G7 Power Systems Scorecard Methodology
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. With this commitment, the G7 are the first group of countries to aim for a milestone that the IEA has identified 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 to demonstrate 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 governance areas require more action. G7 countries have about ten years left to reach net zero power systems – a very short timeframe, given that it takes time to adjust policy frameworks, build a skilled workforce to drive the delivery, and deploy the infrastructure on the ground. Keeping track of the key policy and financial decisions, and the effect they have on the power systems themselves, is key to understanding whether the current pace of change is sufficient.
- Provide lessons learned from the G7 countries on power systems decarbonisation. These are useful for other OECD countries, which also need to aim for 2035 net zero power systems, and for the rest of the world, which 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:
- 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).
- G7 governments’ policy framework, governance and global leadership to create 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 to take off in other parts of the world, particularly emerging markets and developing 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 and solutions 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 new fossil-based generation). 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 in the 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 from hydropower 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 and hydropower 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 zero
The 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 and additional capacity required for hydrogen production. 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 of renewable 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 five benchmarks used in this Scorecard. Enhanced energy efficiency is crucial for making high levels of end use electrification feasible and affordable, and is therefore an enabler of net zero power systems by 2035.
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 the decarbonisation of those countries’ power systems, before the upscale and massive 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 the existing 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 the countries’ existing capacity, while some of these plants are aimed at replacing the ageing existing nuclear fleet) it is not explicitly considered in the remainder of the scorecard.
Ambition to build new large-scale nuclear capacity beyond what’s already in the pipeline is not relevant for 2035 ambition due to the very long lead times for nuclear projects. Any project not already in operation or under construction is unlikely to contribute to the 2035 net zero power systems target.
We consider the potential role of abatement, H2 to power and other “new/non-mature technologies”, in particular in delivering the “last-mile” decarbonisation of power systems in the G7 countries. However, given the high costs, lack of demand 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 and contributes to a poor scoring. Countries are considered as over-reliant on these technologies if they bet on high shares of CCS-equipped thermal generation by 2035 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 long-term plan to decarbonise the power mix by 2035.
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 power system 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 for their power systems to reach net zero emissions by 2035. It makes up 70% of the total score and comprises three benchmarks: Adapting power systems to high 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 important base, the scale and speed of the change needed within the next decade necessitates much more extensive policy action to enable not only the rollout of new capacity, but also all the measures required to facilitate the structural transformation 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 give overall scores for each benchmark, section and for the overall Scorecard.
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 a country’s power generation (1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2) do not imply that a certain share of generation must be met by any of these technologies. They merely reflect the current 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 reliance | 60 | 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 |
| 1.3 Share in electricity generation: non-renewable low-carbon 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: 11–15 |
| Benchmark 2: Ramping up renewables | 60 | 0–20: Unacceptable 21–43: Insufficient 44–60: On track |
| 2.1 Share of variable RES in electricity generation | 15 | <20% of generation: 0–5 20–40% of generation: 6–10 >40% generation: 11–15 |
| 2.2 Share of other RES in electricity generation | 15 | Hydropower, geothermal power, bioenergy and other 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 target | 15 | Unacceptable: 0–5 – no target to match against, or the pipeline is significantly below announced target Insufficient: 6–10 – pipeline is below announced target On track: 11–15 – pipeline likely to deliver the announced RES target |
| 2.4 Average permitting time for VRE | 15 | Unacceptable (>5 years): 0–5 Insufficient (3–5 years): 6–10 On track (<2 years): 11–15 |
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 their power systems to reach net zero emissions by 2035. It comprises three benchmarks: 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 three scoring categories: unacceptable, insufficient, on track. For a detailed description of what these categories entail please refer to the individual indicators in the table 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.
The Scorecard faces the additional challenge that there are bothcountries with centralised policymaking and countries where states/provinces have more authority (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 across countries in the long term and aim to include this nuance in next year’s Scorecard.
| Indicator | Maximum Score | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Benchmark 3: Adapting the power systems to high-RES share | 120 | 0–40: Unacceptable 41–95: Insufficient 96–120: On track |
| 3.1 Policies to limit curtailment to a 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 short spells 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 to accelerate 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 |
| 3.7 Effective mechanisms or frameworks 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 and roadmap to support delivery | 15 | No: 0 In development: 1–5 Insufficient: 6–11 On track: 12–15 |
| Benchmark 4: Governance / International leadership | 80 | 0–30: Unacceptable 31–64: Insufficient 65–80: On track |
| 4.1 2035 carbon neutral power system commitment adopted in national 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 countries | 10 | 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 governance On track: 7–10 – shows strong delivery as a global partner |
| 4.3 International commitments on power systems decarbonisation through alliances or 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 have to commit to national delivery (e.g. PPCA) On track: 7–10 – member of both international alliances supporting global targets and alliances where they have to commit to national delivery |
| 4.4 Net zero power system roadmapto drive delivery of 2035 commitment | 10 | Unacceptable: 0 – no roadmap Insufficient: 1–6 – roadmap isn’t aligned with 2035 target / roadmap adopted only in parts of the country – for G7 countries with strong sub-national level entities On track: 7–10 – roadmap adopted and is aligned with 2035 target |
| 4.5 Critical role of renewables, interconnection and demand side measures reflected in country’s energy security framework | 10 | Unacceptable: 0 – no Insufficient: 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 date and roadmap to support delivery | 10 | No: 0 Insufficient: 5 On track: 10 |
| 4.7 Unabated gas phase-out date and roadmap to support delivery | 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 insufficient for the country to be at 80% clean electricity by 2030 On track: 7–10 – target amounts to 80% of RES in generation or, in countries with large share of non-RES 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 / power savings target | 20 | No: 0 In development: 1–10 Insufficient: 11–15 On track: 16–20 |
| 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 and equipment standards and labelling | 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 Alberta (Canada)
ACER Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (EU)
ADS Association for Demand Response and Smart Grid (US)
AESO Alberta Electric System Operator
ANRE Agency for Natural Resources and Energy (part of METI, Japan)
APER Renewable Energy Acceleration Law (France)
AZEC Asia Zero Emissions Community
BC British Columbia (Canada)
BEG Federal Funding for Efficient Buildings (Germany)
BENEFIT Buildings Energy Frontiers and Innovation Technologies (US)
BIL Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (US)
BMWK Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (Germany)
BNetzA Federal Network Agency (Germany)
BOGA Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance
BSW German Solar Industry Association
BVES Energy Storage System Association (Germany)
CAISO California’s Independent System Operator (US)
CC(U)S carbon capture (utilisation) and storage
CEC California Energy Commission (US)
CfD Contracts for Difference
CIP-ACT Climate Investment Funds – Accelerating Coal Transition Program (Canada)
CPUC California’s Public Utilities Commission (US)
DENA German Energy Agency
DER distributed energy resources
DoE Department of Energy (US)
DPA Defense Production Act (US)
DPE Energy Performance Certificate (France; equivalent to EPC)
DRAI Deep Retrofit Accelerator Initiative (Canada)
DSM demand side management
DSR demand side response
DX digital transformation
ECCC Environment and Climate Change Canada
EE energy efficiency
EED Energy Efficiency Directive (EU)
EEG Renewable Energy Sources Act (Germany)
EERS Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (US)
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act (US)
EnWG Energy Industry Act (Germany)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency (US)
EPBD Energy Performance Buildings Directive (EU)
EPC Energy Performance Certificate (EU/UK)
EPREL European Product Registry for Energy Labelling
ERCOT Electric Reliability Council of Texas (US)
ESO electricity system operator
ESPR Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (EU)
ETA Energy Transition Accelerator (US)
ETC Energy Transition Council
ETS Emissions Trading System
EU European Union
EV electric vehicle
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (US)
FIP feed-in premium
FIT feed-in tariff
G7 Group of Seven: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, US
GBS Green Buildings Strategy (Canada)
gCO2/kWh grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt hour of electricity generated
GDO Grid Deployment Office (part of the DoE, US)
GEG Buildings Energy Act (Germany)
GGI Green Grids Initiative
GRIP Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (US)
GW gigawatt
GX green transformation
H2 hydrogen
HVAC high-voltage alternative current
IEA International Energy Agency
IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (US)
IPG International Partners Group
IRA Inflation Reduction Act (US)
ISO-NE System Operator New England (US)
ITC Investment Tax Credit (US)
JETP Just Energy Transition Partnership
KTF Climate and Transformation Fund (Germany)
kWh kilowatt hour
LDC least developed countries
LDES long-duration energy storage
LNG liquefied natural gas
MASCE Electric Storage Capacity Procurement Mechanisms (Italy)
METI Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan)
MLF Local Flexibility Markets (Italy)
MLIT Ministry of Land Infrastructure and Tourism (Japan)
MoE Ministry of Environment (Japan)
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
MSA Market Surveillance Administrator (Canada)
MSD Ancillary Services Market (Italy)
Mtoe million tons of oil equivalent
MW megawatt
NABEG Grid Expansion Acceleration Act for the Transmission Grid (Germany)
NDP Network Development Plan
NECP National Energy and Climate Plan
NEDRI New England Demand Response Initiative (US)
NELEV Electrotechnical Properties Verification Ordinance (Germany)
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act (US)
NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory (US)
NWS National Hydrogen Strategy (Germany)
OCCTO Organisation for Cross-regional Coordination of Transmission Operators
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PLMA Peak Load Management Alliance (US)
PPCA Powering Past Coal Alliance
PPE Programmations pluriannuelles de l’énergie / multiannual energy planning (France)
PREPAC Programme for the Energy Requalification of Central Public Administration Buildings (Italy)
PV photovoltaic
REC Renewable Energy Certificate (US)
RES renewable energy sources
RPS renewable portfolio standard
RT2012 Thermal Regulations 2012 (France)
RTE Réseau de transport d’électricité (TSO, France)
SACE Italian Export Credit Agency
S3RenR Regional grid plans (France)
SNBC National Low-Carbon Strategy (France)
SREP Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways Program (Canada)
T&D transmission and distribution
TOU time of use
TSO transmission system operator
UK United Kingdom
ULO Ultra-Low Overnight (price plan; Canada)
US United States
UVAM Virtual Mixed Aggregated Unit (Italy)
VRE variable renewable energy