Back in September, Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, joined by his counterparts in 15 other states, launched an investigation into Big Tech’s renewable energy marketing, alleging “misleading energy use claims” that could violate state law and distort the true reliability picture of the U.S. grid. His office said the inquiry focuses on how companies give the impression they are powered by renewables, but using heavy reliance on renewable energy certificates (RECs) that don’t necessarily match real consumption.
As a result of big tech’s misleading energy use claims, coal and natural gas plants are being shut down, putting communities across the country at an increased risk of blackouts over the next few years… Not only is our electric grid being threatened, but the companies could be in violation of Montana law. As attorney general, I am committed to getting answers.
Knudsen—joined by a coalition of Republican attorneys general—zeroes in on Amazon, Microsoft, Alphabet, and Meta. Letters from the AGs reportedly request detailed information on REC purchases, claims of “100% renewable” operations, and whether corporate marketing obscures the physical reality that data centers and logistics networks still depend on conventional generation for 24/7 power. The states frame some claims as potentially deceptive to consumers and as contributing to a grid-reliability crisis.
For investors, this isn’t just a PR dust-up. If regulators conclude that corporate energy claims are overstated, companies could face enforcement risk, remediation costs, and reputational damage—as their AI buildouts are driving unprecedented electricity demand. That’s why NLPC’s Corporate Integrity Project pressed two of the biggest players this season for board-level, decision-useful transparency on the financial impact of their climate and energy promises:
-
Apple (withdrawn after productive engagement): Our proposal asked Apple’s board to quantify the incremental capital and operating expenditures required to maintain “100% renewable electricity” across corporate operations and to reach 2030 carbon-neutral goals—plus the expected effects on hardware gross margin, Services margins (e.g., iCloud/data), and consolidated profitability under varying power-price scenarios. Apple’s disclosures tally volumes and participation but don’t show the cost math investors need amid tightening power markets. (Proposal: Report on Financial Impact of Renewable Energy Implementation)
- Amazon: Our proposal requests a report summarizing incremental capex/opex tied to The Climate Pledge from 2019 onward and describing how the board has re-evaluated that pledge in light of exploding AI-driven power needs at AWS. As the world’s largest corporate buyer of renewables, Amazon’s REC-heavy strategy and power-procurement costs are material to margins and grid realities that regulators are now scrutinizing. (Proposal: Report on Financial Impact of Renewable Energy Implementation).
The AGs’ investigation underscores exactly why these shareholder proposals matter. “100% renewable” brand claims can mask complex—and costly—procurement structures that don’t guarantee 24/7 clean power or predictable prices. With AI data centers multiplying and interconnection/transmission bottlenecks worsening, the risk isn’t hypothetical. If politicians and prosecutors are now testing the truthfulness of green marketing, boards must demonstrate the economics behind it.
Bottom line: Regulators are scrutinizing Big Tech’s energy story; investors should do the same. NLPC’s proposals at Apple (withdrawn after engagement) and Amazon don’t tell companies which power to buy—they demand transparent accounting of what the promises cost and how they affect profitability. That’s the disciplined governance shareholders need before the next glossy “100% green” claim meets the hard math of the grid.
