Meta Platforms Inc., the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, has signed a long-term power purchase agreement (PPA) with renewable energy developer MN8 Energy LLC. Under the deal, the tech giant will buy 100% of the electricity generated by MN8’s 80 megawatt (MW) Walker Solar Project in Juniata County, Pennsylvania. The agreement marks the first direct clean-energy contract between the two companies.
Meta will use solar power to help supply electricity to its data centers in the United States. The project is scheduled to begin operations by the end of 2026.
The Walker Solar project will supply power to the PJM Interconnection grid. This grid is the biggest wholesale electricity market in the U.S. It serves over 65 million people in 13 states and Washington, D.C.
Urvi Parekh, Director of Global Energy at Meta, said:
“We are thrilled to partner with MN8 Energy to bring new renewable energy to Pennsylvania and help support our operations with 100% clean energy.”
Inside the 80 MW Walker Solar Deal
The solar facility will generate about 80 MW of clean electricity when complete. Under the PPA, Meta will acquire all of the project’s output.
The agreement is a long-term contract. Meta will buy renewable power from MN8 Energy for years. This will help meet part of its data center electricity demand with clean energy.
MN8 Energy, a New York-based renewable energy and battery storage company, will develop and build the solar plant. It has about 4 GW of operational and under-construction solar projects nationwide. The company also operates 1.1 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of battery capacity and over 40 high-power EV charging stations in the U.S.
The Walker Solar project will supply energy to the regional grid and create local jobs during construction. It will also generate tax revenue for Juniata County and strengthen local energy infrastructure.
Powering AI Growth With Long-Term Solar
Meta has set a clear long-term climate goal. The company aims to reach net-zero emissions across its full value chain by 2030. This includes direct operations and supply chain emissions.
The tech giant has matched 100% of its global electricity use with clean and renewable energy since 2020. This covers its offices and data centers. To support this goal, Meta has helped add nearly 29 gigawatts (GW) of new clean energy capacity to power grids worldwide.
Since 2021, Meta reports that its renewable energy procurement has helped reduce emissions by 23.8 million metric tons of CO₂ equivalent (CO₂e). These reductions come from large-scale wind and solar projects tied to long-term power purchase agreements.
However, electricity demand continues to grow. Meta’s data centers are expanding to support artificial intelligence and digital services. The company notes that rising data center demand makes decarbonization more complex, even as renewable energy use increases.
Meta aims to go further. It wants to reach net zero across its full value chain by 2030. This means not only its own operations (Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions) but also the emissions tied to its suppliers, hardware, and products (Scope 3). Scope 3 emissions, which are about 8.15 million metric tons of CO2e, account for 99% of its total carbon footprint.
As of its latest report, 48% of its suppliers — based on emissions contribution — have set science-aligned emissions reduction targets. These supplier commitments are critical because Scope 3 emissions make up a large share of Meta’s total carbon footprint.
- The company has also set a goal to reduce Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 42% by 2031, using 2021 as a baseline year.
Meta’s sustainability reports also show that electricity use remains central to its climate strategy. Since using 100% renewable energy in operations, Meta has helped avoid millions of tons of CO₂ emissions.
Beyond Carbon Emissions: Biggest Clean Energy Buyer
Beyond carbon reductions, Meta includes water and biodiversity in its ESG strategy. Since 2017, Meta has supported more than 40 water restoration projects.
In 2024 alone, these projects helped restore over 1.6 billion gallons of water in regions facing high or medium water stress. The company has committed to becoming water positive by 2030, meaning it plans to restore more water than it consumes.
The Facebook owner also supports biodiversity near its facilities. It has allocated more than 4,000 acres of land, over half of its owned data center campus footprint, for habitat protection and restoration using native species.
In addition, Meta invests in voluntary carbon removal. The company funds projects designed to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to address emissions that are difficult to eliminate. It also works with industry groups and government initiatives to help scale high-quality carbon removal markets.
A recent BloombergNEF report highlights Meta’s role in large-scale corporate clean energy procurement. The tech company was the biggest corporate clean energy buyer in 2025. They signed over 10 GW in power purchase agreements (PPAs).
It also found that Meta and its peers, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, accounted for nearly half of all corporate clean energy deals last year. This demonstrates Meta’s influence in driving new renewable capacity online.
These efforts show Meta is combining financial power with sustainability action. The Walker Solar PPA helps the tech giant meet the fast-growing electricity needs from its data centers and AI workloads. Data centers use a lot of power. Using renewables can help meet this demand and reduce carbon emissions from grid electricity.
New Solar Capacity Strengthens the PJM Grid
The solar project will deliver clean power into the PJM Interconnection market. PJM coordinates electricity flow across a broad region of the U.S. and manages one of the most complex power systems in North America.
Adding new generation capacity like Walker Solar contributes to grid resilience and supports broader decarbonization goals. Solar generation helps offset older fossil-fuel plants as they retire or reduce output.
Experts say utility-scale solar is key. As more sectors electrify, the demand for electricity keeps rising. More solar capacity means steady, low-carbon energy when the sun is out, which helps reduce overall system emissions.
The Walker Solar project is part of a larger trend in U.S. solar growth. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) says 2026 will bring a record increase in utility-scale solar capacity. Over 40 GW is set to be added, marking a big jump from previous years.
Big Tech’s Expanding PPA Playbook
Meta’s solar PPA with MN8 reflects a broader trend in corporate renewable procurement. Many large technology companies have signed long-term deals to secure clean electricity for their operations.
Beyond Meta, firms like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft also regularly enter into PPAs for new solar and wind projects. These companies made up almost half of all corporate clean energy deals in 2025, based on market analysis.
Long-term solar PPAs give companies a way to lock in clean power at predictable costs. They also help developers secure financing for new projects, since a contracted buyer reduces risk for lenders and investors.
These corporate procurement strategies go beyond purchasing renewable energy certificates (RECs). They involve direct contracts tied to specific solar or wind projects. This practice supports actual builds of new clean capacity rather than shifting existing output on paper.
The Next Wave of Data Center Decarbonization
The Meta–MN8 Energy solar agreement highlights a shift in how major tech companies meet their clean energy goals. Long-term PPAs like this one are becoming a key tool for corporate decarbonization.
Analysts believe major data center operators will keep growing their PPA portfolios. This is due to increased electricity demand and investor expectations for ESG. This trend could help accelerate the broader deployment of solar and wind generation across the U.S. power system.
As the landscape changes, data center operators and renewable developers may look into hybrid solutions, which could mix solar power with battery storage, microgrids, and demand response systems. This approach aims to provide reliable, low-carbon power all day long.
- READ MORE: Meta, Amazon, Google, and Microsoft Dominate Clean Energy Deals as Global Buying Slips in 2025
The post Meta Strikes 80 MW Solar Deal to Power Data Centers and Cut Carbon Impact appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
