Democrat Abigail Spanberger’s victory in the Virginia governor’s race puts her at the center of a debate raging across the U.S.: How can the country stay ahead in the artificial intelligence race while shielding people from big energy bills and more pollution?

Spanberger, as part of her broader affordability agenda, promised to make data centers pay their “fair share” of power costs in Virginia — home to the world’s largest concentration of such facilities. To meet their voracious demand for electricity, Spanberger wants to accelerate clean energy projects, including solar, battery storage, offshore wind and small nuclear reactors.

How Spanberger tries to deliver on those promises will be closely watched by policymakers in other states where Big Tech is racing to build new AI data centers, as well as by companies trying to balance their digital footprint with sustainability goals. Microsoft, Amazon, Meta and Google all reported year-over-year increases in greenhouse gas emissions from 2023 to 2024, mainly due to the construction of new data centers and higher energy use for training AI models. 

“A lot of states will be looking at what the Spanberger administration does, because there could be an energy-cost crisis here if this isn’t managed correctly,” Brennan Gilmore, executive director of Clean Virginia, an advocacy group formed to counter the utility Dominion Energy’s influence in the state legislature, said. Clean Virginia donated $500,000 to Spanberger’s campaign.

Rising costs

Virginia has more than 600 data centers, with potentially dozens more on the way. Dominion Energy said this year that it has more than 40 gigawatts of power requested by data centers — double the company’s current peak demand. As a result, Dominion plans to spend about $50 billion between 2025 and 2029 to upgrade the power grid and build new energy resources, with about 80 percent going to carbon-free sources such as offshore wind and solar, and 20 percent on gas. 

Spanberger and consumer advocates argue that it would be unfair to saddle regular customers with the bill, given that data centers are the primary driver of new power demand. 

This year, Virginia regulators have already approved about $400 million in rate increases requested by utilities, according to an analysis by PowerLines, a nonprofit focused on lowering utility bills. The trend is playing out across the country. More than $34 billion in rate increases have been requested or approved so far in 2025 — more than double the same period in 2024 — affecting 124 million customers, the analysis showed. 

Those increases aren’t solely attributable to data centers; utilities are upgrading aging power grid infrastructure, including transmission and distribution lines, said Mark Christie, director of the Center for Energy Law & Policy at William & Mary Law School. 

“We’re really paying for capital assets,” said Christie, who previously served as chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “That’s what’s driving the cost of power bills, not just in Virginia, but everywhere. I’m talking about transmission, distribution and generation.”

Consumer and clean energy advocates in Virginia said Spanberger has a good chance of enacting her agenda because Democrats gained full control of the state government on Election Day.

Here are three key issues to watch once Spanberger takes office in January: 

Dominion’s data center case before Virginia regulators

Spanberger said she wants data centers to pay more for their power costs, but hasn’t offered specific policy proposals. (Her campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this article.)

During a debate in October, Spanberger said she’s watching what the Virginia State Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities, does in Dominion’s latest rate case. The utility wants large energy users, such as data centers, to pay a higher share of the costs of power generation, transmission and distribution upgrades. 

“Pending the results of that case, as it moves forward, it may require action within the General Assembly to ensure that large utility users, like data centers, are paying their fair share for the energy that they consume,” Spanberger said.

Expanding solar and battery storage

Democrats will likely propose legislation to encourage clean energy projects at homes, businesses and industrial sites, said Gilmore of Clean Virginia. Spanberger endorsed the idea in her energy platform and said she also supports advanced energy technologies, such as small nuclear reactors, geothermal and hydrogen. 

Her predecessor, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, earlier this year vetoed several clean energy bills that would have encouraged smaller solar projects and directed utilities to triple energy storage over time. He argued that the technology was too expensive and the cost would be passed on to consumers. 

Rejoining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative 

Virginia may also rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a carbon cap-and-trade market among 10 East Coast states. The initiative — which requires utilities to pay for every ton of carbon dioxide they emit above a limit set by each state — is designed to encourage a shift from fossil fuels toward clean energy. The less utilities pollute, the less they spend. RGGI has raised billions of dollars since 2009, which states are required to invest in energy efficiency and climate resilience programs. 

Opponents, including Youngkin, argue that RGGI is a tax on consumers because utilities pass the costs on through higher bills. He moved to withdraw Virginia from RGGI membership in 2022 via an executive order, but a federal judge ruled that he acted unlawfully. 

Spanberger said she will “negotiate the best ratepayer deal” to rejoin the initiative and ensure the proceeds are used for energy efficiency projects “in line with Virginia statute.”

The post What Spanberger’s win in Virginia means for the data center-energy debate  appeared first on Trellis.

Send news about sustainability leadership roles, promotions and departures to [email protected].

Rebecca Marmot, who has been part of Unilever’s sustainability strategy for almost 20 years and its chief sustainability officer since May 2019, is leaving the company for an undisclosed new role. 

Her replacement is Michael Smith, a long-time communications strategist, who joined Unilever on Oct. 1 as chief corporate affairs and communications officer after serving in a similar role at accounting and consulting firm PwC.

Though Smith will lead global sustainability, it won’t be reflected in his title.

Marmot’s role expanded to include public affairs in December 2024, a move reminiscent of the early days of corporate sustainability when sustainability and social responsibility were often integrated into marketing and public relations. She kept the title of CSO even though operational management of sustainability initiatives is handled at the business division level. 

That change came one year after former Unilever CEO Hein Schumacher overhauled the company’s approach to the function, giving individual brand managers responsibility for stewarding environmental initiatives.

Unilever’s groundbreaking Sustainable Living Program, introduced in 2010 by then-CEO Paul Polman, was an inspiration for many other companies, but powerful shareholders pushed back on that agenda. 

“We have too many long-term commitments that failed to make sufficient short-term impact, and the latter is what the world really needs right now,” Schumacher said in announcing the shift.

Marmot recalled the “grand goal-setting days” in a July interview with the Two Steps Forward podcast, co-hosted by Trellis Founder Joel Makower.

They “were brilliant at the time, having vision and being able to galvanize and bring enthusiasm behind an agenda,” she said. “But now I think business skills and acumen are absolutely critical. If I don’t understand — and my counterparts don’t understand — what we need to do as a business, we won’t be able to truly embed sustainability.” 

Career trajectory

Marmot left L’Oreal to join Unilever in April 2007 as an external affairs manager, eventually launching the company’s first foundation before being asked to lead a team that combined global sustainability strategy, advocacy and policy and partnerships, such as Unilever’s relationship with the United Nations Global Compact. 

She was the face of the company’s high-profile reviews of its trade association relationships, which examine the potential for the organizations’ policy stances to align with Unilever’s own goals.

“I feel excited about the future but it’s also been a wrench to leave,” she said in a LinkedIn post. “Leading Unilever’s external engagement and sustainability work globally has been absolutely brilliant.”

Marmot’s replacement, Smith, led communications, public policy, sustainability and reputation management at PwC.

Previously, he was part of the executive committee at the world’s biggest public relations firm, Edelman, which Unilever uses. The longest tenure of his career was at consulting firm McKinsey, where he left as global director of communications and marketing. He has worked on projects with the U.N. Global Compact and the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum.

The post Unilever sustainability chief Rebecca Marmot steps down appeared first on Trellis.

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has published a 97-page draft of its next Corporate Net-Zero Standard that recognizes companies for climate finance and carbon removal investments, provides clearer guidance on Scope 2 and 3 commitments and prescribes what should be included in climate transition plans.

These and other revisions to version 2.0 of the guidance are based on feedback from more than 850 stakeholders on the previous mid-March draft. SBTI is seeking another round of comments before Dec. 8. 

“Further input on this draft is crucial to ensuring that the finalized Corporate Net-Zero Standard is practical, credible and robust — helping businesses worldwide accelerate the net-zero transition,” said Alberto Carrillo Pineda, chief technical officer at SBTi, in a prepared statement.

Close to 12,000 companies use SBTi rules to set climate targets; about 2,200 have validated commitments to become net zero by 2050 or sooner and 2,800 are in the process of setting them.

More than three-quarters of companies with net-zero targets said the commitments have improved investor confidence, according to an SBTi report published Nov. 3. But some big-name companies have backed away from the framework in favor of other approaches as the net-zero revisions play out.

New recognition option

Until now, the SBTi has largely focused on guiding companies toward emissions targets. One of the biggest changes in the draft published Nov. 6 is a broadening of its remit to include instructions on how companies should take responsibility for greenhouse gases emitted during the transition to net zero. The guidelines will be voluntary for now, becoming mandatory in 2035.

During the voluntary period, companies can opt into one of two levels of responsibility: “Recognized” and “Leadership.” 

Businesses that address 1 percent or more of ongoing emissions — an intentionally low threshold designed to encourage participation — can earn the first designation. 

To qualify for “Leadership,” large companies must levy a carbon price of at least $80 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) on 100 percent of ongoing emissions, and use the proceeds to fund mitigation activities equivalent to at least 40 percent of those emissions. 

Eligible activities for both tiers of responsibility include purchases of credits from projects that avoid emissions and remove carbon from the atmosphere.

The initial proposal for the 2035 mandatory rules, which will be consulted on and finalized in the next version of the standard, requires companies to take responsibility for an as-yet undefined percentage of their ongoing emissions, with the fraction ramping up to 100 percent by 2050. Only removal projects are eligible for mitigation and use of more durable solutions, such as geological storage of CO₂, will increase toward 2050.

Scope 3 clarity

Many companies have asked SBTi for more flexibility in addressing Scope 3 emissions — and the organization has listened. Ideas floated as options in the previous draft have been expanded into detailed instructions, including rules for addressing Scope 3 categories.

Targets for emissions from purchased commodities, for example, can now be based on an emissions intensity metric, such as tons of CO2e per unit of steel or wheat. Alternatively, companies can commit to buying 95 percent of a commodity from suppliers committed to reaching net zero by 2050.

For companies unable to source enough of a low-carbon product, or that cannot trace such purchases back through a supply chain, SBTi will allow use of environmental attribute certificates, also known in this context as “insets.” 

This will enable companies to invest in mitigation projects within their value chain and deduct the emissions savings from their Scope 3 inventories, even if there is no direct connection between the project and the company’s purchases. The draft references the AIM Platform, an initiative backed by H&M Group, Netflix and others that is developing more detailed rules for such investments.

Moving target: Scope 2 changes

The revision also includes new proposals and modifications related to the Scope 2 emissions category, which covers the impact of energy and electricity purchased by companies for their operations.

One example: It now references “low-carbon” electricity and energy, rather than “zero-emissions” or “zero-carbon” sources, as was the case in the first draft. This will allow companies that use natural gas abated with carbon capture to get credit for doing so.  

The additions acknowledge a forthcoming carbon accounting rule update by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol that will make it more complicated for companies to claim reductions related to this category. The endgame here is to get companies to set targets that increase their usage of low-carbon electricity — either through direct consumption or renewable energy certificates — to 100 percent by 2040.  

Transition plans and progress reports

The updated guidance requires “Category A” companies — large corporations with $450 million-plus in annual revenue or 1,000 employees; or midsize businesses in established economies with more than $25 million on their balance sheet, annual sales of at least $50 million and more than 250 staffers — to publish a climate transition plan. For small and midsize companies from developing nations, which fall into Category B, this is optional.

SBTi expects these plans to outline a phasing out of unabated fossil fuels and to outline specific measures for energy efficiency, switching fuels and replacing high-emitting equipment or inputs with low-carbon alternatives.

Companies also need to publish information about external factors or dependencies that could affect that roadmap. And they’re required to include estimates about what the transition will cost and how the company intends to finance it.

Climate transition plans must be reviewed every five years and updated as necessary. SBTi expects companies to publish annual reports about progress toward validated targets and to request revalidation before the usual five-year mark if warranted — for example, in the case of a merger or acquisition. The organization hints it will conduct “spot checks” on companies that aren’t acting quickly enough to adjust commitments in the face of slow progress.

Updated transition timeline

The revision for the Corporate Net-Zero Standard update is required under SBTi’s governance, but the overhaul was delayed amid controversy in summer 2024 over the organization’s stance on the use of environmental attribute certificates, such as carbon credits, to make emissions reduction claims. 

More than 320 companies have pilot-tested the new net-zero methodology, and a second phase that includes 50 companies will run through early December concurrent with the public consultation period for the updated draft.

The final draft of Corporate Net-Zero Standard version 2.0 is due in 2026, potentially in the spring. Companies will be encouraged to use that framework after it’s published, but doing so won’t become mandatory until Jan. 1, 2028.

Newcomers can set commitments using the current edition through 2027, and SBTi is encouraging them not to wait “as efforts undertaken under version 1.3 will continue to be relevant and provide a strong foundation for future alignment.”

The post SBTi drops latest net-zero draft: What’s new appeared first on Trellis.

The opinions expressed here by Trellis expert contributors are their own, not those of Trellis.​

In conversations all year, I keep hearing the argument that we’re in the middle of a “healthy correction” from the alleged ideologically driven excesses of 2018 to 2021. In response, the prevailing advice is to double down on the business case, while avoiding political backlash. 

Although this is a convenient narrative, it’s not a very convincing one. During this peak of enthusiasm, the business case narrative also dominated, but tended to be framed as a broad, unstoppable, win-win trajectory that would benefit everyone. This was always unrealistic. A shift to acknowledging trade-offs would’ve occurred even without the political headwinds in the U.S. today. 

Rather than just doubling down on ROI arguments (which themselves are nothing new), there’s a need for a bigger philosophical shift. I’m not only thinking of the risks from an anti-climate action U.S. administration or commitments, goals and aspirations that have become dangerous. I mean something more fundamental — the underlying assumptions and theory of change no longer hold, so we need a new approach.

5 assumptions that no longer hold

Here’s why the theory of change doesn’t work anymore: 

• First, sustainability works because it anticipates future regulation. One of the prime risk management arguments for sustainability is that it helps companies get ahead of new regulations. But today, with regulations fragmented, uncertain and globally inconsistent, companies need to anticipate reversals.

• Second, global pledges aren’t the way to drive change. The latest failure to secure a global plastics treaty is just one sign that flagship voluntary agreements secured at the United Nations are no longer dependable or broadly credible. Corporations that take policy alignment seriously, such as Unilever, are increasingly pivoting their attention to the national level and understand that their government relations and sustainability leads need to work in close alignment.

• Third, the general public has much more idiosyncratic and mixed views on sustainability than is commonly argued. The underlying assumption of stakeholder capitalism is that everyone broadly wants the same sustainability commitments from corporations. But this view turned out to be too simplistic. Political reversals have made it clear that some members of the general public view these priorities as elitist and irrelevant. Managing the energy transition means acknowledging that some people are very concerned about losing jobs and livelihoods that rely on the fossil fuel economy, and it’s a bad idea to dismiss these fears outright. Pretty much everyone wants clean air and water — and to be able to provide for themselves and their families, so it’s important to prioritize basic fairness first.

• Next, reputational risk is not a linear accountability mechanism. Because sustainability has traditionally been framed as providing reputational upside, there’s been insufficient consideration of the fact that activists are as likely to target leading companies as laggards. Starbucks was targeted on labor rights, despite having the best pay and benefits in its sector, precisely because it’s a leader, not because it’s a worse performer than other companies in the sector. Target is facing disproportionate scrutiny over DEI reversals, even though its actions are far from exceptional, and its retail employees face considerable physical risk. Campaigns are more unpredictable and social media-driven than they used to be, and the NGO landscape is fragmenting. Flagship agreements with WWF or the Ellen MacArthur Foundation used to be how companies signaled commitment. These days, they’re far more likely to be derailed by social media driven campaigns from tiny, faceless organizations that appear to emerge from nowhere. In summary, reputational risk is a funhouse mirror, not a reliable gauge of the ambition or credibility of your efforts.

• Finally, transparency doesn’t lead to accountability. Decades of attention on making ESG reporting frameworks more rigorous have led to a lot of progress, but also sucked up disproportionate time and attention and not galvanized meaningful change. We spend far more time on esoteric debates about Scope 3 emissions and measuring impact than on meaningful change. The result: we lose people in the process.

A new focus 

We’re already seeing new approaches emerge and new strategies starting to take shape to move past the assumptions laid out above.

One clear trend is a shift away from overpromising on an enormous range of intractable challenges. What replaces it is a new focus on legitimacy and leverage, with companies dialing down ambition in areas they cannot directly influence and doubling down on areas where they have control. For example, Pepsi has dialed down climate and plastics goals, where it has limited influence, and doubled down on regenerative agriculture, where it has more direct leverage. This seems like great news, so long as it’s accompanied by more thoughtful policy engagement. 

It’s also increasingly accepted that market-based voluntary action is nowhere near enough. Although the mood is darker, there’s more engagement on the actual scale of the challenge, the need to think more carefully about financing models and time horizons, and acceptance that promises and commitments alone are unrealistic.

Of course, corporations are afraid to be opinionated and even in closed-door meetings, I’ve noted pervasive paranoia. This doesn’t look likely to galvanize the kind of collective action and voice we need that was easy enough for everyone up until 2021. I understand the reluctance by companies to make themselves a target, but there’s still strength in numbers and a need for courage and coordination.

There’s also a shift back to convergence between corporate affairs and sustainability. This was once a sign that the company treated sustainability as messaging alone, but now it’s an indicator that ESG reporting has shifted to the finance team and that a range of functions now include sustainability expertise. If sustainability considerations are integrated into procurement, operations and R&D, with the requisite experts, then there needs to be a shift in the role of the standalone sustainability function. Even more important: the narrative challenges facing corporations are so profound that true alignment between talk and action is non-negotiable. 

The most ambitious and thoughtful companies I know are getting clearer, more focused and replacing complex jargon with plain language and a serious focus on implementation. This is just a start, but it’s much better than doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

The post The case for ditching 5 underlying sustainability assumptions appeared first on Trellis.

What if exchanging a product carbon footprint were as easy as sending an email?

A cross-industry project designed to make that possible got a boost last week — the latest in a busy year — when a leading source of food-sector emissions data said it would align with the initiative’s guidelines. 

The move added another partner to the growing number of organizations conforming with the product carbon footprint standard developed by the Partnership for Carbon Transparency (PACT). The list includes Procter & Gamble, Toyota, MasterCard and more than 100 other companies using the standard with suppliers; service providers such as SAP and Microsoft that have integrated it into software products; industry collaborations from automotive and other sectors; and several large auditors, including EY and Deloitte.

Current rules for exchanging footprint data vary between industries and companies — to use the email analogy, it’s as if different companies’ incompatible messaging protocols kept them from communicating with each other. The PACT standard is designed to eliminate existing barriers and create a global, industry-agnostic set of interoperable rules. That will allow buyers to more easily search for low-carbon products and sellers to compete on emissions.

The initiative, a project of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, launched the latest version of its standard in April. The update included new guidelines for calculating, standardizing and exchanging food-sector carbon footprints, paving the way for organizations from the industry to align with the rules. Last week, HowGood, a prominent food-and-beverage sustainability platform that contains more than 90,000 agricultural emissions factors, said its data now aligns with PACT specifications.

Going mainstream

One user will be HowGood customer Ahold Delhaize, a retailer whose U.S. chains include Food Lion and Giant Food. Grant Sprick, the company’s vice president for climate and environment, said that product carbon footprints provide more granular emissions estimates that reflect the decarbonization efforts of suppliers, and that PACT conformance would lower barriers for partners to create and share the data.

It will also help sustainability professionals at both buyers and sellers make the case for low-carbon products, added Nina DePalma, HowGood’s chief product officer. 

“PACT is what is necessary for product footprints to take hold as a standard business metric,” she said. “If this type of sustainability data has any shot at making it into the mainstream of the way a business makes real decisions, it needs to live up to the rigorous demands an IT team would make of any other piece of data in the business.”

Alongside the expansion to food and agriculture, PACT is signing up partners in China, Japan and other parts of Asia, as well as bringing on smaller companies, said Naama Avnia-Kadosh, the project’s director. Companies are already using PACT data to guide research and development, shape procurement portfolios and set broader strategy, she noted. The goal now is to unlock a “flood” of that data. 

“When you get that at scale,” said Avnia-Kadosh, “that is when the impact we’re all trying to achieve will come through.”

The post Global carbon data project boosted by alignment with food sector platform appeared first on Trellis.