6 offshore wind farms in Europe.
- Energy storage: Battery storage projects that help balance intermittent renewable output. It has 11 utility-scale battery storage projects.
- Emerging technologies: Amazon has invested in advanced options like nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs), with 4 nuclear power agreements. These help provide firm, low-carbon baseload power.
These investments help replace fossil fuel generation on local grids. They also support grid reliability and reduce electricity costs over the long term.
In Mississippi, for example, Amazon worked with a utility to enable 650 megawatts (MW) of new renewable energy on the grid. Once operational, this capacity will serve the equivalent of over 150,000 homes and improve grid reliability.
Moreover, the company’s 253 MW Amazon Wind Farm Texas contributes around 1,000 GWh of clean power annually. Meanwhile, its European solar and wind assets alone total about 4,600 MW of capacity.
All these efforts form part of the e-commerce’ push for its 2040 net zero targets.
Powering the Path to Net Zero 2040
Amazon has set multiple climate and sustainability targets. The company aims to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 — a goal it committed to early as part of The Climate Pledge.
To work toward that long-term target, Amazon set a goal to match its electricity use with renewable energy. It reached 100% renewable electricity for its operations ahead of schedule, well before its original 2030 goal.
This means Amazon is purchasing an amount of renewable electricity equal to its total annual consumption. Clean power comes from renewable projects connected to the grid. These projects are supported by long-term PPAs and other contracts.
The renewable energy purchases lower Amazon’s Scope 2 emissions, which come from the electricity it buys. They also help decarbonize the grids where the company operates.
Corporate Buyers Now Rival National Grids
Amazon’s clean energy efforts are part of a larger shift across the corporate world.
Since 2008, companies have bought almost 200 GW of renewable energy worldwide through corporate PPAs and other agreements. This capacity exceeds the total electricity generation of some countries, like France or the United Kingdom.
In 2023, companies revealed a record 46 GW of clean energy deals. These renewable power commitments support new solar and wind farms.
Large tech companies, including Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta, are some of the most active buyers. Those tech firms accounted for a significant share of corporate clean energy procurement over the last decade.
This trend shows that corporate demand can speed up the clean energy shift by providing renewable power developers with long-term revenue certainty.
Jobs, Grid Stability, and Market Transformation
Corporate clean energy procurement, though slowed down in 2025, has broader economic and energy-system impacts. Investments in renewable projects contribute to job creation, local economic growth, and grid resilience.
Amazon’s solar and wind farms create many construction and operation jobs. They also boost the economy in rural areas. For example, the Great Prairie Wind Farm in Texas has 350 wind turbines. These turbines provide over 1,000 MW of capacity and are one of the largest assets in Amazon’s portfolio.
Also, Amazon’s clean energy deals boost renewable capacity. These projects are in Brazil, India, China, Australia, and Europe, which support markets with different grid mixes. These projects can cut down on fossil fuel-based electricity. They also help local grids stay cleaner and stronger.
Permitting, Policy, and the Next Growth Wave
Despite strong progress, corporate clean energy procurement still faces challenges.
Renewable projects often depend on grid capacity, permitting, and supportive policy frameworks. In some regions, complex regulations or limited grid access can slow project development and clean energy adoption.
Nevertheless, the trend of corporate power purchasing is expected to grow. Data from the Clean Energy Buyers Association (CEBA) shows that U.S. businesses have signed contracts for 100 GW of clean energy. This milestone highlights how important companies are in today’s energy landscape.
Global renewable capacity is also expanding rapidly. According to IRENA, global renewable power capacity reached 4,448 GW at end-2024 after adding a record 585 GW. That’s 15.1% growth with solar leading 75%+ of additions. The 2025 additions are expected to maintain record growth toward the 2030 tripling goal.
Renewables are now growing faster than fossil fuels in new capacity. Looking ahead, strong demand from companies for clean energy will boost growth. Better policies and tech advancements will also help renewable power buying and grid decarbonization.
Private Capital Driving Public Energy Changeaction
Amazon’s clean energy leadership shows how corporate buyers can influence the global energy transition. By securing large portfolios of renewable power, the tech giant and other major corporations are investing in the future of clean electricity. These investments not only help reduce their own emissions but also fund new clean energy capacity that benefits broader society.
As corporate renewable procurement grows, so does the clean energy market. This can lower costs, stimulate innovation, and increase the pace of emission reductions across power systems worldwide.
With more companies setting clean energy goals and signing long-term agreements, the private sector continues to be a powerful force in the shift toward a low-carbon economy.
- READ MORE: Amazon Expands Its Carbon Credit Strategy with Lower-Carbon Fuel and Superpollutant Solutions
The post Amazon Tops Global Clean Energy Rankings With 40GW Renewable Projects Says BNEF appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits