RECs, or renewable energy certificates, are how major corporations claim to run on clean energy without necessarily using any. The mechanism is simple: buy a certificate proving that somewhere, at some point, someone generated one megawatt-hour of renewable electricity. Doesn’t matter where. Doesn’t matter when. Put it in the sustainability report. Claim 100% renewable energy. Done.

Here’s what that looks like in practice. There’s a wind farm in Iowa that’s been operational since 2011, profitable for years, generating electricity with or without your help. They sell their power to the grid and receive a certificate for every megawatt-hour produced [1]. Microsoft buys that certificate. Microsoft’s sustainability report says 50% renewable. The grid is unchanged. The wind farm was going to generate that electricity regardless. Nothing happened except paperwork changed hands.

This isn’t entirely unlike carbon offsets, the credits people and companies buy to offset emissions from flights, energy use, driving, except RECs are specifically for clean energy rather than forests planted or methane captured. And like the carbon offset market, oversight is nearly nonexistent. The original intent of RECs was actually reasonable: when renewable energy was new and expensive, buying certificates encouraged investment in new projects that wouldn’t have existed otherwise. Every dollar helped build more wind farms, more solar installations, more infrastructure. That was 2001 [2]. Renewables are now the cheapest form of new electricity generation in most of the world. The oversight never caught up. The certificates kept selling.

The GHG Protocol requires companies to report two different emissions figures: market-based, which accounts for the certificates they’ve purchased, and location-based, which reflects what their grids actually delivered [3]. Companies are required to report both. They are not required to feature both equally. Here’s what the location-based numbers, the ones reflecting physical reality, actually show.

By the numbers:

  1. Microsoft’s location-based Scope 2 emissions more than doubled in four years [4]
  2. Google’s location-based emissions climbed from 5.8 million to 11.2 million metric tons over the same period [5]
  3. Google’s data center electricity use up 27% in a single year [5]
  4. Microsoft’s overall emissions up 23.4% since their 2020 carbon negative pledge [4]

In September 2025, sixteen state attorneys general sent a formal letter to Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and Google accusing them of running a “shell game” with renewable energy certificates [6]. The letter was detailed, heavily footnoted, and legally substantive. It argued that REC purchases allow tech companies to claim renewable energy they aren’t using, that this creates a false picture of how much of the grid is actually covered by renewables, and that utility companies are decommissioning coal and gas plants based on that false picture — leaving the grid exposed. They estimated the risk of blackouts could increase by 100 times by 2030 if the trend continues [6][7].

The attorneys general who wrote this letter represent Montana, Wyoming, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, and eleven other states [7]. They wrote it to protect coal. They are not wrong about the accounting.

There is a better standard. It exists right now. It’s called 24/7 carbon-free energy accounting, matching actual clean energy to actual consumption, hour by hour, on the actual grid where the electricity is being used. Not a certificate from a wind farm in Iowa purchased in bulk last April. Google is pursuing it. In 2024 they hit 64% globally, with parts of Europe and the Americas above 90%. Their goal is 100% by 2030 [8].

It is currently optional.

“100% renewable energy,” meanwhile, remains available to any company willing to buy a certificate proving that someone, somewhere, generated one clean megawatt-hour at some point. The electrons don’t care. The press release does.

The part where I tell you what to do about it

The good news is the standard already exists. The bad news is nobody’s requiring it. Here’s how to be annoying about that in productive ways:

Ask the question. Next time a company you work with, buy from, or work for claims “100% renewable energy,” ask whether that’s market-based or location-based. Watch how long it takes them to answer.

Contact your representatives. If a data center is being built in your state, ask your state legislators whether it will be held to 24/7 carbon-free energy standards or whether it’s allowed to just buy certificates. The answer will tell you a lot.

Follow the location-based number. When tech companies publish sustainability reports, the market-based Scope 2 figure is in the headline. The location-based figure is in the appendix. Read the appendix.

Next: what 24/7 carbon-free energy actually looks like, who’s doing it, and what it would take to make it the rule instead of the exception.

References

[1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs).” EPA Green Power Markets. https://www.epa.gov/green-power-markets/renewable-energy-certificates-recs

[2] The Motley Fool. “Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs): Definition, Types & Benefits.” https://www.fool.com/terms/r/renewable-energy-certificates/

[3] Greenhouse Gas Protocol. “Scope 2 Guidance.” https://ghgprotocol.org/scope_2_guidance

[4] Data Centre Dynamics. “Microsoft Emissions Up 23% Since 2020, Blames AI Data Centers.” https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/microsoft-emissions-up-23-since-2020-blames-ai-data-centers/

[5] Policy Review / Internet & Society. “Not Greenwashing, But Still… A Closer Look at Big Tech’s 2025 Sustainability Reports.” https://policyreview.info/articles/news/big-techs-2025-sustainability-reports/2027

[6] Montana Free Press. “Montana DOJ Raises Greenwashing Claims in Investigation Into Four Big Tech Companies’ Energy Use.” https://montanafreepress.org/2025/09/25/montana-doj-raises-greenwashing-claims/

[7] Wyoming Public Media. “Wyoming, Montana Attorneys General Accuse Big Tech Companies of Greenwashing.” https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2025-10-01/wyoming-montana-attorneys-general-accuse-big-tech-companies-of-greenwashing

[8] GreentechLead. “Google 2025 Environmental Report: AI-Driven Growth Raises Emissions as Company Accelerates Clean Energy and Net-Zero Strategy.” https://greentechlead.com/sustainability/google-2025-environmental-report-ai-driven-growth-raises-emissions-as-company-accelerates-clean-energy-and-net-zero-strategy-52687