Microsoft (MSFT) has signed a long-term Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) with Zelestra for 95.7 MWAC of solar power. The energy will come from two new solar farms in Aragón, Spain — Escatrón II and Fuendetodos II, both under construction. This clean energy will help power Microsoft’s data centers and operations in the region. It also supports Microsoft’s wider climate goals.
A Solar Deal That Shines Beyond Power
Beyond simply buying solar power, Microsoft is tying this deal to benefits for the local community. The non-profit ECODES will run a “Community Fund” financed by this PPA. ECODES plans to use this fund to support sustainability projects in Aragón. They will invest in local infrastructure, social inclusion, and environmental education.
Zelestra calls its strategy “3 Es”: Education, Energy, and Environment. Microsoft sees this as part of its “Datacenter Community Pledge,” which aims to ensure its operations help local areas as well as reduce its carbon footprint.
Why Microsoft’s 95.7 MW Bet Matters
This solar agreement matters for several reasons:
- Reliable clean energy: The 95.7 MW solar supply gives Microsoft a stable source of renewable power.
- Social benefits: ECODES will channel money into projects that help local people and ecosystems.
- Long-term local commitment: Zelestra intends to stay in Aragón and work with communities for years.
This structure shows how a big company can use a clean energy deal not just for itself, but for shared community value.
Spain’s Solar Boom and Zelestra’s Expanding Footprint
Solar power in Spain is booming. In the last few years, the country has added thousands of megawatts of solar capacity. According to Informa’s DBK report, solar energy grew by 6,000 MW in just one year, reaching 32,350 MW by 2024.
Red Eléctrica (the Spanish grid operator) data shows that by early 2025, solar PV installed capacity passed 32,000 MW, making solar the largest source of power capacity in Spain.
This growth reflects a major shift in Spain’s energy mix. In 2024, solar PV generated a record 44,520 GWh of electricity, about 17% of the country’s total electricity output.
At the same time, renewables now make up around 66% of Spain’s total power generation capacity. These numbers show how central solar power has become to Spain’s energy transition.
The outlook is even more ambitious. According to GlobalData, Spain’s solar capacity could reach 152.8 GW by 2035, driven by strong policy support and growing investor confidence. To fuel this, many new projects are already in the permitting stage.
In 2025 alone, more than 5 GW of solar projects were submitted for environmental approval. Castilla‑La Mancha is a major one of those major regions, and it stands out in Zelestra’s portfolio.
Zelestra is a major player in this growth. In 2025, it secured €146.6 million to build six solar plants in Castilla‑La Mancha, totaling 237 MWdc. These projects will create jobs, generate around 467 GWh of clean energy per year, and avoid over 84,000 tons of CO₂ emissions annually.
Zelestra is also expanding its corporate partnerships, providing renewable electricity for companies like Microsoft and Graphic Packaging International. Its portfolio in Spain exceeds 6 GW, showing its strong commitment to the country’s clean energy transition and its role as a key developer of large-scale solar projects.
Inside Microsoft’s Push Toward Carbon Negativity
Microsoft has set strong climate goals. In 2020, it announced its plans to be carbon negative by 2030. That means by then, it wants to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits.
To reach this, the tech giant is doing several things:
- It has contracted 34 GW of new renewable energy across 24 countries.
- It aims to match 100% of its electricity use with zero‑carbon power by 2025.
- It invests in carbon removal. In fiscal year 2024, Microsoft signed contracts for nearly 22 million metric tons of carbon removal.
- It uses a $1 billion Climate Innovation Fund to support new technologies.
Progress and Challenges in Emissions
Microsoft has made real progress, but it also faces big challenges. Its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions (those from its own operations and electricity use) dropped 29.9% compared to 2020.
But its total emissions (including its supply chain, or “Scope 3”) rose by 23–26% since 2020. This increase comes mainly from its rapid growth in data centers and cloud services.
Because it makes a lot of servers, chips, and hardware, Microsoft’s construction and supply chain also generate emissions. To cut those, it is working with its suppliers. By 2030, Microsoft plans to require high-volume suppliers to use 100% carbon‑free electricity.
Microsoft’s clean energy capacity has grown steadily since 2013, starting with wind projects in the U.S. By 2022, capacity reached 900 MW with wind and solar projects in Europe and the U.S.
In 2024, Microsoft signed the largest corporate clean energy deal for 10.5 GW with Brookfield Renewable, delivering by 2030. This reflects Microsoft’s goal to power all operations with 100% renewable energy by 2030, underscoring its leadership in global sustainability efforts.
Carbon Removal and Long-Term Risks
Microsoft is not just cutting emissions, it is also removing carbon. It invests in two big types of removal:
- Nature-based removal: Microsoft has a deal with Chestnut Carbon to buy over 7 million tons of forest-based carbon credits.
- Advanced removal: Microsoft supports projects like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). It recently backed a project in Louisiana that could capture 6.75 million tons of CO₂ over 15 years.
Still, some experts warn that Microsoft’s climate strategy lacks targets beyond 2030. That could challenge its long-term impact.
SEE MORE on Microsoft:
- Microsoft (MSFT Stock) Emissions Up 23%, Invests in Waste-to-Energy Project to Capture 3 Million Tons of CO₂
- Microsoft (MSFT Stock) Tops Q2 2025 Record-Breaking Surge in Durable Carbon Removal Credit Purchases
- Microsoft Leads on Climate: $800M CIF Drives Clean Tech and AI Energy Deals with ADNOC, Masdar, and XRG
How the Solar Deal Fits into Microsoft’s Strategy?
The 95.7 MW deal in Spain ties directly into Microsoft’s overall carbon-negative goal. Here’s how it fits:
- It adds zero-carbon electricity to Microsoft’s grid mix.
- It supports Microsoft’s plan to match all its power use with clean energy.
- The deal’s community fund reinforces Microsoft’s aim to pair climate action with social value.
- It strengthens Microsoft’s global clean energy portfolio.
This helps Microsoft reduce its operational emissions (Scope 1 & 2) and supports its broader mission to remove carbon.
What’s Next for Microsoft, Zelestra, and Local Communities?
If all goes well, the two solar farms in Aragón will come online and deliver power to Microsoft for many years. The ECODES fund should start giving out grants to local groups, helping build greener projects in the community.
The tech giant must also keep pushing its carbon removal work and supplier engagement. It needs to make sure its long-term investments bring real, measurable climate impact.
Zelestra, for its part, will prove whether it can deliver reliable solar and meaningful social impact. If the model works, more companies may use similar “clean energy + community” contracts.
The agreement is more than just about cutting emissions — it’s also about helping local communities. At the same time, Microsoft’s push to be carbon negative by 2030 is ambitious and complex. It involves clean power, carbon removal, and changes in its entire supply chain.
This Spanish solar deal adds a new piece to Microsoft’s climate puzzle. It strengthens its clean energy supply and shows how corporate climate goals can benefit more than just the bottom line.
The post Microsoft (MSFT) Signs Solar Deal with Zelestra to Power Data Centers in Spain, Supporting Community Projects appeared first on Carbon Credits.
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.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
-
Climate Change1 year 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”
-
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”