The word "matching" is what carries the implications. They could be saying that during optimal weather conditions when solar/wind is flooding the grid and the prices are at the lowest, they will pay an additional to 45% of their purchased power, in order to "compensate" during periods of suboptimal weather when gas, goal and oil is the primary energy (which also mean when the power supply is low and prices are high).
To give some more context, Texas has already started to curtail around 10% of solar production because of overproduction. That brings an other aspects to the question if we are getting net zero if a company match solar energy production to their fossil fuel consumption. Do we get fossil fuel displacement by producing energy that no one is willing to buy at even zero cost? To be fair it is likely a non-zero number, but it seems logical that as overproduction increases that numbers get closer to zero.
I will add this study (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1451) as a additional data point with this quote: "Here, I show that the average pattern across most nations of the world over the past fifty years is one where each unit of total national energy use from non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-quarter of a unit of fossil-fuel energy use and, focusing specifically on electricity, each unit of electricity generated by non-fossil-fuel sources displaced less than one-tenth of a unit of fossil-fuel-generated electricity"
They just greenwash literally anything just to keep the money flowing.
Or their Beyond Zero campaign.
Look into Climate Town videos on Toyota's practices regarding this topic.
I actually looked at Climate Town Toyota but the guy just seems to be waffling about politics.