Nearly 15 years after journalist David Owen and I tangled — and then united — over Jevons Paradox, the New York Times today published a guest essay on that subject by a Murdoch-employed London journalist. David and I went deeper and did better, as you’ll see in a moment.
Jevons Paradox denotes the tendency of economies to increase, not decrease, their use of something as they learn how to use that thing more efficiently. Its 19th-century archetype, observed by Britisher William Stanley Jevons, was that “as steam engines became ever more efficient, Britain’s appetite for coal [to power them] increased rather than decreased,” as Sky News editor Ed Conway put it today, in The Paradox Holding Back the Clean Energy Revolution. Why? Because the “rebound” in use of steam as its manufacture grew cheaper more than offset the direct contraction in use from the increased efficiency.
Illustration by Joost Swarte for “The Efficiency Dilemma,” in the New Yorker magazine’s Dec. 20, 2010 print edition (Dec. 12 on line).
Where does David Owen come in? In October 2009 he published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that congestion pricing could never cure traffic congestion, on account of the bounceback in car traffic due to lesser congestion. (Funnily enough, the Journal never runs opinion pieces maintaining that induced demand prevents highway expansions from “solving” road congestion.) My subsequent rebuttal in Streetsblog, Paradox, Schmaradox, Congestion Pricing Works, changed David’s mind. The disincentive of the congestion toll, he told me, could probably stave off enough of the rebound in driving to allow congestion pricing to fulfill its promise of curbing gridlock.
A year later, when David revisited Jevons Paradox in a full-blown New Yorker magazine narrative, The Efficiency Dilemma, he made sure to point to “capping emissions or putting a price on carbon or increasing energy taxes” as potential ways out. I was thrilled. and I published a post in Grist riffing on “The Efficiency Dilemma.” I’ve pasted it below. I hope to comment on Conway’s NY Times essay in a future post soon.
If efficiency hasn’t cut energy use, then what?
By Charles Komanoff, reprinted from Grist, Dec. 16, 2010.
One of the most penetrating critiques of energy-efficiency dogma you’ll ever read is in this week’s New Yorker (yes, the New Yorker). “The efficiency dilemma,” by David Owen, has this provocative subtitle: “If our machines use less energy, will we just use them more?” Owen’s answer is a resounding, iconoclastic, and probably correct Yes.
Owen’s thesis is that as a society becomes more energy efficient, it becomes downright inefficient not to use more. The pursuit of efficiency is smart for individuals and businesses but a dead end for energy and climate policy.
This idea isn’t wholly original. It’s known as the Jevons paradox, and it has a 150-year history of provoking bursts of discussion before being repressed from social consciousness. What Owen adds to the thread is considerable, however: a fine narrative arc; the conceptual feat of elevating the paradox from the micro level, where it is rebuttable, to the macro, where it is more robust; a compelling case study; and the courage to take on energy-efficiency guru Amory Lovins. Best of all, Owen offers a way out: raising fuel prices via energy taxes.
Thirty-five years ago, when the energy industry first ridiculed efficiency as a return ticket to the Dark Ages, it was met with a torrent of smart ripostes like the Ford Foundation’s landmark “A Time to Choose” report — a well-thumbed copy of which adorns my bookshelf. Since then, the cause of energy efficiency has rung up one triumph after another: refrigerators have tripled in thermodynamic efficiency, energy-guzzling incandescent bulbs have been booted out of commercial buildings, and developers of trophy properties compete to rack up LEED points denoting low-energy design and operation.
Yet it’s difficult to see that these achievements have had any effect on slowing the growth in energy use. U.S. electricity consumption in 2008 was double that of 1975, and overall energy consumption was up by 38 percent. True, during this time U.S. population grew by 40 percent, but we also outsourced much of our manufacturing to Asia. In any case, efficiency, the assertedly immense resource that lay untapped in U.S. basements, garages, and offices, was supposed to slash per capita energy use, not just keep it from rising. Why hasn’t it? And what does that say for energy and climate policy?
A short form of the Jevons paradox, and a good entry point for discussing it, is the “rebound effect” — the tendency to employ more of something when efficiency has effectively cut its cost. The rebound effect is a staple of transportation analysis, in two separate forms. One is the rebound in gallons of gas consumed when fuel-efficiency standards have reduced the fuel cost to drive a mile. The other is the rebound from the reduction in car trips after imposition of a road toll, now that the drop in traffic has made it possible to cover the same ground in less time.
Rebound effect one turns out to be small. As UC-Irvine economics professor Ken Small has shown, no more than 20 percent of the gasoline savings from improved engine efficiency have been lost to the tendency to drive more miles — and much less in the short term. Rebound effect two is more significant and becoming more so, as time increasingly trumps money in the decision-making of drivers, at least better-off ones.
Rebound effects, then, vary in magnitude from one sector to another. They can be tricky to analyze, as Owen unwittingly demonstrated in an ill-considered 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing congestion pricing, “How traffic jams help the environment.” He wrote:
If reducing [congestion via a toll] merely makes life easier for those who drive, then the improved traffic flow can actually increase the environmental damage done by cars, by raising overall traffic volume, encouraging sprawl and long car commutes.
Not so, as I wrote in “Paradox, schmaradox. Congestion pricing works”:
When the reduction in traffic is caused by a congestion charge, life is not just easier for those who continue driving but more costly as well. Yes, there’s a seesaw between price effects and time effects, but setting the congestion price at the right point will rebalance the system toward less driving, without harming the city’s economy.
Rebound effects from more fuel-efficient vehicles, as depicted in “Energy sufficiency and rebound effects,” a 2018 concept paper by Steve Sorrell, Univ. of Sussex, and Birgitta Gabersleben & Angela Druckman, Univ. of Surrey, UK.
More importantly, as Owen points out in his New Yorker piece, a narrow “bottom up” view — one that considers people’s decision-making in isolated realms of activity one-by-one — tends to miss broader rebound effects. On the face of it, doubling the efficiency of clothes washers and dryers shouldn’t cause the amount of laundering to rise more than slightly. But consider: 30 years ago, an urban family of four would have used the washer-dryer in the basement or at the laundromat, forcing it to “conserve” drying to save not just quarters but time traipsing back and forth. Since then, however, efficiency gains have enabled manufacturers to make washer-dryers in apartment sizes. We own one, and find ourselves using it for “spot” situations — emergencies that aren’t really emergencies, small loads for the item we “need” for tomorrow — that add more than a little to our total usage. And who’s to say that the advent of cheap and rapid laundering hasn’t contributed to the long-term rise in fashion-consumption, with all it implies for increased energy use through more manufacturing, freight hauling, retailing, and advertising?
Owen offers his own big example. Interestingly, it’s not computers or other electronic devices. It’s cooling. In an entertaining and all-too-brief romp through a half-century of changing mores, he traces the evolution of refrigeration and its “fraternal twin,” air conditioning, from rare, seldom-used luxuries then, to ubiquitous, always-on devices today:
My parents’ [first fridge] had a tiny, uninsulated freezer compartment, which seldom contained much more than a few aluminum ice trays and a burrow-like mantle of frost … The recently remodeled kitchen of a friend of mine contains an enormous side-by-side refrigerator, an enormous side-by-side freezer, and a drawer-like under-counter mini-fridge for beverages. And the trend has not been confined to households. As the ability to efficiently and inexpensively chill things has grown, so have opportunities to buy chilled things — a potent positive-feedback loop. Gas stations now often have almost as much refrigerated shelf space as the grocery stores of my early childhood; even mediocre hotel rooms usually come with their own small fridge (which, typically, either is empty or — if it’s a minibar — contains mainly things that don’t need to be kept cold), in addition to an icemaker and a refrigerated vending machine down the hall.
Air conditioning has a similar arc, ending with Owen’s observation that “access to cooled air is self-reinforcing: to someone who works in an air-conditioned office, an un-air-conditioned house quickly becomes intolerable, and vice versa.”
If Owen has a summation, it’s this:
All such increases in energy-consuming activity [driven by increased efficiency] can be considered manifestations of the Jevons paradox. Teasing out the precise contribution of a particular efficiency improvement isn’t just difficult, however; it may be impossible, because the endlessly ramifying network of interconnections is too complex to yield readily to empirical, mathematics-based analysis. [Emphasis mine.]
Defenders of efficiency will call “endlessly ramifying network” a cop-out. I’d say the burden is on them to prove otherwise. Based on the aggregate energy data mentioned earlier, efficiency advocates have been winning the micro battles but losing the macro war. Through engineering brilliance and concerted political and regulatory advocacy, we have increased energy-efficiency in the small while the society around us has grown monstrously energy-inefficient and cancelled out those gains. Two steps forward, two steps back.
I wrote something roughly similar five years ago in a broadside against my old colleague, Amory Lovins:
[T]hough Amory has been evangelizing “the soft path” for thirty years, his handful of glittering successes have only evoked limited emulation. Why? Because after the price shocks of the 1970s, energy became, and is still, too darn cheap. It’s a law of nature, I’d say, or at least of Economics 101: inexpensive anything will never be conserved. So long as energy is cheap, Amory’s magnificent exceptions will remain just that. Thousands of highly-focused advocacy groups will break their hearts trying to fix the thousands of ingrained practices that add up to energy over-consumption, from tax-deductible mortgages and always-on electronics to anti-solar zoning codes and un-bikeable streets. And all the while, new ways to use energy will arise, overwhelming whatever hard-won reductions these Sisyphean efforts achieve.
I wrote that a day or two after inviting Lovins to endorse putting carbon or other fuel taxes front-and-center in energy advocacy. He declined, insisting that “technical efficiency” could be increased many-fold without taxing energy to raise its price. Of course it has, can, and will. But is technical efficiency enough? Owen asks us to consider whether a strategy centered on technical and regulatory measures to boost energy efficiency may be inherently unsuited for the herculean task of keeping coal and other fossil fuels safely locked in the ground.
I said earlier that Owen offers an escape from the Jevons paradox, and he does: “capping emissions or putting a price on carbon or increasing energy taxes.” It’s hardly a clarion call, and it’s not the straight carbon taxers’ line. But it’s a lifeline.
The veteran English economist Len Brookes told Owen:
When we talk about increasing energy efficiency, what we’re really talking about is increasing the productivity of energy. And, if you increase the productivity of anything, you have the effect of reducing its implicit price, because you get more return for the same money — which means the demand goes up.
The antidote to the Jevon paradox, then, is energy taxes. We can thank Owen not only for raising a critical, central question about energy efficiency, with potential ramifications for energy and climate policy, but for giving us a brief — an eloquent and powerful one — for a carbon tax.
Author’s present-day (Feb. 22, 2024) note: I overdid it somewhat in belittling energy efficiency’s impacts on U.S. energy use in that 2010 Grist post. Indeed, in posts here in 2016 and again in 2020 I quantified and enthused over improved EE’s role in stabilizing electricity demand and slashing that sector’s carbon emissions.
Carbon Footprint
Verra to Launch Scope 3 Standard in 2026: A New Era for Value Chain Carbon Tracking
Verra is moving closer to launching its long-awaited Scope 3 Standard (S3S) Program, with version 1.0 phase 1 now scheduled for Q3 2026. This first release will allow companies to list project pipelines using an initial set of S3S-adapted methodologies. Although the timeline is slightly later than expected, the delay reflects a deeper push to build a stronger, more reliable system.
This move shows a clear focus on quality and long-term impact. Verra is not rushing the launch. Instead, it is taking time to improve the system. The team is refining technical frameworks, learning from pilot projects, and aligning with global standards. As a result, the final program will be stronger and easier to use. It is also likely to attract more companies and drive real climate action across supply chains.
Verra Aligns the Program With Global Climate Standards
The extra time helps improve how the system connects with existing carbon markets. It also allows Verra to upgrade its digital tools and infrastructure. At the same time, lessons from pilot projects are shaping the final design. These pilots tested how existing Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) methods can work for Scope 3 projects in real conditions.
Training is another key focus. Verra is creating clear guidelines and support tools for project developers. This will help users understand the system quickly and scale their projects without delays.
Finally, the new timeline helps align the program with major global frameworks. These include updated climate standards and carbon accounting rules. This alignment will make the program more relevant and widely accepted.
How the Scope 3 Standard Will Transform Supply Chain Emissions
Scope 3 emissions are the biggest part of a company’s carbon footprint. In many sectors, they make up more than 75% of total emissions. These emissions do not come from a company’s own operations. Instead, they come from its supply chain—both before and after production.
Verra’s S3S Program aims to fix this problem in the following ways:
- It brings a clear and trusted system to measure and manage these emissions.
- Companies will be able to track real emission cuts and carbon removals in their value chains.
Explaining further, the program uses a strong measurement system. Companies will follow simple and consistent methods to calculate emissions. Then, independent auditors will check the data. This step builds trust and ensures the results are real.
New Carbon Units for Clear Tracking
Verra also introduces a new unit system. Project developers will receive Intervention Units (IUs). Companies will receive Scope 3 Intervention Units (S3IUs). These units will be recorded in a public registry. This makes tracking easy and avoids double-counting.
Co-Investment Drives Supply Chain Action
Another key feature is co-investment. Companies can invest in projects within their supply chains. In return, they can claim verified climate benefits. This system encourages suppliers, buyers, and investors to work together.
- LATEST: The Power of Plastic Credits: How Verra’s Waste Reduction Program Can End Global Plastic Pollution
Understanding the Scale of Scope 3 Emissions
Unlike Scope 1 and 2, Scope 3 emissions cover the full value chain. They include both upstream and downstream activities.
Upstream emissions come from things a company buys. This includes raw materials, equipment, and transport. Downstream emissions happen after a product is sold. These include product use, delivery, and disposal.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol lists more than 15 categories under Scope 3. These include goods, travel, waste, and investments. However, not every category applies to every business.
For example, a service company may have fewer downstream emissions. In contrast, a manufacturing company may see large emissions from product use and supply chains.
Closing the Gap in Carbon Markets
Many companies want to cut Scope 3 emissions. But they face a big challenge. There are no simple and clear rules to follow. Because of this, companies often feel unsure. They do not know how to measure emissions or report results correctly. This slows down investment in supply chain projects.
As explained before, Verra’s S3S Program offers clear rules and a strong system, and also uses third-party checks and transparent tracking. As a result, companies can now invest in projects and trust the results. Finally, the outcome will be more money inflow into supply chain climate solutions.
The program also improves carbon markets. Until now, most systems have focused on standalone projects. But S3S connects emission cuts directly to company supply chains. This creates a more complete and practical approach.
Aligned With Global Climate Standards
Another strong point of the S3S Program is its global alignment. Verra designed it to match major climate frameworks.
- It works alongside the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s new standards. It also aligns with the updated net-zero rules from the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi).
- In addition, it connects with new frameworks from the AIM Platform and the Taskforce for Corporate Action Transparency (TCAT).
- Most importantly, it aligns with Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) version 5, released in December 2025.
This version improves the quality and trust in carbon credits. By linking with VCS 5, the S3S Program builds on a strong and proven system.
From Pilot Phase to Real-World Action
In 2025, Verra moved the program from planning to testing. It launched pilot projects and asked for public feedback.
These pilots were very useful. They showed what works and what needs improvement. They also helped adapt existing methods for real-world use. At the same time, it built the program’s structure. It set up rules, governance, and funding systems.
Verra is working with partners like the Value Change Initiative and SustainCERT. These groups help improve the program and keep it aligned with global best practices.
A Turning Point for Corporate Climate Action
Companies today face strong pressure to cut emissions. Scope 3 is the hardest part to manage, but also the most important.
Verra’s S3S Program offers a clear solution. It gives companies a simple and trusted way to act on supply chain emissions. By standardizing how emissions are measured and reported, the program makes climate action easier. It also opens new doors for investment and collaboration.
In the bigger picture, this program can support global climate goals. It helps reduce emissions at scale and strengthens trust in carbon markets.
With its 2026 launch coming soon, Verra’s Scope 3 Standard could become a key tool for companies worldwide—turning climate goals into real, measurable results.
The post Verra to Launch Scope 3 Standard in 2026: A New Era for Value Chain Carbon Tracking appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Rising global oil prices are driving up demand for electric vehicles (EVs), with Chinese brands emerging as key beneficiaries. Recent spikes in crude prices are driven by heightened tensions in the Middle East and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil shipping route.
These factors have pushed Brent crude above $100 per barrel and created instability in fuel markets. This has pushed many consumers to rethink fuel costs and consider EV alternatives. Higher fuel prices increase running costs for gasoline and diesel cars, making EV ownership more economical in many markets.
Chinese EVs Gain Speed Abroad
Dealers in countries like Australia and parts of Southeast Asia see growing interest in Chinese EVs. This rise comes as fuel prices increase.
Showrooms selling Chinese new energy vehicles (NEVs) are seeing more test drives, customer inquiries, and rising order volumes. In Australia, the EV market share hit a record high of 11.8% for vehicle sales. Analysts say this jump is partly due to rising petrol prices.
Chinese manufacturers like BYD, GWM, and Chery are rapidly growing abroad. Some dealers see more walk-ins and more customers buying EVs.
China’s EV industry is now the largest in the world. In 2024, Chinese automakers produced over 12.87 million plug‑in electric vehicles (PEVs), including battery electric (BEV) and plug‑in hybrid models, accounting for nearly 47.5% of total automobile production. That figure marked a strong year‑on‑year rise and underscored China’s industrial scale and export readiness.
By late 2025, more than 51% of all new vehicles sold in China were electric — a major shift from just a few years earlier.
This domestic scale provides an export advantage. Chinese EVs often cost less than similar European and North American models. This helps them succeed in markets where fuel costs hit household budgets hard.
Fuel Costs Drive Behavior Shift
Rising oil prices are a major driver of these sales trends. Global crude prices have fluctuated due to geopolitical tensions. The Strait of Hormuz route carries around 20% of the world’s oil trade. These disruptions pushed crude prices sharply higher in early 2026.
In many countries, higher retail fuel prices translate into more immediate cost pressures for consumers. Reports from countries like Australia show petrol prices over $2.50 per litre. This rise is making consumers think about EVs to lower long-term costs.
When oil prices rise, the cost gap between internal combustion engine (ICE) or gasoline cars and EVs becomes much larger. For example, at $100 per barrel oil, gasoline prices in many markets can reach about $1.20–$1.50 per liter (or $4.50–$5.50 per gallon).
At this level, a typical ICE vehicle may cost around $0.12–$0.18 per km in fuel, while an EV typically costs $0.03–$0.06 per km in electricity. This means EVs can be 2 to 4 times cheaper to run per kilometer.
Over a year, drivers can save roughly $600 to $1,500, depending on mileage and local energy prices.
Global EV Market Trends and Forecasts
The surge in Chinese EV exports aligns with broader global trends. Major industry forecasts suggest that global sales of battery electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles may top 22 million units by 2025. This could represent about 25% of all new car sales worldwide.
Global electric vehicle sales in 2025 reached nearly 21 million units, including both battery electric vehicles and plug‑in hybrid electric vehicles. This total represents a significant increase, roughly 20 % more than in 2024.
China’s share in this global growth is large. In 2024, Chinese manufacturers made up around 70% of all EV exports. This shows China’s key role in supply chains and manufacturing.
As oil demand growth slows due to EV uptake, some forecasts suggest that EVs could displace millions of barrels of global oil demand each day in the coming decade. By 2030, EV adoption could cut about 5 million barrels per day of oil use, according to major energy outlooks.
Trade Barriers vs Expansion
Despite strong export gains, barriers remain. Some regions have imposed tariffs and trade restrictions on Chinese EVs, and infrastructure gaps in charging networks can slow adoption. For example, tariffs exceeding 100% on certain Chinese EV imports in the U.S. have limited market share there.
However, Chinese OEMs are developing supplier and shipping capacity to support overseas demand. In 2025, China’s electric car makers expanded shipping through roll‑on/roll‑off carriers capable of transporting more than 30,000 vehicles, improving export logistics.
Emerging markets in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Oceania are also showing rising EV interest. In the Philippines and Vietnam, dealerships see EV orders growing quickly. Some are even doubling their weekly sales, thanks to high fuel costs.
In India, where oil imports make up a big part of the economy, rising petrol costs make running traditional fuel vehicles more expensive. This has helped boost interest in electric vehicles, which are cheaper to operate when fuel is costly. Notably, the share of ICE retailers fell by over 25% in March.
Indian consumers and businesses view EVs as a way to shield against unstable oil prices. This also helps lower fuel costs, supporting the country’s move to electric transport.
What This Means for Energy and Transport Futures
The convergence of high oil prices and strong EV supply from China is creating a feedback loop. Higher fuel costs push consumers to consider EVs more seriously. Chinese manufacturers are well positioned to fill that demand with competitive pricing and large production scale.
The shift could speed up the move from fossil fuel cars to electric vehicles worldwide. This is especially true in price-sensitive and emerging markets. EV adoption also has implications for oil demand trends.
- As battery and charging tech get better and EV markets grow, oil use — especially in transport — might slow down or peak sooner than we thought.
At the same time, governments and industry groups are tracking these shifts closely. Policies that support charging infrastructure, EV incentives, and emissions standards will influence how quickly the global fleet electrifies.
Ultimately, the current oil price shock may have sparked a shift in global automotive markets — one where Chinese EVs take an increasingly central role in transport electrification worldwide.
The post Oil Shock Ignites Chinese EV Export Surge Around the World appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The U.S. is witnessing a surge in utility-scale solar development, driven by growing corporate demand for clean energy. Major tech companies like Meta and Google are securing long-term deals in Texas, combining renewable energy growth with economic and grid benefits.
This trend highlights how corporate commitments are shaping the future of the clean energy transition. Let’s find out.
Zelestra and Meta’s $600 Million Solar Deal
Madrid-based renewable energy firm Zelestra secured a massive $600 million green financing facility, signaling strong investor confidence in utility-scale solar. The funding, backed by Société Générale and HSBC, will support two large solar projects in Texas—Echols Grove (252 MW) and Cedar Range (187 MW).
These projects are not standalone efforts. Instead, they are part of a broader clean energy partnership with Meta, one of the world’s largest corporate renewable energy buyers. Together, they form a portion of a seven-project portfolio totaling 1.2 GW under long-term power purchase agreements (PPAs).
Sybil Milo Cioffi, Zelestra’s U.S. CFO, said:
“This financing marks a significant milestone in the delivery of our largest U.S. solar projects to date. It reflects strong confidence from Societe Generale and HSBC in our strategy and execution capabilities and reinforces our ability to attract first-class capital to support our growth platform in the U.S. market.”
Zelestra is strengthening its presence in the U.S. energy market with innovative solutions for hyperscalers and corporate clients. It is developing around 15 GW of renewable projects across key markets. In February 2026, BloombergNEF ranked Zelestra among the top 10 PPA sellers to U.S. corporations.
Solar Powering Meta’s Climate Strategy
Meta continues to aggressively expand its clean energy footprint. The company has made renewable energy procurement a core part of its climate roadmap—and the numbers clearly reflect that shift.
In 2024, Meta reported emissions of 8.2 million metric tonnes of CO₂e after accounting for clean energy contracts. In comparison, its location-based emissions stood at 15.6 million tonnes. This marked a sharp 48% reduction, largely driven by renewable energy purchases.
Moreover, the company has consistently maintained momentum:
- Since 2020, it has matched 100% of its electricity consumption with renewable energy.
- Over the past decade, it has secured more than 15 GW of clean energy globally.
- Overall, renewable energy procurement has helped cut 23.8 million MT CO₂e emissions since 2021.
As a result, Meta cut operational emissions by around 6 million tonnes in 2024 alone. At the same time, it tackled value chain emissions using Energy Attribute Certificates (EACs), reducing Scope 3 emissions by another 1.4 million tonnes.
Most of these deals were concentrated in the U.S., highlighting the country’s growing importance in corporate decarbonization strategies.
Google Partners with Sunraycer for 400 MWac Texas Solar Project
Importantly, this collaboration goes beyond just energy supply. It also aims to deliver broader economic benefits, including:
- Local job creation during construction
- Long-term tax revenue for the region
- Continued investment in local infrastructure
David Lillefloren, CEO at Sunraycer, said:
“These agreements with Google represent a significant milestone for Sunraycer and underscore the strength of our development platform. We are proud to support Google’s clean energy objectives while delivering high-quality renewable infrastructure in Texas.”
Additionally, the deal was facilitated through LevelTen Energy’s LEAP process, which simplifies and speeds up PPA execution. This highlights how innovative platforms are now playing a key role in scaling renewable deployment.
“Google’s data centers are long-term investments in the communities we call home,” said Will Conkling, Director of Energy and Power, Google. “This collaboration with Sunraycer will fuel local economic growth while helping to build a more robust and affordable energy future for Texas.”
Google’s Global Clean Energy Push
Google, like Meta, has built a strong clean energy portfolio over time. Since 2010, it has signed over 170 agreements totaling more than 22 GW of capacity worldwide. Its long-term ambition is even more ambitious—achieving 100% carbon-free energy, every hour of every day, by 2030.
These agreements cover more than 17.3 GW in North America, over 4.5 GW in Europe, around 400 MW in Latin America, and more than 300 MW across the Asia-Pacific region.
Significantly, between 2011 and 2024, its clean energy purchases have avoided over 44 million tCO₂e—equivalent to the total annual electricity emissions of all homes in New York State combined.
In the broader context, Google has committed over $3.7 billion to clean energy projects and partnerships, expected to generate around 6 GW of renewable electricity. For example, the company developed an investment framework supporting a 1.5 GW portfolio of new solar projects across the PJM grid.
By providing both investment capital and power purchase agreements, these projects gain a faster, more certain path to construction. In essence, the tech giant isn’t just a buyer of clean energy—it actively invests to create more, using its resources and engineering-driven approach to help these projects launch and scale.
Why Texas Is Becoming the Center of Energy Transformation
All these developments point to one clear trend—Texas is rapidly becoming a global hub for clean energy and data center growth.
On one hand, the state offers strong solar resources, vast land availability, and a deregulated power market. On the other hand, it is witnessing a surge in electricity demand, especially from data centers and AI-driven workloads.
According to projections from the EIA, U.S. electricity demand could rise by 20% or more by 2030. Data centers are expected to play a major role in this growth. In fact, energy consumption from data centers increased by over 20% between 2020 and 2025.
As a result, energy infrastructure in Texas is facing growing pressure. Rising industrial activity, extreme weather events, and rapid digital expansion are all contributing to grid stress. Yet, at the same time, this demand is driving unprecedented investment in renewable energy.
The EIA expects Texas to lead solar expansion in the coming years, accounting for nearly 40% of new solar capacity in the U.S. California will follow closely, and together, the two states will drive almost half of total additions.
U.S. Solar Capacity for 2026: 86 GW on the Horizon
Even though the sector has faced temporary slowdowns, the long-term outlook for U.S. solar remains highly positive.
In 2025, the U.S. added 53 GW of new electricity capacity—the highest annual addition since 2002. Notably, wind and utility-scale solar together generated 17% of the country’s electricity, a massive jump from less than 1% two decades ago.
Looking ahead, growth is expected to accelerate again. Developers are planning to add around 86 GW of new capacity in 2026, which could set a new record. Solar alone is projected to account for more than half of this expansion.
Breaking it down further:
- Solar is expected to contribute 51% of new capacity
- Battery storage will make up 28%
- Wind will account for 14%
Utility-scale solar capacity additions could reach 43.4 GW in 2026, marking a 60% increase compared to 2025 levels.
Analysis: Corporate Demand Is Reshaping Energy Markets
Overall, the developments from Zelestra, Meta, Google, and Sunraycer highlight a broader transformation underway in global energy markets.
First, corporate buyers are no longer passive participants. Instead, they are actively shaping energy infrastructure through long-term PPAs. These agreements provide stable revenue for developers while ensuring a clean power supply for companies.
Second, financing is becoming more accessible. Large-scale funding deals, like Zelestra’s $600 million facility, show that banks are increasingly willing to back renewable projects with strong contractual support.
Third, regions like Texas are emerging as strategic energy hubs. The combination of rising electricity demand and favorable renewable conditions is attracting both developers and corporate buyers.
However, challenges remain. Grid reliability, permitting delays, and policy uncertainty could still impact the pace of deployment. Even so, the overall trajectory remains clear.
Clean energy demand is rising fast. Big Tech is leading the charge. And solar power is set to play a central role in meeting future electricity needs.
- READ MORE: Meta, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft Dominate Clean Energy Deals as Global Buying Slips in 2025
The post Texas Solar Market Heats Up with Meta and Google Investments appeared first on Carbon Credits.
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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 Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy5 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?