Microsoft says it hit 100% renewable energy goal, but experts debate the impact

The tech giant's renewable energy contracts aim to drive new projects, but some argue the 'matching' approach is misleading.

Published on Feb. 24, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Microsoft announced it has matched 100% of its electricity consumption with renewable energy, meeting a goal it set in 2020. The company says it has signed contracts for 40 gigawatts of renewable energy supply in 26 countries, helping to finance new projects. However, some experts argue that 'matching' electricity use with renewable energy is a flawed approach that doesn't necessarily lead to real-world emissions reductions.

Why it matters

Microsoft's announcement reflects the growing pressure on tech companies to address their significant carbon footprints, especially as data center energy demands continue to surge. The debate over Microsoft's approach highlights the complexities in accurately measuring and reporting corporate climate impacts.

The details

Microsoft doesn't actually take the renewable electricity directly, but rather signs 'power purchase agreements' to provide guaranteed revenue for new renewable energy projects. The company says these contracts are critical for the projects' success, but some experts argue the projects may have been built anyway. There are also questions about whether 'matching' electricity use with renewable energy in the same locations and timeframes is the best way to measure impact.

  • Microsoft set its goal to become carbon negative by 2030 in 2020.
  • Microsoft announced it has matched 100% of its electricity consumption with renewable energy on February 19, 2026.

The players

Microsoft

A multinational technology company and one of the world's largest tech firms.

Danny Cullenward

A climate policy researcher at the University of Pennsylvania.

Michael Gillenwater

The executive director at Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, a nonprofit that works on improving climate accounting.

David Victor

An expert on corporate clean energy accounting at the University of California, San Diego.

Melanie Nakagawa

The chief sustainability officer at Microsoft.

Noelle Walsh

The president of cloud operations and innovation at Microsoft.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Sometimes, these projects might have been built anyway. They just happen to go to one buyer rather than another.”

— Danny Cullenward, climate policy researcher (bellinghamherald.com)

“Historically, (renewable energy credits) haven't done anything. That was really, for the most part, greenwashing. And so that's why they're shifting to these (power purchase agreements), because our expectation is they have more credibility.”

— Michael Gillenwater, executive director (bellinghamherald.com)

“All this matching stuff, it's just creating a lot of complexity and confusion and not actually telling us what we actually care about, which is: Is what the company's doing actually displacing emissions?”

— Michael Gillenwater, executive director (bellinghamherald.com)

“It's a big deal. I think they're making a plausible claim for climate neutrality.”

— David Victor, expert on corporate clean energy accounting (bellinghamherald.com)

“Our carbon negative commitment remains a call to action - for Microsoft, our customers and the broader technology sector - to invest in an affordable, reliable and sustainable power system. As we look toward 2030, that call to action has never been clearer.”

— Melanie Nakagawa, chief sustainability officer (bellinghamherald.com)

What’s next

Microsoft says meeting its climate and growth goals will require more than just wind and solar, and the company advocates for an 'all-of-the-above' decarbonization strategy that includes nuclear energy, next-generation grid infrastructure and carbon capture.

The takeaway

While Microsoft's announcement of 100% renewable energy matching represents progress, the debate over its approach highlights the complexities in accurately measuring and reporting corporate climate impacts. Experts argue that a more meaningful analysis should focus on whether renewable energy was built because of a company's contribution and how many tons of carbon emissions were actually avoided.