G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARDMETHODOLOGY1
May 2024

Why track G7 countries’ progress towards a 2035 net
zero power systems goal?
The G7 countries committed to reach “fully or predominantly decarbonised
power systems by 2035”, the first iteration of the commitment agreed upon
during the 2021 Climate and Environment Ministerial.2 With this commitment,
the G7 are the first group of countries to aim for a milestone that the IEA has
identified3 as mission critical to a 1.5 °C compatible pathway. All OECD countries
will however need to achieve this goal, and it is now essential for G7 countries todemonstrate they are making progress in delivering on this commitment.
In tracking G7 countries’ progress towards reaching a net zero power systems
target, this Scorecard aims to:> Show the real steps undertaken by the G7 to decarbonise their electricity
systems and adapt them to higher shares of variable renewable energy. This
enables us to understand which countries and which policy and governanceareas require more action. G7 countries have about ten years left to reachnet zero power systems – a very short timeframe, given that it takes time toadjust policy frameworks, build a skilled workforce to drive the delivery, anddeploy the infrastructure on the ground. Keeping track of the key policy andfinancial decisions, and the effect they have on the power systems
themselves, is key to understanding whether the current pace of change issufficient.
> Provide lessons learned from the G7 countries on power systems
decarbonisation. These are useful for other OECD countries, which also needto aim for 2035 net zero power systems, and for the rest of the world, which

1 To see the whole Scorecard, including the scoring methodology, visit https://www.e3g.org/g7-power-systems-scorecard
2 G7 Climate and Environment: Ministers’ Communiqué, London, 21 May 2021 (Website, last visited May2024).
3 IEA, September 2023, Net Zero Roadmap: A Global Pathway to Keep the 1.5C Goal in Reach (Report, lastvisited May 2024)

1

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGYneeds to reach net zero power systems by 2045 at the latest to be on track
for climate neutrality by mid-century or shortly thereafter.

What does this Scorecard measure?
The Scorecard considers two key aspects:
1. G7 countries’ progress towards decarbonising their power systems so far.
This is reflected by their current electricity mix and plans for future power
capacity deployment (project pipeline). The first section of the Scorecard(Infrastructure/Energy mix) scores this aspect against two benchmarks (1.
Reducing fossil fuel reliance and 2. Ramping up renewables).
2. G7 governments’ policy framework, governance and global leadership tocreate the necessary frameworks and conditions for reaching the 2035 net
zero power systems commitment. The second section of the Scorecard(Policies/Targets) scores this aspect against three benchmarks (3. Adapting
the power systems to high RES share; 4. Governance / International
leadership; 5. Reducing energy waste).
This section includes not only domestic policies and targets, but also G7
countries’ international leadership to bring forward global power sector
decarbonisation. As a group of advanced economies claiming global climate
and energy transition leadership, the G7 need to not only go faster to set a
global precedent but also create the right global signals for the transition totake off in other parts of the world, particularly emerging markets anddeveloping economies.

How are we measuring progress?
Speed and cost-effectiveness guide our assumptions about technology mix
The Scorecard assumes that the most cost-effective low-carbon electricity andsolutions that can be realistically deployed within this decade (by 2035) will
dominate the power mix in G7 countries. The Scorecard therefore looks primarily
at the pace and scope of variable renewable energy (VRE) capacity deployment
and the policies that enable faster VRE integration in the power system.
Solar and wind have reached full market maturity and are more cost-competitive
than any other low-carbon technology (and more cost-competitive than new2

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGYfossil-based generation4). These technologies are prioritised in the Scorecard as
they have the highest potential to transform the power systems at the speed
needed and in a sustainable way, including addressing new electricity demand
coming from electrification of end use across other sectors including heating,transport, and industry. Most prominent decarbonisation scenarios (IEA WEO,
IRENA WETO, IEA G7 NZP2035) see these technologies growing significantly inthe next ten years while the growth of other renewable capacity (hydropower,
geothermal) and nuclear is limited.
G7 countries with a historically high share of low-carbon electricity derived fromhydropower and nuclear power generation will have to focus primarily on
enabling deployment of VRE technologies if they are to achieve fully net zero
power systems by 2035. Not only is the capacity for growing nuclear andhydropower generation in these countries limited, the long lead times will also
not get this new generation online in time for the 2035 target.
Focus on policies to adapt power systems to net zeroThe IEA estimates an 80% growth in electricity demand in G7 countries by 2050
under a net zero emissions scenario, due to electrification of key sectors andadditional capacity required for hydrogen production.5 All G7 countries are
expected to rely on 50–100% VRE sources in their power mix in the long term,
the rest largely covered by hydropower and nuclear. Even where the power mix
is currently largely decarbonised (France, Canada), the share of VRE is expected
to grow dramatically by 2035.
Systemic transformation is needed to secure the benefits of high shares ofrenewable electricity and to ensure reliability of generation, transmission,
distribution and energy services. Benchmark 3 of the Scorecard therefore
assesses policies in areas beyond renewables capacity, including flexibility,
digitalisation, grid deployment and electrification of end use.
Reducing energy waste and boosting energy efficiency is another of the fivebenchmarks used in this Scorecard. Enhanced energy efficiency is crucial formaking high levels of end use electrification feasible and affordable, and istherefore an enabler of net zero power systems by 2035.

4 IRENA, August 2023, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2022 (Report, accessed in May 2024)
5 IEA, October 2021, Achieving Net Zero Electricity Sectors in G7 Members (Report, accessed in May 2024)

3

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGYApproach to various non-renewable generation technologies
Some G7 countries rely on nuclear energy for large shares of their power
generation. As a carbon-free source, nuclear has historically contributed to thedecarbonisation of those countries’ power systems, before the upscale andmassive cost reduction of VRE technologies meant that they started to dominate
new generation capacity additions worldwide.
The historic contribution of nuclear to power systems decarbonisation in the G7
countries is reflected in the Scorecard (indicators 1.3 and 1.4). Given that theexisting nuclear pipeline in the G7 doesn’t point to any significant growth within
the group by 2035 (the new nuclear capacity in construction today in France,
Japan, the UK and the US would add between 0.01% (US) and 3% (UK) to thecountries’ existing capacity,6 while some of these plants are aimed at replacing
the ageing existing nuclear fleet) it is not explicitly considered in the remainderof the scorecard.
Ambition to build new large-scale nuclear capacity beyond what’s already in thepipeline is not relevant for 2035 ambition due to the very long lead times fornuclear projects. Any project not already in operation or under construction isunlikely to contribute to the 2035 net zero power systems target.
We consider the potential role of abatement7, H2 to power and other “new/nonmature technologies”, in particular in delivering the “last-mile” decarbonisationof power systems in the G7 countries. However, given the high costs, lack ofdemand signals and poor track record of applications such as CCS-equipped coal
power, ammonia and H2 co-firing, overreliance on these technologies in G7
countries’ power systems decarbonisation policies is considered a liability andcontributes to a poor scoring. Countries are considered as over-reliant on thesetechnologies if they bet on high shares of CCS-equipped thermal generation by2035 without a solid implementation plan and cost-effectiveness assessment, or
if they plan to rely on ammonia or H2 co-firing in the short term without a longterm plan to decarbonise the power mix by 2035.

6 Global Energy Monitor, October 2023, Global nuclear power tracker
7 For this iteration of the Scorecard, abated fossil fuel generation is defined in line with the definition put

forward by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): “fossil fuels produced and used withinterventions that substantially reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted throughout the life cycle;
for example, capturing 90% or more CO2 from power plants, or 50–80% of fugitive methane emissions fromenergy supply”. See IPCC, 2022, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Summary for
Policymakers, p. 28).

4

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGYClean (zero-carbon) H2 as a storage medium and addition to power systems
flexibility is considered in Benchmark 3 among other storage options.

The Scorecard structure
The Scorecard is divided into two main sections:> Section 1: Infrastructure/Energy mix reflects the current state of the powersystem in the G7 countries and makes up 30% of the available score. It
comprises two benchmarks: Reducing fossil fuel reliance and Ramping up
renewables, each contributing 15% to the total score.
> Section 2: Policies/Targets reflects G7 countries’ efforts to put the targets,policies and frameworks in place that should create enabling conditions fortheir power systems to reach net zero emissions by 2035. It makes up 70% of
the total score and comprises three benchmarks: Adapting power systems tohigh RES share (30% of the total score); Governance / International
leadership (20%); and Reducing energy waste (20%).
The benchmark weighting reflects their relative importance in the overall
assessment. It ensures that the main focus of the Scorecard is on Section 2:
Policies/Targets (Benchmarks 3,4,5). While the historic achievements of G7
countries towards decarbonising their power systems give them an importantbase, the scale and speed of the change needed within the next decadenecessitates much more extensive policy action to enable not only the rollout of
new capacity, but also all the measures required to facilitate the structuraltransformation of the power sector (grid deployment, end use flexibility,
digitalisation, and so on).
Each benchmark is composed of a range of indicators, 32 in total.
Countries are scored against each indicator. The scores are combined to giveoverall scores for each benchmark, section and for the overall Scorecard.

5

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGYSection 1: Infrastructure/Energy mix
TOTAL SCORE 0–120

This section of the Scorecard reflects the current state of the power system in
the G7 countries. It comprises two largely numerical benchmarks: Reducing fossil
fuel reliance and Ramping up renewables.
The numerical indicators that reflect the share of different technologies in acountry’s power generation (1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2) do not imply that a certain shareof generation must be met by any of these technologies. They merely reflect thecurrent share of generation. Having said that, were a country to reach a net zero
power mix, all these indicators would automatically be given the maximum
score.
For example:> 2% nuclear generation in a country where the net zero target is not achieved= 0–1 points (reflects the current share of generation).
> 2% nuclear generation in a country where the net zero target is achieved =15 points (reflects the fact that, in the total net zero mix, 2% of nuclear
generation is enough and no new nuclear is needed).

The scoring for Section 1 (benchmarks 1 and 2)

Indicator

Maximum
score

Comments

Benchmark 1: Reducing fossil
fuel reliance60

0–20: Unacceptable
21–43: Insufficient
44–60: On track

1.1 New unabated coal and gas
power plants in planning or
construction

15

Unacceptable: 0 – new unabated coal in the pipeline
Unacceptable: 1–4 – no new unabated coal but new
unabated gas in the pipeline
On track: 15 – no new unabated fossil fuel pipeline

1.2 Share in electricity
generation: fossil fuels

15>40% generation: 0–5
20–40% of generation: 6–10
<20% of generation: 11–15

6

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGY

Indicator

Maximum
score

Comments

1.3 Share in electricity
generation: non-renewable lowcarbon tech

15

Nuclear, abated coal and gas, H2-powered power
plants
<20% of generation: 0–5
20–40% of generation: 6–10
>40% generation: 11–15

1.4 Carbon intensity of power
index

15

>400 gCO2e/kWh: 0–5
200–400 CO2e/kWh: 6–10
<200 gCO2e/KWh:8 11–15

Benchmark 2: Ramping up
renewables

60

0–20: Unacceptable
21–43: Insufficient
44–60: On track

2.1 Share of variable RES inelectricity generation

15<20% of generation: 0–5
20–40% of generation: 6–10
>40% generation: 11–15

2.2 Share of other RES inelectricity generation

15

Hydropower, geothermal power, bioenergy andother non-variable RES<20% of generation: 0–5
20–40% of generation: 6–10
>40% generation: 11–15

2.3 Variable RES pipeline
capacity vs country’s announced
target15

Unacceptable: 0–5 – no target to match against, or
the pipeline is significantly below announced target
Insufficient: 6–10 – pipeline is below announced
targetOn track: 11–15 – pipeline likely to deliver theannounced RES target

2.4 Average permitting time for
VRE9

15

Unacceptable (>5 years): 0–5
Insufficient (3–5 years): 6–10
On track (<2 years): 11–15

8 Drawing on Ember’s overview of carbon intensity worldwide, where the global average is480.7 gCO2/kWh, and the OECD average (among which G7 should be leading on reducing CO2 intensity of
power) is 341.2 gCO2/kWh
9 Ideally the timeframe should be the same for onshore and offshore RES. Where permitting times differed,scoring was based on the arithmetic average.

7

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGYSection 2: Policies/Targets
TOTAL SCORE 0–280

This section of the Scorecard reflects G7 countries’ efforts to put the targets,policies and frameworks in place that should create enabling conditions for theirpower systems to reach net zero emissions by 2035. It comprises threebenchmarks: Adapting power systems to high RES share; Governance /International leadership; and Reducing energy waste.
In this first iteration of the Scorecard, we assess the policies in a very simple
way:> Unacceptable: no policy in place> In development: no policy in place but active discussions/consultations
ongoing, or a white paper/policy draft existing.
> Insufficient: policy adopted but doesn’t address the problem/inhibits further
progress> On track: effective policy announced and adopted.
The indicators reflecting targets (e.g. coal phase-out target) have three scoring
categories:> Unacceptable: neither a target nor a trajectory towards reaching it> Insufficient: target/date adopted but no trajectory proposed to underpin
delivery> On track: both target and implementation trajectory adopted
Similarly, the indicators reflecting G7 countries’ global leadership have threescoring categories: unacceptable, insufficient, on track. For a detailed descriptionof what these categories entail please refer to the individual indicators in thetable below.
We recognise that the quality of the policies is often different between
countries, and we will aim to enable a qualitative comparison across countries –as far as the national power system specific allows – in next year’s iteration of
the Scorecard.

8

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGYThe Scorecard faces the additional challenge that there are both countries withcentralised policymaking and countries where states/provinces have moreauthority (such as Canada and the US). This version of the scorecard primarily
looks at central government efforts.
We are certain that it is possible to make the policy scores comparable acrosscountries in the long term and aim to include this nuance in next year’s
Scorecard.
The scoring for Section 2 (benchmarks 3–5)

Indicator

Maximum
score

Comments

Benchmark 3: Adapting thepower systems to high-RES
share

120

0–40: Unacceptable
41–95: Insufficient
96–120: On track

3.1 Policies to limit curtailment toa minimum that ensures optimal
RES capacity utilisation

15

No: 0
In development: 1–5
Insufficient: 6–11
On track: 12–15

3.2 Active steps by the national
grid operator to plan for shortspells of 100% RE power

15

No: 0
In development: 1–5
Insufficient: 6–11
On track: 12–15

3.3 Effective policies to ramp up
electricity storage

15

No: 0
In development: 1–5
Insufficient: 6–11
On track: 12–15

3.4 Effective policies to increase
end use flexibility

15

No: 0
In development: 1–5
Insufficient: 6–11
On track: 12–15

3.5 Effective policies toaccelerate grid development

15

No: 0
In development: 1–5
Insufficient: 6–11
On track: 12–15

3.6 Effective policies to enable
the required digitalisation of
power systems

15

No: 0
In development: 1–5
Insufficient: 6–11
On track: 12–15

9

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGY

Indicator

Maximum
score

Comments

3.7 Effective mechanisms orframeworks to prevent
preferential treatment for fossil
fuel-based generation over RES
on the market

15

No: 0
In development: 1–5
Insufficient: 6–11
On track: 12–15

3.8 Electrification rate target androadmap to support delivery

15

No: 0
In development: 1–5
Insufficient: 6–11
On track: 12–15

Benchmark 4: Governance /International leadership80

0–30: Unacceptable
31–64: Insufficient
65–80: On track

4.1 2035 carbon neutral powersystem commitment adopted innational legislation

10

No: 0
In development: 1–5
Insufficient: 6–9
On track: 10

4.2 Global leadership on
supporting power systems
decarbonisation in developing
countries1010

Unacceptable: 0 – failed to contribute to global
progress / actively inhibits global progress
Insufficient: 1–6 – contributes to global progress but
fails short of delivering what’s needed / what’s
expected of the country given its overall role in the
global economy and governanceOn track: 7–10 – shows strong delivery as a global
partner

4.3 International commitmentson power systems
decarbonisation through alliancesor networks such as the PPCA,
Glasgow Coal to Clean Power
Initiative etc.

10

Unacceptable: 0 – none of the global clean power
alliances
Insufficient: 1–6 – member of international
initiatives supporting global targets (e.g. the 3×RES,
2×EE pledge), but not to alliances where they haveto commit to national delivery (e.g. PPCA)
On track: 7–10 – member of both international
alliances supporting global targets and allianceswhere they have to commit to national delivery

10 Based on the overall expectations of a country as a global actor and its weight in the global economy aswell as in the ability to shape global power systems decarbonisation.

10

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGY

Indicator

Maximum
score

Comments

4.4 Net zero power system
roadmap to drive delivery of2035 commitment

10

Unacceptable: 0 – no roadmap
Insufficient: 1–6 – roadmap isn’t aligned with 2035
target / roadmap adopted only in parts of thecountry – for G7 countries with strong sub-national
level entities
On track: 7–10 – roadmap adopted and is alignedwith 2035 target

4.5 Critical role of renewables,interconnection and demand side
measures reflected in country’s
energy security framework

10

Unacceptable: 0 – noInsufficient: 1–6 – only partially, e.g. role of RES
deployment but not efficiency or flexibility
On track: 7–10 – yes

4.6 Unabated coal phase-out dateand roadmap to support delivery

10

No: 0
Insufficient: 5
On track: 10

4.7 Unabated gas phase-out dateand roadmap to support delivery

10

No: 0
Insufficient: 5
On track: 10

4.8 2030 target for share of total
RES in electricity generation

10

No: 0
Insufficient: 1–6 – there is a target but insufficientfor the country to be at 80% clean electricity by 2030
On track: 7–10 – target amounts to 80% of RES ingeneration or, in countries with large share of nonRES low-carbon electricity, an equivalent of RES
needed to reach 80% clean electricity by 2030 (e.g.
with 20% nuclear expectation by 2030, RES must be
at least 60%)

Benchmark 5: Reducing energy
waste

80

0–30: Unacceptable
31–64: Insufficient
65–80: On track

5.1 Efficient policies to retrofit /renovate buildings

20

No: 0
In development: 1–10
Insufficient: 11–15
On track: 16–20

5.2 National energy / powersavings target

20

No: 0
In development: 1–10
Insufficient: 11–15
On track: 16–20

11

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGY

Indicator

Maximum
score

Comments

5.3 Sufficient spending on energy
efficiency programmes

20

No: 0
In development: 1–10
Insufficient: 11–15
On track: 16–20

5.4 High-quality appliance andequipment standards andlabelling

20

No: 0
In development: 1–10
Insufficient: 11–15
On track: 16–20

Abbreviations
List of abbreviations used in the Scorecard and country profiles.
AB
ACER
ADS
AESO
ANRE
APER
AZEC
BC
BEG
BENEFIT
BIL
BMWK
BNetzA
BOGA
BSW
BVES
CAISO
CC(U)S
CEC
CfD
CIP-ACT
CPUC
DENA
DER
DoE
DPA
DPE
DRAI

12

Alberta (Canada)
Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (EU)
Association for Demand Response and Smart Grid (US)Alberta Electric System Operator
Agency for Natural Resources and Energy (part of METI, Japan)
Renewable Energy Acceleration Law (France)
Asia Zero Emissions Community
British Columbia (Canada)
Federal Funding for Efficient Buildings (Germany)
Buildings Energy Frontiers and Innovation Technologies (US)Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (US)Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (Germany)
Federal Network Agency (Germany)
Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance
German Solar Industry Association
Energy Storage System Association (Germany)
California’s Independent System Operator (US)carbon capture (utilisation) and storage
California Energy Commission (US)Contracts for Difference
Climate Investment Funds – Accelerating Coal Transition Program (Canada)
California’s Public Utilities Commission (US)German Energy Agency
distributed energy resources
Department of Energy (US)Defense Production Act (US)Energy Performance Certificate (France; equivalent to EPC)
Deep Retrofit Accelerator Initiative (Canada)

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGY

DSM
DSR
DX
ECCC
EE
EED
EEG
EERS
EISA
EnWG
EPA
EPBD
EPC
EPREL
ERCOT
ESO
ESPR
ETA
ETC
ETS
EU
EV
FERC
FIP
FIT
G7
GBS
gCO2/kWh
GDO
GEG
GGI
GRIP
GW
GX
H2
HVAC
IEA
IIJA
IPG
IRA
ISO-NE
ITC
JETP
KTF
kWh
LDC

13

demand side management
demand side response
digital transformation
Environment and Climate Change Canada
energy efficiency
Energy Efficiency Directive (EU)
Renewable Energy Sources Act (Germany)
Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (US)Energy Independence and Security Act (US)Energy Industry Act (Germany)
Environmental Protection Agency (US)Energy Performance Buildings Directive (EU)Energy Performance Certificate (EU/UK)
European Product Registry for Energy Labelling
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (US)electricity system operator
Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (EU)Energy Transition Accelerator (US)Energy Transition Council
Emissions Trading System
European Union
electric vehicle
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (US)feed-in premium
feed-in tariff
Group of Seven: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, US
Green Buildings Strategy (Canada)
grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt hour of electricity generated
Grid Deployment Office (part of the DoE, US)
Buildings Energy Act (Germany)
Green Grids Initiative
Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (US)gigawatt
green transformationhydrogenhigh-voltage alternative current
International Energy Agency
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (US)International Partners Group
Inflation Reduction Act (US)
System Operator New England (US)Investment Tax Credit (US)Just Energy Transition Partnership
Climate and Transformation Fund (Germany)
kilowatt hour
least developed countries

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGY

LDES
LNG
MASCE
METI
MLF
MLIT
MoE
MoU
MSA
MSD
Mtoe
MW
NABEG
NDP
NECP
NEDRI
NELEV
NEPA
NREL
NWS
OCCTO
OECD
PLMA
PPCA
PPE
PREPAC
PV
REC
RES
RPS
RT2012RTE
SACE
S3RenR
SNBC
SREP
T&D
TOU
TSO
UK
ULO
US
UVAM
VRE

14

long-duration energy storageliquefied natural gas
Electric Storage Capacity Procurement Mechanisms (Italy)
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan)
Local Flexibility Markets (Italy)
Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Tourism (Japan)
Ministry of Environment (Japan)
Memorandum of Understanding
Market Surveillance Administrator (Canada)
Ancillary Services Market (Italy)
million tons of oil equivalent
megawatt
Grid Expansion Acceleration Act for the Transmission Grid (Germany)
Network Development Plan
National Energy and Climate Plan
New England Demand Response Initiative (US)Electrotechnical Properties Verification Ordinance (Germany)
National Environmental Policy Act (US)National Renewable Energy Laboratory (US)National Hydrogen Strategy (Germany)
Organisation for Cross-regional Coordination of Transmission Operators
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Peak Load Management Alliance (US)Powering Past Coal Alliance
Programmations pluriannuelles de l’énergie / multiannual energy planning(France)
Programme for the Energy Requalification of Central Public Administration
Buildings (Italy)
photovoltaic
Renewable Energy Certificate (US)renewable energy sources
renewable portfolio standard
Thermal Regulations 2012 (France)
Réseau de transport d’électricité (TSO, France)
Italian Export Credit Agency
Regional grid plans (France)
National Low-Carbon Strategy (France)
Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways Program (Canada)transmission and distribution
time of use
transmission system operator
United Kingdom
Ultra-Low Overnight (price plan; Canada)
United States
Virtual Mixed Aggregated Unit (Italy)
variable renewable energy

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGYAbout E3G
E3G is an independent climate change think tank with a global outlook. We workon the frontier of the climate landscape, tackling the barriers and advancing thesolutions to a safe climate. Our goal is to translate climate politics, economics
and policies into action.
E3G builds broad-based coalitions to deliver a safe climate, working closely withlike-minded partners in government, politics, civil society, science, the media,
public interest foundations and elsewhere to leverage change.
More information is available at www.e3g.org
Copyright
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercialShareAlike 4.0 License. © E3G 2024

15

G7 POWER SYSTEMS SCORECARD METHODOLOGY