Renewables Bulletin: Latin America and the Caribbean edition 

by


Key points:

  • The Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region is seeing progress in the shift to renewables. Over half of the annual capacity additions between 2020 and 2023 were wind and solar projects. The region now generates 19% of its electricity from these sources, surpassing the global average of 17.6%.
  • Nearly half of the 33 countries in LAC – including Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Colombia – have pledged to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
  • Compared with many other LAC countries, Venezuela has lagged behind in developing solar and wind resources to produce electricity, despite the inefficiency of its fossil fuel generation. However, this has shifted recently, with a commitment to build more renewables as a way of ensuring grid stability and reducing emissions.
  • As a region with a large amount of land classified as biodiversity hotspots, all renewable energy expansion needs to be undertaken within a safeguard framework to avoid negative environmental impacts or human rights violations.
  • The LAC region holds at least a third of the world’s lithium, copper, and silver reserves that are crucial to the energy transition. Investment over the last two decades has been concentrated in extraction, with less emphasis on developing local processing and manufacturing capacity.
  • There is a small but growing market for goods run on clean technologies: EVs account for over 6% of new passenger car sales in Latin America, an annual rise of 4 percentage points.
  • The dataset is curated to enable a country-level assessment of progress against the global effort to triple the world’s installed renewable energy capacity and double the average annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030, targets at COP28.
  • Countries covered are Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Jamaica, México,  Panamá, Perú, Uruguay and Venezuela.


Data you’ll find in this piece:

Fig. 1: Renewables share of LAC and global energy mix – 2025 update
Fig. 2: Renewable energy targets by 2030
Fig. 3: Installed capacity vs generation
Fig. 4: Electricity generation by fuel
Fig. 5: Wind and solar electricity generation (TWh)
Fig. 6: Map of planned and active renewable energy projects (solar, wind and bioenergy)
Fig. 7: Maps of renewable energy projects and biodiversity hotspots
Fig. 8: Energy intensity, 2017-2021
Fig. 9: Energy efficiency improvement rate
Fig. 10: Access to clean energy for cooking and deaths from household air pollution
Fig. 11: Renewable energy job creation

January 2026 update

First published in June 2025, the Latin America and Caribbean Renewables Bulletin has been updated to include the most recent data available on Venezuela. 

Just under half of the country’s capacity is hydroelectric, with most of the rest coming from fossil fuels. However, hydro supplies 78% of its electricity, with fossil fuels only providing 21.6%.

The country has lagged behind others in the region in developing wind and solar sources, but has recently started to shift towards more solar generation, partly as an attempt to improve electricity grid stability in the face of ‘chronic’ reliability issues.

While the 2023 data – the latest available from energy think tank Ember – shows wind and solar providing only 0.05 GW of capacity, by 2025 private market data reported it had risen to 18.67 GW and was expected to grow rapidly up to 2030.

Renewables development across Latin America and the Caribbean

The Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region generated 19% of its electricity from wind and solar as of November 2025, surpassing the global average of 17.6%. Thanks to the historically large proportion of hydropower (43.7%) and the growing role of wind and solar in electricity generation, the region was responsible for only 5% of global cumulative energy-related greenhouse gas emissions as of 2023.

Fig. 1: Renewables share of LAC and global energy mix – 2025 update


The data presented here covers 15 countries from across LAC, with a wide profile of energy mixes and economic structures, ranging from fossil fuel-dependent economies to those with significant renewable energy (RE) investments. 

This selection ensures coverage of LAC’s major subregions (South, Central and North America and the Caribbean) and ecosystems, from the Amazon to the Andes to small island states. Note that, due to data limitations, only selected indicators are available for some countries.

Targets for renewable energy growth

Nearly half of the 33 countries in LAC – including Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Colombia – have pledged to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Meeting these targets will require a fourfold increase in the average annual investment in clean energy between 2026 and 2030 compared to the previous decade, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). In the shorter term, 16 countries across the region have signed up to generate at least 80% of electricity from renewable sources by 2030, as part of the Renewables in Latin America and the Caribbean (RELAC) initiative.((The members of RELAC are: Barbados, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.)) 

However, as current policies lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions despite climate commitments requiring substantial reductions, there is a considerable implementation gap in the region. 

Specific targets for 2030 are shown in the table below. Comparing objectives is complicated by the various energy metrics used: 

  • Renewable energy (RE) is defined by the United Nations Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) as “derived from natural processes that are replenished at a higher rate than they are consumed.” Sources include solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass. 
  • Non-conventional renewable energy comprises a smaller grouping of intermittent sources, including wind, biomass, and solar, among others, used to complement other energy sources, enhancing diversification and energy security.
  • Clean energy refers to energy sources – such as solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and certain forms of bioenergy – that emit no greenhouse gases during operation. It can also include nuclear power. These sources are low-carbon or carbon-free alternatives to fossil fuels, but this does not mean they have zero impact on the environment.
Fig. 2: Renewable energy targets by 2030

Targeting generation growth is more impactful than capacity

While the global goal to triple renewable energy focuses on installed capacity – the maximum electricity that could theoretically be produced – what ultimately matters is generation: the actual electricity produced and delivered. Generation is what drives energy access, shapes supply, and reduces emissions. Boosting capacity is essential, but true progress depends on how effectively that capacity is turned into reliable renewable generation. 

The graph below shows capacity in gigawatts (GW) side-by-side with generation in terrawatt hours (TWh), providing a snapshot of how the selected countries are meeting their energy needs and diversifying their energy mix. The data shows the relative importance of sources like fossil fuels and hydro, with growing sources like solar and wind. It offers insights into each country’s progress towards the 2030 targets.

The graphs also reflect the availability of natural resources in each of the countries – those with fossil fuel resources have tended to rely mainly on them to provide electricity, while other countries have rich renewable resources, particularly hydro.

Fig. 3: Installed capacity and electricity generation, 2024


In the mix: Renewables growth can edge out fossil fuels

Although specific targets for increasing electricity generation capacity from renewable sources exist in LAC, ambitions related to the decarbonisation of the existing installed capacity are often limited.

The graphs below show how the energy mix generated in each country has developed over the last 10 years.

Fig. 4: Share of fuel in electricity generation, 2015-2024 (%)



Wind and solar key partners on the way to 1.5C

Although wind and solar PV currently represent a smaller share of the region’s electricity generation mix than either hydropower or fossil fuels (see above), a shift is under way: over half of the annual capacity additions between 2020 and 2023 were wind and solar projects.

Fig. 5: Wind and solar electricity generation (TWh)

LAC’s renewables boom must not endanger biodiversity

This map plots planned and active solar, wind and bioenergy projects across the region. Each dot is scaled to the capacity of the plant it represents. Click on a dot to see more details of that project’s capacity (MW) and stage of development, as well as a link to the full project page on Global Energy Monitor.

Solar PV and wind will be critical to achieve the targets in LAC, especially as the future growth potential of hydropower – which is not shown on the map – is more constrained by environmental and social concerns. 

Fig. 6: Map of planned and active RE projects (solar, wind and bioenergy)



All RE expansion needs to be undertaken within a safeguard framework to avoid negative impacts on the environment (land use impacts, ecosystem fragmentation) or human rights violations (forced relocation and lack of free, prior, informed consent) that may arise from the use of these technologies. 

The image below shows the map of planned and operational RE projects alongside a map of biodiversity hotspots across the region produced by Resource Watch, using the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund’s classification system. This defines a biodiversity hotspot  as an area that “contains at least 1,500 species of vascular plants found nowhere else on Earth (known as “endemic” species)” and “has lost at least 70% of its primary native vegetation.” This map only shows the land-based portion of the hotspots, and does not include offshore outer limits.

Fig. 7: Maps of renewable energy projects (solar, wind and bioenergy) and biodiversity hotspots


Energy efficiency is key to the energy transition

The global target agreed at COP28 in 2023 is to double the average rate of improvement in global energy efficiency from 2% to 4% a year by 2030. An economy’s energy intensity is the most useful proxy for tracking efficiency gains, as it shows how much energy – measured in megaJoules (MJ) – is supplied to produce one unit of economic output. The lower the number, the more efficiently energy is being used. 

The first graph below shows changes in energy intensity from 2017 to 2021, which is the most recent available for the countries with data. Scroll down to see this data translated into its energy efficiency improvement rate for the period.

Fig. 8: Energy intensity, 2017-2021



LAC has lower energy intensity than any other region in the world except the European Union. However, while other regions have made significant improvements in reducing their energy intensity, rates in LAC remained relatively stable in the 2000-2015 period.

Low energy intensity in the region doesn’t necessarily mean energy is being used efficiently. It reflects limited access to affordable energy or the household appliances and technology that would use this power.

Countries across the region have adopted varied approaches to energy efficiency planning, with a number implementing national strategies or action plans, or being in the process of doing so. The outcomes have been varied. For example, Peru and Chile have seen significant improvements in energy efficiency, while Uruguay has experienced a worsening.

Despite its significant potential, energy efficiency continues to be underexploited due to persistent technical, financial and policy-related obstacles. The indicator for LAC countries has an average annual reduction of 0.4%.

Fig. 9: Energy efficiency improvement rate

Electricity-based clean cooking is vital to health and the planet

Basic energy access remains a challenge in LAC; 3% of people are still without electricity, and 11% rely on polluting fuels for cooking. This has significant impacts on health for the population.

The Health Effects Institute attributes the global decline in deaths from household air pollution partly to expanded access to clean cooking energy, including through wider electricity coverage. 

Continuing this downward trend requires ongoing investment in expanding access to clean power. Achieving universal electricity access and decarbonising power generation in line with national expansion plans across LAC will require investments equal to approximately 0.8% of the region’s GDP each year – equivalent to USD 577.1 billion through 2030, according to the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). 

The set of graphs below chart the level of access to electricity for cooking against household air pollution deaths in each country over the last 30 years. Electric cooking does not result in household air pollution or greenhouse gas emissions if the electricity is generated using renewable resources. 

The graphs for some countries where access to electricity for cooking has expanded over time indicate that there might be a link between using electricity for cooking and a reduction in deaths from household air pollution. However, they do not prove a direct correlation.

Fig. 10: Access to clean energy for cooking & deaths attributable to household air pollution from dirty fuels

Renewable energy is a source of job creation

The tripling of renewable energy capacity by 2030 is expected to create over 30 million new jobs globally, bringing significant socio-economic benefits. Clean energy transitions also present new employment opportunities for workers across the region. Energy sector jobs, particularly in clean energy technologies and the critical minerals sector, are expected to grow by over 15% in the LAC region by 2030.

Fig. 11: Renewable energy job creation

Resourcing the energy transition must consider socio-economic impacts 

The development of clean energy technologies –solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and storage systems, electric vehicles (EV) and various electronic devices – relies on a set of critical minerals of which LAC has significant resources.

The region holds at least a third of the world’s lithium, copper, and silver reserves. Chile has the largest lithium reserves, and Argentina has the third-largest, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Rising demand for these resources as global decarbonisation efforts ramp up presents significant economic opportunities for the region, including the prospect of a structural transformation to become a clean-energy manufacturing hub. But it also presents the risk of becoming another avenue of resource extraction with little added value for the region and potentially serious socio-environmental impacts if the mineral supply chain is not managed effectively. 

Investment over the last two decades has been concentrated in extraction, with less emphasis on developing local capacity to manufacture lithium batteries or the electric vehicles they would power. There are currently two operational battery plants in the region, with another being built and five more announced. 

Driven by access to mineral resources and supportive policies for domestic clean vehicle production, Chinese automakers are preparing to begin assembling electric vehicles in Latin America starting in 2025 in Brazil. However, it is unclear to what extent this investment will support local development. Concerns have been raised over labour abuses at one facility and its final impact on job creation has been questioned. 

In terms of consumption of green transport, 2024 marked the strongest year of growth for electric vehicle adoption in Latin America, led by Mexico and Brazil. EVs accounted for over 6% of new passenger car sales in Latin America, up from the previous year’s share of 2%.



Asset managers feeling the heat on climate from pension funds

by

Key points

  • With over USD 73 trillion in global assets, pension funds have significant financial influence on accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy or prolonging the status quo of fossil fuel dependency.
  • About USD 15 trillion of pension fund assets have been delegated to third-party asset managers (AMs), making these companies key players in pension fund investment decisions. 
  • Climate change poses systemic risks to pension investments. Failing to address the risks could lead to a 33% loss in pension returns by 2050, threatening the future income of pension fund members. Conversely, clean energy supply presents a $60 trillion investment opportunity.
  • 200 major pension funds have begun divesting from fossil fuels in an effort to fulfil their fiduciary duty and act in the best interests of their members. However, AMs’ investment decisions for the pension funds they manage often do not reflect these concerns. 
  • Momentum is building among pension funds to hold AMs more responsible for the decisions they make on investing pension assets. Some major funds have recently pulled over USD 100 billion from managers like BlackRock and State Street because their climate strategies did not align with the funds’ long-term interests.

Why pensions matter to financial markets

Pension funds are significant players in the global financial system, holding over USD 73 trillion in assets globally between public and private funds, with the top 300 pension funds managing a combined USD 24.4 trillion at the end of 2024. 

This immense capital gives them substantial power to influence financial flows and drive the transition to a low-carbon economy by investing in climate solutions. However, pension funds also have the power to maintain the status quo by continuing to invest in fossil fuels, deforestation and other activities which harm the climate. 

Pension funds are critical tools for climate action due to their scale and long-term investment horizon.

Why climate change matters for pension funds

Pension funds are vehicles for long-term investments, designed to provide their members with income years or decades into the future. This makes them particularly vulnerable to climate change on a number of levels:

  • Physical risks such as the impacts of extreme weather events are already being experienced but are expected to escalate in the longer term. This means that investment decisions taken now may well become exposed to climate risks, such as sea level rise, that are not yet apparent.
  • Transition risks such as policy changes to mitigate climate change, which can in turn mean that some carbon-intensive assets such as coal power plants become obsolete before the end of their planned operating lives (known as stranded assets), while increasingly cheap new technologies such as renewables undercut ‘traditional’ energy sources.
  • Liability risks from potential litigation resulting from climate damage can lead to both financial and reputational damage.

Taken together, the interrelated nature of these risks poses a systemic risk to the global financial system, including to the value of pension funds, as climate impacts increase. 

The economic impacts of climate change are already being experienced. A 2024 study for the International Chamber of Commerce found that extreme weather events cost the global economy more than USD 2 trillion between 2014 and 2023, with USD 451 of this occurring in the final two years of the study period. As climate change accelerates, these costs are also expected to increase. Estimates vary, but a recent study found that a permanent 1°C of global warming reduces world GDP by over 20% in the long run.

The economic implications of climate change for pension funds in the longer term could be severe. A recent study by Ortec Finance, a financial modelling company, found that pension funds could lose 33% of their returns by 2050 in a high global warming scenario based on current trajectories. 

How climate change matters for pension holders

There are two main types of pension funds. Defined contribution (DC) pensions are private pensions where employees determine their level of contribution and the market determines their returns. Employers may contribute to these pension funds, but the primary savers are employees. Defined benefit (DB) pensions are set up and paid into by the employer to guarantee a set income for staff after retirement, normally based on final salary or length of service. Businesses rather than individuals pay into these schemes.

DC pensions are increasingly replacing DB pensions in many developed economies, directly exposing individuals to financial risks linked to how their pension funds’ investments perform. The financial impacts of climate change may therefore adversely affect the level of income that people receive from their DC pension.

DB pension holders are, in theory, more shielded from direct financial exposure, since pension fund payouts are set at specific, predefined levels. However, the funds themselves remain just as exposed to the financial risks of valuation loss due to climate change. If their assets do not generate sufficient returns, these funds risk being unable to pay out promised pension levels.

Understanding how ESG fits in pension funds’ fiduciary duty

The primary aim of pensions is to provide a level of income in later life. Most pension funds (asset owners) have a legal and ethical ‘fiduciary duty’ which can include the obligation to act in the best interests of their members. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) issues are playing an increasing role in many asset owners’ decision-making, in part because of the need to fulfil their fiduciary duty to provide their members with income over long timescales despite the threats posed by climate change.

The future security of pension funds will be eroded if returns are undermined by economic decline. But the implications of this are greater than just financial security. Adequate pensions can help avoid the stress and mental health issues associated with financial insecurity in later life as well as helping people avoid social isolation. In addition, the ability of older people to spend pension income contributes to economic growth. 

However, it is possible for pension funds to use their power in financial markets to reduce future climate-driven risks while also delivering for their members. S&P Global estimates that up to USD 60 trillion in cumulative investment will be needed in clean energy supply between now and 2050, presenting real financial opportunities while also reducing climate emissions. Investing in sustainable technologies makes strategic sense as they can produce higher dividends with lower risks. 

It is clear that pension funds increasingly recognise their role in shaping investment in future energy systems. As of the end of 2025, 200 pension funds across Europe, North America and Australia have begun to move away from fossil fuel investments, according to the Disinvestment Database. Although only one fund (Nest Foundation Collective in Switzerland) has no investment in the fossil fuel industry, 125 other funds have made binding commitments to divest fossil fuels from their portfolios by a specific deadline. A further 74 funds have set a binding deadline to move away from some types of fossil fuels.

Pension funds and asset managers

Pension funds delegate some or all of their investment decisions to asset managers (AMs), giving AMs significant control over how pension funds’ vast capital is deployed. The relationship between the two is crucial for effective climate action.

Like pension funds, AMs have a duty to manage the funds they are responsible for in a way that meets their clients’ financial goals and upholds their own fiduciary duty to the asset owners. AMs can influence the companies they invest in through voting at Annual General Meetings, direct engagement or choosing not to invest at all. 

However, AMs’ positions on sustainability may not always reflect the position of asset owners, including pension funds. AM companies take different levels of action on decarbonisation, with many continuing to invest in companies which develop or use fossil fuel resources. This means investment policies on climate change do not always reflect the climate values or risk tolerance of their asset owners. 

For example, a review by Reclaim Finance of 30 top US and European AMs found they had invested at least USD 16.9  billion in bonds issued by fossil fuel developers between January 2024 and June 2025. Only two of these AMs have committed to stop most of their new investments in oil and gas producers’ bonds.

Pension funds need to demand that their AMs adopt robust stewardship strategies that push companies toward a low-carbon transition, rather than merely using ‘engagement’ as a cover for continued fossil fuel investment. In an effort to align expectations on this, 35 pension funds have signed a letter setting out how they expect AMs to develop urgent strategies to address climate change. 

How are people making pensions work for the climate?

Individual members of large pension schemes cannot typically vote on investment decisions or directly influence AMs. However, collective voices and public campaigns have forced shifts in pension funds’ policies and asset allocation, as well as their regulatory focus.

A key example is the Make My Money Matter campaign in the UK, which mobilised people around the message that, in terms of cutting carbon, greening one’s pension is 21 times more powerful than switching energy, giving up flying, and going vegetarian combined. By raising awareness of the influence pension funds could have over climate action and ranking the performance of individual pension fund companies, the campaign helped get a commitment to meaningful net-zero targets from more than 60 pension funds representing more than GBP 1.5 trillion.

Recent actions by pension funds

The momentum is building behind pension funds holding AMs to account for their positions on climate change. Recent developments have removed over USD 100 billion from AMs because of the mismatch between pension funds and AMs on climate change and stewardship:

World energy ice creams

by

The following text went straight to our readers’ inboxes and is now available here for your interest. If you’re not a subscriber yet, sign up via the subscribe button in the top right corner.

Hello readers,

This will be my last month sending you this newsletter as I’m moving on from Zero Carbon Analytics at the end of the year – you can keep in touch with me via LinkedIn. I’ve really enjoyed producing these and found it incredibly useful to tie together the news stories of the month into a (slightly) bigger picture – I hope you’ve found them useful too. I’ll be passing the pen over to my colleague Nick Hedley who will be keeping the newsletter running next year.

November saw the release of the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) annual World Energy Outlook, which reportedly heralded either 25 years of growing demand for oil and gas or the end of the fossil fuel era, depending on where you read your news. COP almost addressed the biggest cause of climate change, but then normal operations resumed and fossil fuels were once again left out of the conclusions. Thankfully a coalition of the willing will take on international efforts for a transition away from fossil fuels. All that and more in this month’s edition.

As a reminder of why this all matters, fossil fuel emissions reached another record in 2025 with coal, oil and gas contributing equally to the rise in emissions. The remaining carbon budget for 1.5C is just four years at current emissions levels.

Please share this newsletter with your colleagues and contacts who can subscribe here. 

Thanks,

Murray

Oil and gas in the transition

COP fails on fossils but launches a coalition of the willing

At COP 30 we learned that, unfortunately, the petrostates are more resolute than the climate ambitious countries when it comes to whether to accept an outcome that does, or doesn’t, mention fossil fuels. Despite 29 countries saying they would reject a COP outcome that didn’t include fossil fuels, all had swung behind a text that omitted the biggest cause of the climate crisis by the end of the summit. Fingers were pointed at Saudi Arabia, Russia and the more than 1,600 lobbyists linked to fossil fuel interests for blocking progress at the talks. It turns out that those pushing for action would ultimately rather see climate multilateralism inch forward at the expense of more ambition.

While unanimity within the COP process brought the lowest common denominator to negotiations, the summit also saw 24 countries back the first global conference on the transition away from fossil fuels. This coalition of the willing, which extends beyond the usual suspects to include major producers like Australia and Mexico, could prove a crucial model for international progress on a fossil fuel phaseout in parallel to the official COP negotiations. When drawing up their roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels, negotiators may want to take a look at our analysis of how much more quickly advanced economies need to phase out the use of oil and gas for an equitable pathway to 1.5C.

World energy ice creams

To the casual reader, the news coverage of this year’s World Energy Outlook (WEO) from the IEA appeared impossible to reconcile. Did it say that oil and gas demand would rise for 25 years, as reported in the FT, or that cheap renewables would seal the end of the fossil fuel era, as seen in the Guardian? Could both stories really be based on the same report?

With the IEA’s press release apparently desperate to avoid any kind of narrative, a victim of the competing pressures on the agency from the US and its other members, it was left to journalists to attempt to find a story in the 519-page report. Some focused on the IEA’s reintroduction of the badly named “Current Policies Scenario”, which – despite what the FT reported – is not in any way a continuation of current trends, but instead lays out what would happen if all governments stopped implementing climate policies and technological change slowed to a glacial pace. This scenario, introduced at the behest of the Trump administration, would indeed result in oil and gas demand growing for decades.

Yet away from the fossil fuel industry’s fever dream scenario, the WEO highlighted that in all scenarios renewables are set to grow faster than any other energy source. Total fossil fuel use is still set to peak before 2030, and there will be a significant glut of LNG with no apparent buyers, unless governments radically change course.

The WEO also affirmed that limiting warming to 1.5C is still possible, although now with a high level of “overshoot” (temperatures above 1.5C) before bringing temperatures back down to that target. Bringing temperatures down is no small task. The negative carbon technologies required use significant resources, including a land area bigger than Peru to grow – and burn – the crops for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). In addition, solar panels would need to be deployed over an area larger than Belgium to power direct air capture (DAC) to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. All of this CO2 removal would cost upwards of a not insignificant USD 850 billion a year. If the world is serious about limiting warming to 1.5C, then every extra tonne of carbon that’s emitted will have to be removed later – at a staggering cost. It also shows that we’re well past the point of easy solutions – smooth pathways to a safe climate future without negative emissions no longer exist.

As one anonymous energy analyst put it, “energy scenarios are like ice cream: they come in many flavours and you’ll always find one that suits your taste”. The WEO only offers a set of options of what the future could look like, not a crystal ball to the future.

Chinese production booms, while demand stagnates

Chinese state-owned PetroChina has been the world’s top spender on oil drilling and exploration over the last five years, as part of a national drive to increase domestic production. Although China remains a huge gas importer, it has become the world’s fourth-largest gas producer and some analysts expect that its domestic gas production will outpace demand growth by the end of the decade – further reducing its demand for LNG imports. Imports are already set to fall some 5% this year, with signs that gas demand has now decoupled from GDP growth. This would have a huge impact on the many companies and countries that hope China will be a major growth market for LNG exports.

Oil demand for transport in China has also continued to decline as a result of the huge growth of EVs, with the expansion of the chemical industry responsible for the 2% rise in oil consumption. Chinese EVs aren’t just cutting oil demand domestically – the country is sending record exports to Europe, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, while Africa recorded a 184% increase in imports in the first nine months of 2025 compared with the previous year. Although consolidation is expected in the Chinese EV industry, this data shows that the growth in EV sales isn’t limited to traditional markets like Europe or China.

Trump expands drilling and financing fossil fuels

The US Interior Department is proposing oil and gas offshore licensing sales across an area more than half the size of the United States. The enormous proposed expansion of drilling areas is likely to set up the Trump administration for a huge range of fights, including with California Governor Gavin Newsom, Florida Republicans concerned about the impact on tourism, as well as those worried about risks to military activities in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico and environmental risks of drilling in the Arctic off Alaska. Environmental groups have already challenged plans for further drilling in the Gulf of Mexico for failing to adhere to the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act.

The US is also setting its sights on selling fossil fuels abroad, announcing that the US Export-Import Bank would invest USD 100 billion focused on bringing “US energy molecules to every corner of the globe”. Financing projects that will import US LNG is set to be a major focus of the fund, alongside building supply chains for critical minerals and promoting nuclear power.

LNG is slowing Asia’s energy transition, Canada doubles down on exports to Asia

A confidential report by Deloitte for the Western Australian government concluded that its gas exports carry “substantial risks” of slowing the transition to clean energy in Asia. Rather than reducing emissions by displacing coal, as its proponents usually argue, the report found that gas exports came with the risk of establishing a long-term dependency that slows the region’s decarbonisation.

These concerns don’t seem to have weighed on Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney, who wants to double the country’s LNG output through a new round of “nation-building projects.” In addition to doubling output from the existing LNG Canada project, the government is also backing the Ksi Lisims LNG terminal, both aiming to export Canadian gas to Asia.

At the end of the month Carney, once a former UN special envoy for climate change, went even further, scrapping a planned emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, dropping rules on clean energy and backing a million-barrel-per-day oil pipeline to the Pacific coast. In return, the oil and gas industry agreed to cooperate on building a large carbon capture and storage project. You really couldn’t make it up. The PM has now lost a Cabinet member over the deal, the Premier of British Columbia opposes the pipeline and Indigenous groups have vowed to oppose its construction. Expect many more battles as this saga unfolds. 

No North Sea exploration in the UK

The UK government has confirmed its manifesto commitment to stop oil and gas exploration in the North Sea. It did however decide to allow new extraction projects to go ahead where they link into existing offshore infrastructure, known as “tiebacks.” In practice this exemption is unlikely to make much of a  difference to the long-term decline in output from the basin; there could be as little as 45 million barrels of oil equivalent within 50km of existing production sites, less than a tenth of the size of the controversial Rosebank field, according to the NGO Uplift.

Energy transition strategies

After massively increasing its ‘low carbon’ spending plans last year, ExxonMobil’s CEO Darren Woods has indicated the company is set to row back that commitment before the end of the year. It had previously planned to spend USD 30 billion on clean energy projects up to 2030, which placed it ahead of European rivals like BP and Shell. Woods now says that consumer demand and government policies haven’t matched their expectations.

ExxonMobil has also formed an unholy alliance with chemicals giant BASF and fossil fuel financiers BlackRock in an attempt to rewrite the rules on measuring greenhouse gas emissions. Unsurprisingly, they don’t like being held responsible for the emissions from the products they produce and sell – known as Scope 3 emissions. Instead they want to shift that responsibility onto consumers, and replace absolute emissions measurement with intensity metrics. A genuinely terrible and self-serving set of proposals.

Saudi Aramco is continuing its pivot to gas, aiming to increase production by 80 per cent by the end of the decade. It is due to start operating the giant new Jafurah shale field in the coming weeks as it seeks to diversify away from oil. The company hopes that by producing more gas it can protect itself from the risks of declining demand for oil, while providing power for a new fleet of gas-fired power plants in the kingdom.

TotalEnergies is continuing its push into gas-fired electricity generation, with a EUR 5.1 billion deal for a 50% stake in 14 GW of power plants in Europe. The deal with Czech company EPH, which owned the power plants, will also see EPH become one of TotalEnergies largest shareholders. TotalEnergies CEO said that he hoped the deal would increase returns to shareholders by generating more cash than its existing renewables generation projects.

Clean energy investments

TotalEnergies has secured a 15-year agreement to supply Google’s data centres in Ohio with 1.5 TWh (terawatt hours) of electricity from a solar farm. Despite all the hype on data centres and gas in the US, renewables are forecast to provide nearly as much additional electricity for the sector as gas up until the end of the decade.

Hydrogen and ammonia

You’ll need your hydrogen colour chart handy for this one, as ExxonMobil has announced a new turquoise hydrogen project at its huge Baytown complex, in partnership with BASF. The project will use methane pyrolysis technology, which converts methane (usually from natural gas) into hydrogen and solid carbon. It’s a newer technology that isn’t yet commercially deployed, which on paper has some significant advantages. As it produces solid carbon, it doesn’t need expensive and inefficient carbon capture technology and emits no carbon dioxide. It also uses less electricity than green hydrogen and doesn’t require water. However, as it uses natural gas (and more of it than traditional hydrogen production), its lifecycle emissions are linked to methane emissions in the gas supply chain, meaning it is estimated to have emissions about five times higher than green hydrogen.

The announcement of this new demonstration plant was quickly followed by the news that ExxonMobil was freezing its previous plans for a giant blue hydrogen project at the same site. The company blamed weak demand for its decision, though I think that the Trump administration cutting over USD 300 million in subsidies for the project earlier in the year could have been the decisive factor. 

From Zero Carbon Analytics

Our breakdown of oil and gas industry investment since the Paris Agreement shows it has spent 46 times more on upstream supply than on clean energy. The industry also spent 32 times more money on oil and gas exploration than on the “crucial enabler” of carbon capture and storage. 

There have been a staggering 5.5 oil incidents per day in Brazil on average over the last decade, including accidents and “almost accidents”. Yet this may only be the tip of the iceberg for the Americas; the quality, detail and accessibility of reporting across the continent means that the scale of oil incidents from production and transport infrastructure is hidden from public view.

Renewables provide an additional one-fifth or more of all electricity in 20 countries since the Paris Agreement

by

Key points

  • Since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, installed renewable electricity capacity has increased 2.4 times globally, shifting the energy sources that underpin daily electricity use away from fossil fuels.
  • Between 2015 and now, 20 countries have increased their share of renewables in electricity consumption by 20 percentage points or more. 
  • In the Netherlands, wind and solar now power half of the nation’s electricity needs, compared to 11% a decade ago. In Chile, renewable energy has surged from supplying less than half of electricity in 2015 to powering seven out of 10 homes and businesses today. 
  • Increases in the share of renewables in electricity consumption are also paired with improved energy security and access. In island nations like the Cook Islands, Kiribati and Martinique, solar installations have reduced reliance on fossil fuel imports. In Liberia, renewables accounted for 70% of new electricity capacity and helped double access to electricity over the past decade.

Since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015, renewable energy has experienced significant global expansion. Total installed electricity capacity of renewables has increased 2.4 times, from 1,851 gigawatts (GW) in 2015 to 4,448 GW in 2024. Electricity generated from renewables has risen by over 78% globally since 2015, reaching 9,837 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2024. 

However, the impact of renewable energy growth on everyday life can often seem distant. Focusing on the share of renewables in electricity consumption makes this tangible, as it shows how much of the power running through homes, businesses, hospitals and industries each day – from switching on lights to powering devices and appliances – actually comes from renewables.1The share of renewables in electricity is likely not exactly the same for industrial, commercial and household use, but these figures can give us an indication of the changes happening in each country. For example, in Germany, where this data is available, the share of renewable energy in household electricity consumption was estimated at 54% in 2023, compared to 52.9% in gross electricity consumption. Different factors, such as the presence of large industries or high uptake of household solar PV may cause this to vary in different countries. 

In the past decade, 20 countries have increased their share of renewables in electricity use by 20 percentage points or more (see Figure 1).2For countries outside of the EU, data from Ember on the share of renewable energy in electricity generation was used as a proxy for the share of renewable energy in electricity consumption by excluding all countries that imported more than 1% of their electricity. As domestic generation does not perfectly match consumption due to transmission losses and renewable curtailment, the renewable share in generation may differ slightly from that in consumption. Renewable energy includes wind, solar, bioenergy, hydropower, geothermal, tidal and wave generation. We focus on countries with at least a 20 percentage-point increase because it captures meaningful transformation in how electricity is generated and consumed, as opposed to relative growth rates that can be misleading when starting from very low baseline levels. 

Between 2015 and today, there has been a dramatic shift in the average share of renewable electricity used across the 20 countries. We also expect our findings to be conservative. Figures for 2022, 2023 or 2024 have been used depending on the latest available country data – now, with two or three additional years of growth, higher renewable shares of electricity are likely to have been achieved.

Of the 20 countries, nine shifted at least one-quarter (25%) of their total electricity consumption from fossil fuels to renewables, while 12 now get more than 50% of their electricity from renewable sources. For people living in these countries, the shift is tangible:

  • In the Netherlands, renewable energy grew more than fourfold from 11% of electricity consumption in 2015 to 50% today – a 39 percentage-point increase. Wind and solar now power nearly every other appliance and light across the country, compared to about one in 10 a decade ago. 
  • In Spain, Germany and Finland, renewables now power more than half of appliances, up from only one in three a decade ago.
  • Today, wind and solar power the vast majority of Danish homes and businesses. About half of electricity was already generated from renewable sources in 2015, with that growing to nearly 4 in 5 kilowatt-hours now. 
  • In Chile, renewable energy has surged from supplying less than half of electricity in 2015 to powering seven out of 10 homes and businesses today. 
  • In Greece, renewables have more than doubled from 22% in 2015 to 48% today. Wind and solar now provide almost half of electricity, compared to powering about one in five homes and businesses a decade ago.

Figure 1

Renewable energy’s share in electricity use jumped 16 percentage points in the EU after Paris

Eight of the countries with over 20 percentage-point increases were in the European Union. All countries across the EU have seen, on average, a 16 percentage-point jump in the share of renewable energy in electricity consumption since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015. 

The Netherlands is the country with the largest increase of renewable energy share in electricity use in this time frame, rising 39 percentage points to reach 50% of total electricity consumption. 

In Germany, around a third of the electricity used to power a home in 2015, on average, came from renewable energy sources – this has now jumped to over half. In 2023, 58% of households in Germany opted for a green electricity tariff, up from 19% in 2015. In 2024 alone, Germany installed nearly 20 GW of additional renewable energy capacity, representing a 12% year-on-year increase. 

Denmark’s share of renewable energy in electricity use increased from just over half at the time of the Paris Agreement to 79% as of 2023 – a 28 percentage-point jump. Over the same time period, the renewable share of total energy consumption in Denmark – including non-electrified heating and transport – increased by 15 percentage points.  

In Albania, the gross amount of electricity consumption from renewable sources has surpassed 100%, reaching 105% in 2023. The country now produces more electricity from renewables than it consumes and is a net exporter. This is also the case for Norway, which reached 117% renewable electricity use in 2023.

Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland, alongside Portugal, also showed the highest increase in the share of renewables in primary energy consumption. This covers all energy consumption, not just electricity, including heating, transportation and other uses of fuel. Between 2015 and 2024, the renewable share in primary energy use of these five countries increased by 11 to 16 percentage points. Four other countries (Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Brazil) sourced around half or more of their primary energy consumption from renewables in 2024 – only Iceland and Norway did so in 2015.

Rise in renewable electricity use boosts energy security and access

The highest increase of renewable energy in electricity use was observed in the Cook Islands, which achieved 50% renewable electricity consumption by 2024, up from zero. Like the Cook Islands, solar installations are primarily behind the significant rise in renewable electricity use in the island states of Kiribati and Martinique. The increase in solar, and other renewables like wind, is helping these countries reduce their reliance on fossil fuel imports and enhance their energy security. 

Liberia and Jordan have also seen a steep rise in renewable electricity consumption, up from virtually none in 2015. In Liberia, installed electricity generation capacity increased by over five times from 2014, reaching 126 MW in 2024. Renewable energy accounted for 70% of the capacity increase, and brought a 33 percentage-point jump in renewable electricity use. This has enabled access to electricity to double in the last decade.

The share of renewables in Chile jumped 27 percentage points to reach 70% of current electricity consumption. Solar and wind generation in Chile has increased rapidly, becoming the country’s largest source of electricity. In 2016, these sources accounted for only about 7% of national electricity generation, but increased to 34% by 2024. Chile has the highest share of combined solar and wind energy of all Latin American countries. 

In Sierra Leone, imports of solar panels have helped boost renewable electricity generation. More than 60,000 panels were imported in 2021 alone, with new installed capacity contributing to a 15% increase in solar electricity generation. The share of renewables in electricity used daily in Sierra Leone is now 95%.

  • 1
    The share of renewables in electricity is likely not exactly the same for industrial, commercial and household use, but these figures can give us an indication of the changes happening in each country. For example, in Germany, where this data is available, the share of renewable energy in household electricity consumption was estimated at 54% in 2023, compared to 52.9% in gross electricity consumption. Different factors, such as the presence of large industries or high uptake of household solar PV may cause this to vary in different countries. 
  • 2
    For countries outside of the EU, data from Ember on the share of renewable energy in electricity generation was used as a proxy for the share of renewable energy in electricity consumption by excluding all countries that imported more than 1% of their electricity. As domestic generation does not perfectly match consumption due to transmission losses and renewable curtailment, the renewable share in generation may differ slightly from that in consumption. Renewable energy includes wind, solar, bioenergy, hydropower, geothermal, tidal and wave generation.

Dekarbonizacja drogą do przewagi konkurencyjnej Polski

by

This briefing is also available in English.

Kluczowe wnioski   

  • Dekarbonizacja może być kluczową drogą do uzyskania przewagi konkurencyjnej przez polskie przedsiębiorstwa. Oferuje możliwości wykraczające poza redukcję emisji, mowa tu o obniżeniu kosztów, zwiększeniu produktywności i strategicznym pozycjonowanie rynkowym.
  • Transformacja energetyczna jest dla Polski polityczną rzeczywistością, zarówno na poziomie krajowym, jak i unijnym. Firmy i gospodarki mogą wyprzedzić konkurencję, przechodząc na technologie niskoemisyjne, wykorzystując zmiany w polityce i unikając kosztów związanych z emisjami.
  • Wysokoemisyjna, energochłonna gospodarka Polski powoduje, że koszty energii dla przedsiębiorstw są wyższe w porównaniu z innymi krajami UE. Pod koniec 2024 r. Polska miała czwarte najwyższe ceny energii elektrycznej w UE dla odbiorców niebędących gospodarstwami domowymi, a pod koniec 2023 r. czwarte najwyższe ceny gazu.
  • Szacuje się, że system handlu uprawnieniami do emisji UE (ETS) będzie kosztował polskie przedsiębiorstwa 8 mld USD w 2022 r. Do 2030 r. kwota ta może wzrosnąć do 40 mld USD. Dekarbonizacja gospodarki pozwoliłaby przedsiębiorstwom uniknąć kosztów energii i ETS oraz zwiększyć konkurencyjność gospodarczą kraju. 
  • Bank Światowy szacuje, że osiągnięcie zerowej emisji netto spowoduje wzrost PKB kraju o około 0,2% rocznie do 2050 r., co oznacza skumulowany wzrost PKB o 4% do 2050 r. w porównaniu z wynikami, które można by osiągnąć przy obecnej polityce.
  • Dla polskich przedsiębiorstw poprawa efektywności energetycznej może przynieść znaczne oszczędności kosztów, a niektóre firmy mogą osiągnąć łączne oszczędności rzędu 40–60% w perspektywie długoterminowej.
  • Tania energia odnawialna może pomóc obniżyć rachunki za prąd dla polskich firm. Ceny z projektów wiatrowych i słonecznych, które wygrały ostatnie rządowe aukcje energii odnawialnej, oraz z umów zakupu energii (PPA) między firmami a producentami energii odnawialnej są znacznie niższe od ogólnych hurtowych cen energii. 
  • Przejrzystość emisji i dekarbonizacji mogą pomóc polskim przedsiębiorstwom wyróżnić się na tle konkurencji, ponieważ konsumenci coraz częściej poszukują produktów zgodnych z zasadami ochrony klimatu.

Polska, handel i dekarbonizacja

Handel jest ważnym wskaźnikiem konkurencyjności i kondycji gospodarczej kraju na rynku globalnym. Nadwyżka handlowa może sygnalizować silny popyt na towary i usługi danego kraju, co prowadzi do wzrostu produkcji krajowej i wzrostu zatrudnienia. Z kolei utrzymujący się deficyt handlowy, w którym import przewyższa eksport, sugeruje, że kraj konsumuje więcej niż produkuje, co może osłabić jego walutę i zwiększyć zależność od pożyczek zagranicznych.

Handel międzynarodowy ma istotny wpływ na gospodarkę Polski. Kraj jest eksporterem netto zarówno towarów, jak i usług, ale tylko w niewielkim stopniu. W 2024 r. wyeksportował towary o wartości 380,3 mld USD, a importował towary o wartości 379,5 mld USD. Różnica jest bardziej wyraźna w przypadku usług, gdzie wyeksportowano usługi o wartości 118,4 mld USD, a importowano usługi o wartości 75,1 mld USD.1Usługi to działania niematerialne, a nie dobra materialne. Przykładami są doradztwo, korzystanie z call center oraz działalność informatyczna dozwolona przez centra danych. Polska staje się regionalnym liderem w obu tych dziedzinach.centra telefoniczne I centra danych. W 2024 r. prawie 74% polskiego eksportu pozostało w obrębie UE, co stanowi jeden z najwyższych odsetków w bloku, a głównym partnerem eksportowym w zakresie towarów były Niemcy (103 mld USD).2Wyższe wyniki osiągnęły jedynie Czechy, Estonia, Węgry i Luksemburg.

Polska może zwiększyć swój eksport i poprawić bilans handlowy, zyskując przewagę konkurencyjną nad innymi krajami. Przewaga konkurencyjna wynika z czynników, które sprawiają, że produkty lub usługi firmy są dla klientów bardziej atrakcyjne niż produkty lub usługi konkurencji. Dzięki temu firma może generować większą sprzedaż lub wyższe marże oraz pozyskiwać i zatrzymywać większą liczbę klientów. Towary i usługi wytwarzane przez te firmy przyczyniają się do poprawy bilansu handlowego i PKB kraju.

Czynniki wpływające na przewagę konkurencyjną mogą być ilościowe, takie jak koszty produkcji i cena, lub jakościowe, taki jak unikalność lub jakość produktu lub usługi. Firma może również zyskać przewagę konkurencyjną dzięki bardzo wąskiej specjalizacji ukierunkowanej na konkretny rynek (ramka 1).

Niniejszy briefing wyjaśnia, w jaki sposób dekarbonizacja może stanowić drogę do uzyskania przewagi konkurencyjnej dla Polski i polskich przedsiębiorstw. Dekarbonizacja stwarza możliwości biznesowe poprzez redukcję kosztów, poprawę produktywności i pomoc polskim firmom w wyróżnieniu się wśród klientów coraz bardziej świadomych zmian klimatu. Wszystkie te aspekty mogą pomóc polskim przedsiębiorstwom i przemysłowi w budowaniu przewagi konkurencyjnej na dynamicznie rozwijającym się rynku globalnym.

Forum Odpowiedzialnego Biznesu i Instytut Zielonej Gospodarki przeprowadziły rozmowy z pięcioma polskimi przedsiębiorstwami uczestniczącymi w różnych formach w procesie dekarbonizacji. Tak na potrzeby niniejszego raportu powstały studia przypadków firm: Galmet, Kompania Piwowarska, Maxpro, ORLEN S.A. i ZPUE.3Wywiady i oświadczenia były w języku polskim, automatycznie tłumaczone na język angielski i ręcznie weryfikowane.

Ramka 1: Obniżanie kosztów i różnicowanie to strategie zapewniające przewagę konkurencyjną

Koncepcję przewagi konkurencyjnej sformułował Michał Porter w 1990 roku. Stała się ona podstawową strategią dla przedsiębiorstw.

Porter przedstawia dwa podstawowe sposoby, dzięki którym firma może uzyskać przewagę konkurencyjną: niskie koszty lub zróżnicowanie produktów (rysunek 1). W zależności od tego, czy firma ma szeroki, czy wąski zakres działalności, może to prowadzić do trzech sposobów osiągnięcia przewagi konkurencyjnej: przywództwo kosztowe, różnicowanie i koncentracja na różnicowaniu kosztów. 

Różnicowanie oznacza, że ​​firma staje się wyjątkowa w swojej branży w sposób, który jest ceniony przez nabywców, na przykład poprzez pozycjonowanie się jako jedyna firma, która może zaspokoić określony zestaw potrzeb, takich jak trwałość, obsługa klienta czy wizerunek produktu. Firma może wówczas pobierać wyższą cenę za swój produkt, ponieważ jej oferta jest unikatowa.

Aby uzyskać przewagę konkurencyjną tymi drogami, firmy będą musiały wykazać się innowacyjnością, wdrażając nowe technologie i praktyki.

Rysunek 1

Dekarbonizacja polityczną rzeczywistością Polski i UE

Przedsiębiorstwa w Polsce działają w kontekście, w którym działania na rzecz klimatu na szczeblu krajowym i międzynarodowym stają się coraz bardziej powszechne. Ta strategiczna zmiana już się rozpoczęła, przy globalnych inwestycjach w moce produkcyjne w zakresie technologii czystych i energooszczędnych rosnących między 2022 a 2023 rokiem o 67%.

Polska w ramach działań klimatycznych UE zobowiązała się do osiągnięcia zerowej emisji, a także przyłączyła się do ogłoszonej na COP28 deklaracji potrojenia odnawialnych źródeł energii i podwojenia efektywności energetycznej. Wdrożono polityki i przepisy, które mają na celu dotrzymanie tych obietnic i dokonuje się rewizji strategii określonej w Polityce Energetycznej Polski do 2040 roku.

Aktualizacja polskiego Krajowego Planu na rzecz Energii i Klimatu z lipca 2025 r., określa cel redukcji emisji gazów cieplarnianych o 53,9% w porównaniu z poziomem bazowym z 1990 r. do 2030 r..4Państwa członkowskie UE są zobowiązane do przedłożenia swoich planów wkładu w realizację celów klimatycznych UE w formie Krajowych Planów Energii i Klimatu (KPEiK). Polska jest jednym z trzech państw członkowskich (Belgia, Estonia i Polska), którenie przesłano jeszcze ostatecznej wersji swoich planów krajowychdo Komisji Europejskiej. Osiągnięcie tego celu będzie wiązało się ze zwiększeniem udziału energii odnawialnej w zużyciu energii elektrycznej do 51,8% i poprawą efektywności energetycznej gospodarki poprzez zmniejszenie końcowego zużycia energii o około 12,8% (58,5 Mtoe) do 2030 r.

Odnawialne źródła energii już zapewniają około 30% energii elektrycznej w Polsce w porównaniu z około 13% w 2015 r. Wynika to częściowo z szybkiego wzrostu energii słonecznej PV, która w 2024 r. wygenerowała prawie 9% energii elektrycznej w Polsce w porównaniu z niecałym 1% w 2019 r. Oczekuje się, że ogólna produkcja energii ze źródeł odnawialnych osiągnie znaczący wzrost dzięki uruchomieniu morskiej farmy wiatrowej Baltic Power o mocy 1,2 GW w 2026 roku, co ma zapewnić produkcję ok. 3% energii elektrycznej w Polsce.

Polityka klimatyczna i energetyczna kraju jest w coraz większym stopniu kształtowana przez działania na szczeblu UE. Pakiet legislacyjny „Fit for 55” obejmuje środki dotyczące odnawialnych źródeł energii, efektywności energetycznej i unijnego systemu handlu uprawnieniami do emisji (ETS), mające na celu zmniejszenie emisji gazów cieplarnianych w UE o 55% do 2030 r. i osiągnięcie neutralności klimatycznej do 2050 r.

W przyszłości można spodziewać się dalszych podobnych działań na szczeblu krajowym i międzynarodowym, ponieważ skutki zmian klimatu stają się coraz bardziej widoczne. Zmiany wymagane przez wspomniane przepisy mogą stanowić wyzwanie dla polskich przedsiębiorstw i przemysłu, ale firmy, które podejmą działania na rzecz dekarbonizacji już teraz mogą uniknąć rosnących kosztów emisji dwutlenku węgla i uzyskać przewagę konkurencyjną nad firmami, które transformują się wolniej.

Zmiany polityki stwarzają również możliwości: Plan przemysłowy Zielonego Ładu ma na celu zwiększenie konkurencyjności unijnych sektorów przemysłu o zerowej emisji netto. W ramach tego pakietu Akt w sprawie przemysłu neutralnego emisyjnie wyznacza cel, zgodnie z którym do 2030 r. co najmniej 40 % technologii neutralnych pod względem emisji netto stosowanych w UE powinno być produkowanych w UE.  

Ramka 2: System EU ETS oznacza, że ​​działalność powodująca zanieczyszczenie będzie kosztować więcej

System handlu emisjami UE (ETS) ustala limit emisji gazów cieplarnianych z instalacji o wysokiej emisji. Limit ten jest corocznie obniżany zgodnie z prawem klimatycznym UE.5Obecna roczna redukcja limitu wynosi obecnie 4,3% i wzrośnie do4,4% od 2028 r.. A nowy system handlu emisjami, znany jako ETS2obejmujące budynki, transport drogowy i inne sektory, w tym drobny przemysł, będą obowiązywać od 2027/2028 r.

Firmy objęte systemem ETS mogą otrzymać lub kupić uprawnienia, z których każde odpowiada jednej tonie ekwiwalentu CO2. Uprawnienia te mogą być przedmiotem obrotu – jeśli firma emituje mniej niż wynosi jej indywidualny limit, może sprzedać nadwyżkę uprawnień innym firmom, tworząc dodatkowe źródło dochodu dla firm redukujących emisje. Firmy, które emitują więcej niż wynosi ich limit, muszą kupić dodatkowe uprawnienia, ponosząc dodatkowe koszty wynikające z emisji.

Cena, jaką firmy mogą uzyskać za sprzedaż nadwyżek uprawnień lub jaką muszą zapłacić za zakup dodatkowych, zmienia się w zależności od poziomu podaży i popytu – im wyższy popyt, tym wyższa cena. Obecnie ceny uprawnień wahają się pomiędzy 60 i 70 EUR/tCO2e.

Wraz ze spadkiem ogólnego limitu emisji, oczekuje się, że cena uprawnień wzrośnie dla firm, które chcą emitować więcej. To zachęci firmy do inwestowania w praktyki niskoemisyjne, aby uniknąć konieczności zakupu uprawnień, co potencjalnie pozwoli im również wykorzystać nadwyżkę uprawnień do generowania przychodów.

Obecnie polska energetyka charakteryzuje się stosunkowo wysoką emisją dwutlenku węgla w porównaniu z innymi krajami UE, co oznacza, że ​​polskie firmy płacą więcej uprawnień w ramach ETS niż wielu konkurentów. Wpływ ETS na ceny energii dla polskich przedsiębiorstw można ograniczyć poprzez poprawę efektywności energetycznej i dekarbonizację miksu energetycznego.

Polska mogłaby znaleźć się w dobrej pozycji, aby wykorzystać możliwości, jakie daje akt w sprawie przemysłu UE neutralnego emisyjnie UE i niedawne Globalna wizja klimatyczna i energetyczna UE. Kraj osiągnął już sukces w użyciu technologii i produkcji komponentów niskoemisyjnych, w tym komponentów do turbin wiatrowych, technologii solarnych, pomp ciepła, bezemisyjnych autobusów i komponentów do pojazdów elektrycznych. Polska osiągnęła siódme miejsce na świecie we Wskaźniku zielonej złożoności, który ocenia konkurencyjność państw na podstawie liczby i zaawansowania technicznego wytwarzanych w nich produktów. Polska uzyskała również dobre wyniki w indeksie Green Complexity Potential Index, który mierzy potencjał krajów do dywersyfikacji w kierunku zielonych, złożonych produktów w przyszłości, zajmując ponownie 7. miejsce.

Studium przypadku firmy: Galmet

Wywiad z Robertem Galarą, prezesem.

„Kiedy kilkanaście lat temu zauważyliśmy wielki rozwój pomp ciepła, fotowoltaiki, solarów za granicą, zwłaszcza w zachodniej Europie, było dla nas naturalne, że odpowiemy na te zmiany. Wiedzieliśmy, że zbiornik ciepłej wody używany przy kotle na węgiel, pellet czy olej opałowy, może równie dobrze działać przy pompie ciepła, wymaga to jedynie jego przemodelowania. Ten impuls z Europy wywołał w nas chęć wprowadzenia tego rodzaju produktów na polski rynek.” – mówi Galara.

„Mieliśmy ambicję dorównania Zachodowi, bo skoro tam się to sprzedaje, to dlaczego nie pokazać tego w Polsce i z dumą napisać na produkcie “Made in Poland”?”

„Fakt, że możemy wytwarzać w Polsce bardzo dobre produkty, oparte o współczesną technologię, która do tego nie zanieczyszcza środowiska i jest zgodna z kierunkiem rozwoju Unii Europejskiej, elektryfikującej ogrzewanie w oparciu o OZE, to jest dodatkowy plus.”

Galara zwraca uwagę, że Galmet jest największym pracodawcą w powiecie głubczyckim, mimo że zatrudnienie w ostatnich latach spadło. Jego zdaniem spadek ten wynika ze osłabienia rynku od początku 2023 roku. Głównymi przyczynami są nierówna konkurencja z producentami spoza Europy, pomijająca jakość a oparta wyłącznie na kryteriach cenowych, a także niewłaściwe kryteria oceny jakości towarów i usług w ramach państwowych programów dopłat. Prowadzi to do niskiej jakości instalacji, co przekłada się na negatywny wizerunek sprzedaży pomp ciepła.

Sugeruje, że wsparcie rozwoju polskiej produkcji pomp ciepła mogłoby być zapewnione poprzez programy mające na celu zwalczanie ubóstwa energetycznego, przy czym cena nie powinna być jedynym czynnikiem decydującym o przyznaniu zamówień w ramach takich programów. Wymaganie, aby urządzenia były produkowane w Europie – najlepiej w Polsce – wraz z certyfikatami i standardami produkcyjnymi w zakresie zamówień publicznych, mogłoby pomóc chronić polskich producentów przed tanią, niskiej jakości konkurencją:

„To jest ostatnia szansa, żebyśmy jako kraj zostali znaczącym producentem pomp ciepła. Jeśli tego nie zrobimy, stracimy niepowtarzalną szansę, a zyski z produkcji tego typu produktów zasilą budżety Państw zachodnich czy Chin”.

O firmie

Galmet jest rodzinną firmą z 43 lat doświadczenia w produkcji urządzeń grzewczych i ciepłej wody użytkowej wykorzystujących technologie odnawialne. Oferta firmy obejmuje pompy ciepła, kolektory słoneczne, systemy akumulacji ciepła oraz systemy odzysku ciepła przeznaczone do domów jednorodzinnych, budynków wielorodzinnych oraz budynków użyteczności publicznej. Zatrudnia około 700 osób.

Polskie firmy płacą wysokie ceny za gaz i prąd

Mimo spadku w ostatnich latach, węgiel, gaz i inne paliwa kopalne nadal stanowiły ponad 70% polskiej produkcji energii elektrycznej w 2024 r. i ponad 83% całkowitego zużycia energii w kraju. Duże uzależnienie od paliw kopalnych sprawia, że ​​Polska jest podatna na skoki cen tych paliw, zagrożenia dla bezpieczeństwa energetycznego kraju, a także powoduje przerzucanie opłat z tytułu EU ETS na przedsiębiorstwa.

Odbiorcy energii poza gospodarstwami domowymi w Polsce płacą za nią wysokie ceny w porównaniu z odbiorcami z większości innych krajów UE. Na koniec 2024 roku Polska miała czwarte najwyższe ceny energii elektrycznej w UE dla odbiorców niebędących gospodarstwami domowymi – 0,26 EUR za kilowatogodzinę, w porównaniu ze średnią dla UE-27 wynoszącą 0,22 EUR/kWh (rysunek 2).

Rysunek 2

Najnowsze dostępne dane dotyczące cen gazu z końca 2023 r. pokazują, że średnia cena gazu dla odbiorców niebędących gospodarstwami domowymi w Polsce wynosiła około 0,073 EUR/kWh w porównaniu ze średnią dla UE-27 wynoszącą 0,06 EUR/kWh (rysunek 3).

Rysunek 3

Koszty energii rosną. Średnie ceny energii elektrycznej i gazu w Polsce dla odbiorców spoza gospodarstw domowych są prawie dwukrotnie wyższe niż w 2021 roku, pomimo spadku od szczytów osiąganych w 2023 roku (rysunek 4).

Rysunek 4

Studium przypadku spółki: ORLEN S.A.

Dr inż. Maciej Gątarek, Kierownik Projektu w Biurze Zrównoważonego Rozwoju i Transformacji Energetycznej ORLEN

„Projekt Baltic Power jest naszym flagowym przedsięwzięciem [dekarbonizacji] w Polsce. To budowa pierwszej polskiej morskiej farmy wiatrowej na Bałtyku. Inwestycja o mocy do 1,2 GW, realizowana wspólnie z Northland Power, zakończenie budowy jest spodziewane w 2026 roku. Równolegle rozwijamy kolejne projekty offshore o łącznej mocy o ok. 5,2 GW) oraz lądowe farmy wiatrowe i fotowoltaiczne, dążąc do 12,8 GW mocy zainstalowanej w OZE do 2035 roku.”.

Gątarek wyjaśnia korzyści biznesowe płynące z dywersyfikacji Orlenu w kierunku odnawialnych źródeł energii: „Dekarbonizacja w naszym wykonaniu to bezpośrednie przełożenie na zyski. Osiągnięcie 12,8 GW mocy w OZE do 2035 roku umożliwi zróżnicowanie naszego koszyka produktów i usług oraz zapewni stabilne, bardziej zrównoważone źródła przychodów.”

Oprócz korzyści dla firmy, Gątarek przewiduje, że Baltic Power przyniesie korzyści całej Polsce: „Sama farma Baltic Power ma docelowo pokryć około 3% krajowego zapotrzebowania na energię elektryczną, zasilając ponad 1,5 mln gospodarstw domowych. To nie tylko obniżenie emisyjności polskiego miksu energetycznego, ale przede wszystkim budowa trwałych, konkurencyjnych kosztów produkcji energii. Wykorzystanie własnej, nisko- i zeroemisyjnej energii uniezależni nas od wahań cen paliw kopalnych i cen uprawnień do emisji gazów cieplarnianych.”.

Gątarek podkreśla, że ​​aby utrzymać tempo transformacji energetycznej i utrzymać konkurencyjność Polski na arenie międzynarodowej, kluczowe jest wsparcie rządu. Podkreśla potrzebę dalszego usprawnienia procedur administracyjnych, a także rozwoju infrastruktury wspierającej produkcję energii odnawialnej na dużą skalę, w tym usprawnienia sieci przesyłowych i magazynowania energii.

„Wsparcie publiczne, rozumiane jako stabilne i przewidywalne otoczenie regulacyjne, to dla nas najlepsza pomoc. Potrzebujemy, aby regulacje były długoterminowe i sprzyjały dużej skali inwestycji, a nie tylko małym i średnim projektom. Transformacja w Polsce musi być na tyle atrakcyjna i pewna prawnie, abyśmy mogli konkurować o międzynarodowy kapitał i technologie.”

O firmie

ORLEN S.A.jest zintegrowaną firmą multienergetyczną z licznymi inwestycjami energetycznymi w Europie Środkowej. Działa w sektorach upstream i downstream przemysłu naftowego i gazowego, a także w sektorze energetyki odnawialnej. Wspólnie z Northland Power, ORLEN rozwija morską farmę wiatrową Baltic Power.

Polska gospodarka, charakteryzująca się dużą intensywnością energetyczną i emisją dwutlenku węgla, przerzuca koszty na przedsiębiorstwa i utrudnia budowanie przewagi konkurencyjnej

Wpływ wysokich cen energii na polskie przedsiębiorstwa jest dodatkowo spotęgowany przez stosunkowo energochłonną gospodarkę kraju w porównaniu z innymi krajami UE (rysunek 5), co oznacza, że ​​do wytworzenia jednostki produktu gospodarczego potrzeba więcej energii. Koszty surowców, procesów produkcyjnych i gospodarki odpadami można zmniejszyć przy większej efektywności.

Rysunek 5

Uzależnienie od węgla oznacza, że ​​polski sektor energetyczny jest jednym z najbardziej emisyjnych w UE. Chociaż emisje spadły w miarę odchodzenia kraju od węgla w produkcji energii elektrycznej, emisje dwutlenku węgla w Polsce nadal są ponad trzykrotnie wyższe niż średnia dla UE-27 (rysunek 6).

Rysunek 6

Ta intensywność emisji dwutlenku węgla, szczególnie w sektorze energetycznym, oznacza, że ​​kraj ponosi wysokie koszty w ramach unijnego systemu handlu uprawnieniami do emisji (EU ETS). Według szacunków „luka w systemie ETS” – różnica między liczbą uprawnień przyznanych Polsce a rzeczywistą emisją z jej instalacji – kosztowała polskie przedsiębiorstwa 8 mld USD w 2022 r. Bank Światowy szacuje, że do 2030 r. kwota ta osiągnie prawie 40 mld USD, jeśli realizowane będą polityki obowiązujące w 2024 r.

Wiele z tych kosztów ponoszą producenci energii elektrycznej, co skutkuje wyższymi rachunkami za energię elektryczną, które dotykają wszystkich odbiorców energii – w tym przedsiębiorstwa. Raport Banku Światowego stwierdza, że ​​„polskie firmy będą […] potrzebowały szybkich dostosowań, aby utrzymać konkurencyjność w porównaniu z firmami zlokalizowanymi w gospodarkach UE o niższej emisji”.

Koszty energii mają wyższy udział w całkowitych kosztach produkcji w Polsce niż średnia w UE – w 2021 r. udział kosztów energii w produkcji pojazdów samochodowych w Polsce wyniósł 0,79% i był o ponad 40% wyższy niż średnia w UE.62022 to najnowsze dostępne dane Różnica jest jeszcze bardziej uderzająca w sektorze hutnictwa żelaza i stali, gdzie koszty energii stanowiły 9,3% całkowitych kosztów produkcji w Polsce, w porównaniu ze średnią około 5,36% w całej UE. Różnice są również widoczne w sektorach pozaprodukcyjnych, gdzie na przykład koszty energii stanowiły 2,8% całkowitych kosztów usług IT, w porównaniu ze średnią 0,7% w całej UE.

Studium przypadku firmy: Maxpro CNC

Wywiad z Tomaszem Abratańskim, dyrektorem handlowym 

Według MaxPro, przejście z samochodów na rowery z napędem elektrycznym może obniżyć koszty operacyjne, stworzyć miejsca pracy i zapewnić klientom większą elastyczność: „Po Londynie jeździ obecnie około 20 naszych rowerowych śmieciarek. Tam to rozwiązanie świetnie się sprawdziło. W rejonie rowery zbierają śmieci i to przy wysokim poziomie zatłoczenia samochodami, korkach, okazało się game-changerem. Rowery sprawiły, że efektywność zbierania odpadów wzrosła”.

Producent przytacza korzyści finansowe z zastąpienia autobusów spalinowych rowerami towarowymi, opierając się na własnych obliczeniach: „Jeśli założymy, że bus z silnikiem spalinowy zużywa średnio 10l paliwa w uśrednionej cenie 6 zł za 1l, koszt przejechania 100km to ok. 60 pln brutto. Rower cargo potrzebuje ok. 7 kWh ładowania baterii, żeby efektywnie pracować na przestrzeni 100 km, przyjmując średnią cenę za 1 kWh w okolicach złotówki, to całkowity koszt wyniesie ok. 7 złotych brutto. Zatem możemy założyć, że koszt przejechania 100km rowerem cargo jest ponad 8 razy mniejszy względem busa z silnikiem spalinowym”.

Jeśli chodzi o dekarbonizację własnej działalności, większość komponentów rowerowych powstaje w halach produkcyjnych MaxPro, zlokalizowanych w Wałbrzyskiej Specjalnej Strefie Ekonomicznej. Pobierają one energię z własnych instalacji fotowoltaicznych: „W sezonie letnim jesteśmy w stanie w ponad 90% korzystać z energii pochodzącej z fotowoltaiki. Poza tym okresem jest to w okolicach 50%.” – mówi Abratański.

Firma podkreśla, że ​​dekarbonizacja przemysłu musi odbywać się pod przewodnictwem państwa, w oparciu o strategię, i dostrzega rolę państwa w kierowaniu rozwojem gospodarczym i tworzeniu otoczenia regulacyjnego sprzyjającego transformacji, a także w dostarczaniu zachęt.

„To możliwości, które dało nam państwo i dotacje były impulsem do inwestycji w dekarbonizację produkcji. Było wsparcie na fotowoltaikę, więc policzyliśmy i skorzystaliśmy z niego. To pozwoliło nam zaoszczędzić choćby na kosztach energii elektrycznej”.

O firmie

MaxPro produkuje riksze z napędem elektrycznym i rowery cargo do transportu ciężkich ładunków. Wspiera również partnerów w planowaniu infrastruktury i wdrażaniu rowerów cargo, w tym we współtworzeniu rozwiązań logistycznych „ostatniej mili”, a także w zakresie wsparcia technicznego i usług. Firma prowadzi działalność w zakładzie produkcyjnym w Wałbrzychu od 2016 roku.

Drogi do osiągnięcia przewagi konkurencyjnej poprzez dekarbonizację dla polskich przedsiębiorstw

Dekarbonizacja leży w interesie gospodarczym Polski, a Bank Światowy szacuje, że osiągnięcie zerowej emisji netto będzie skutkowało wzrostem o około 0,2% PKB kraju rocznie do roku 2050 w wyniku obniżonych kosztów produkcji i zmian technologii w miksie energetycznym. Doprowadziłoby to do skumulowanego wzrostu PKB o 4% do 2050 r. w porównaniu z tym, co jest do osiągnięcia w ramach obecnej polityki.

Poszczególne przedsiębiorstwa mogą również zyskać przewagę konkurencyjną dzięki działaniom związanym z ochroną klimatu: poprawa efektywności energetycznej może obniżyć koszty, przejście na energię odnawialną może zapewnić niższe i bardziej stabilne ceny prądu, a przejrzysta komunikacja na temat emisji może posłużyć do przyciągnięcia świadomych klimatu konsumentów.

Efektywność energetyczna obniża koszty

Poprawa efektywności energetycznej może pomóc zmniejszyć zależność od paliw kopalnych i obniżyć rachunki za energię. Może również pomóc obniżyć koszty emisji dwutlenku węgla w systemach takich jak unijny system handlu uprawnieniami do emisji. Zmienne ceny paliw kopalnych, zagrożenia dla bezpieczeństwa energetycznego i coraz większe zobowiązania do dekarbonizacji doprowadziły do wzrost popytu na technologie efektywności energetycznej takich jak pojazdy elektryczne i pompy ciepła.

IEA szacuje, że przedsiębiorstwa przemysłu ciężkiego stosujące techniki zarządzania energią mogą zaoszczędzić od 5% do 11% kosztów rocznie na początku programu zarządzania energią, podczas gdy przemysł lekki może zaoszczędzić od 10% do 18%. W dłuższej perspektywie łączne oszczędności kosztów energii mogą wynieść od 40% do 60%. Większość przedsiębiorstw ankietowanych przez IEA zgłasza zwrot z inwestycji w efektywność energetyczną na poziomie ponad 10% i postrzega poprawę efektywności energetycznej jako sposób na osiągnięcie przewagi konkurencyjnej w przyszłości.

Niektóre sektory, takie jak hutnictwo żelaza i stali, materiały budowlane oraz celuloza i papier, charakteryzują się niskimi marżami zysku, więc oszczędności w procesach produkcyjnych mogą mieć znaczący wpływ na wyniki działalności. IEA szacuje, że w UE oszczędności dla tych przedsiębiorstw wynikające z efektywności energetycznej odpowiadają zyskom osiągniętym dzięki wzrostowi sprzedaży o 4% do 16%.

Oprócz obniżenia kosztów energii, korzyści wynikające ze zwiększonej wydajności mogą obejmować:

  • Większa produktywność dzięki wydajniejszym procesom i niższym kosztom produkcji,
  • Lepsze wykorzystanie zasobów dzięki skróceniu przestojów i wyłączeń sprzętu,
  • Ograniczenie produkcji odpadów poprzez ograniczenie zużycia surowców i chemikaliów przetwórczych.

Gdy uwzględnimy te liczne korzyści, wartość efektywności dla przedsiębiorstw wzrasta o 40% – 250%.

Studium przypadku firmy: ZPUE

Wywiad z Katarzyną Wypychewicz, członkinią Rady Nadzorczej ZPUE odpowiedzialną za nadzór nad ESG

Katarzyna Wypychewicz wyjaśnia, że ​​produkty ZPUE mogą być wykorzystywane zarówno w przypadku źródeł energii opalanych węglem, jak i odnawialnych, ale „ednak już w 2021 roku 30 proc. naszych stacji transformatorowych trafiało do sektora OZE, np. do farm fotowoltaicznych. Od 2017 roku nasi inżynierowie pracowali także nad magazynowaniem energii. […] Niedługo później zaczęliśmy produkować magazyny i mamy już ich duże wdrożenia nie tylko w Polsce, ale także za granicą.”.

Rozwój zielonej energii jest motorem napędowym rozwoju firmy: „Dziś jesteśmy przekonani, że transformacja energetyczna to nie tylko szansa gospodarcza, lecz także warunek bezpieczeństwa i niezależności energetycznej Polski, a my jako firma jesteśmy ważnym elementem tej kluczowej zmiany.” – mówi Wypychewicz.

W ramach własnej działalności firma wdraża inicjatywy związane z odnawialnymi źródłami energii i efektywnością energetyczną, które według Katarzyny Wypychewicz przynoszą korzyści zarówno ekonomiczne, jak i ekologiczne: „Firmom, które zużywają dużo energii przy rosnącym jej koszcie na pewno opłaca się finansowo posiadanie własnych odnawialnych źródeł energii.” Chociaż ZPUE nie działa w branży energochłonnej, w tym roku instaluje panele fotowoltaiczne, które mają pokryć 90% jej zapotrzebowania na energię.

Firma dąży również do zwiększenia swojej efektywności poprzez redukcję zużycia zasobów, redukcję masy produktów i skrócenie tras transportu. „98 proc. odpadów metalowych firmy trafia do recyklingu i to też są dla nas też realne korzyści ekonomiczne. Podobną zasadą firma kieruje się przy zakupie metali – w przypadku niektórych z nich, takich jak stal czy aluminium, zawartość materiałów wtórnych jest na poziomie ponad 90%. O ten wskaźnik bardzo często pytają klienci z Zachodniej Europy” – wyjaśnia.

Odnosząc się do otoczenia regulacyjnego, Wypychewicz tłumaczy, że ​​ZPUE chciałoby zwiększenia efektywności biurokracji na szczeblu krajowym i unijnym, a także lepszej zdolności reagowania na zmieniającą się rzeczywistość. Kluczowa jest jednak również stabilność regulacyjna: „W tak strategicznym obszarze jak energetyka, połączonym z bezpieczeństwem, potrzebujemy stabilności regulacyjnej. Nas jako producentów boli to, że przepisy  bardzo często się zmieniają, co utrudnia nam planowanie na kolejne lata.” – mówi.

O firmie

ZPUE zostało założone w 1988 roku. Obecnie zatrudnia około 3500 osób i posiada pięć zakładów produkcyjnych w Polsce. Firma osiągnęła 1,14 mld zł przychodów w 2022 r. ZPUE jest największym producentem kontenerowych stacji transformatorowych i jednocześnie liderem w produkcji rozdzielnic średniego i niskiego napięcia w Polsce i Europie. Dostarcza technologie magazynowania energii, stacje ładowania pojazdów i systemy oprogramowania.

Energia odnawialna obniża ceny prądu i chroni firmy przed niestabilnością rynków energii

Chociaż energia elektryczna w Polsce pozostaje stosunkowo droga, zwiększone wykorzystanie odnawialnych źródeł energii pomaga obniżyć jej ceny. McKinsey szacuje, że ten trend się utrzyma, a dzięki czystej energii ceny spadną o około 15% do 2035 r. i o 30% do 2050 r. To z kolei prowadzi do niższego narażenia na koszty uprawnień do emisji w ramach ETS. Oszczędności te odpowiadają około 1% PKB Polski rocznie.

Podczas ostatnich rządowych aukcji na energię elektryczną ze źródeł odnawialnych zawarto umowy na produkcję energii z lądowych farm wiatrowych o mocy powyżej 1 MW, w przedziale o stałej cenie od 100 zł/MWh do 320 zł/MWh. Projekty fotowoltaiczne o mocy powyżej 1 MW uzyskały umowy o cenach od 217 zł/MWh do 329 zł/MWh. Dla porównania ostatnie ceny hurtowe oscylowały w okolicach 425 zł/MWh.

Ponieważ umowy dotyczące energii odnawialnej ustalają cenę z projektów w perspektywie 15 lat, system aukcyjny może przyczynić się do stabilizacji cen energii elektrycznej. Ponadto Forum Energii oszacowało, że istnieje korelacja między udziałem energii odnawialnej w produkcji a cenami na rynku spotowym energii elektrycznej, przy czym ceny spadają wraz ze wzrostem produkcji energii odnawialnej.

Firmy z pewnością skorzystają na ogólnym spadku cen energii elektrycznej, ale mogą również podjąć niezależne działania w celu obniżenia kosztów, negocjując umowy na zakup energii elektrycznej (PPA) z producentami energii odnawialnej.7Umowy PPA na odnawialne źródła energii występują w dwóch formach:fizyczny PPAgdzie generator dostarcza energię elektryczną bezpośrednio do konsumenta po ustalonej cenie przez określony czas, afinansowy (lub wirtualny) PPA, gdzie wytwórca sprzedaje energię elektryczną na rynku, a konsument płaci uzgodnioną „cenę wykonania”. Jeśli cena rynkowa jest wyższa od ceny wykonania, wytwórca dopłaca różnicę konsumentowi; jeśli cena rynkowa jest niższa od ceny wykonania, konsument dopłaca różnicę wytwórcy. Konsument otrzymuje również Gwarancje Pochodzenia (GO) związane z wytwarzaniem, które stanowią dowód, że energia elektryczna została wytworzona ze źródeł odnawialnych i umożliwiają konsumentowi obrót GWARANCJAMI POCHODZENIA, jeśli sobie tego życzy. Umowy PPA na energię odnawialną umożliwiają przedsiębiorstwom korzystanie z pewności umów o stałej cenie za energię elektryczną, a jednocześnie świadczą o korzystaniu z energii bezemisyjnej. Chroni to je zarówno przed opłatami za emisję dwutlenku węgla w ramach systemu EU ETS, jak i zmiennością cen paliw kopalnych. 

Pod koniec 2024 r. typowe ceny PPA uzgodnione między przedsiębiorstwami a wytwórcami energii słonecznej wynosiły około 78 EUR/MWh (332 PLN/MWh), natomiast ceny PPA dla energii wiatrowej wynosiły około 94,5 EUR/MWh (402 PLN/MWh). Jest to ponownie znacznie niższa cena niż hurtowe ceny energii elektrycznej. W rezultacie umowy PPA cieszą się coraz większą popularnością wśród dużych przedsiębiorstw z siedzibą w Polsce, takich jak Google, Allegro, Żabka Polska i NGK Ceramics, które zawarły umowy PPA na energię odnawialną dla części swojego zużycia.

Studium przypadku firmy: Kompania Piwowarska

Wywiad z Krzysztofą Bełz, Sustainability Managerką w Kompanii Piwowarskiej

„W ramach realizacji celów związanych z osiągnięciem neutralności węglowej, w 2019 roku Kompania Piwowarska nawiązała przełomową na polskim rynku współpracę z RWE Renewables (Virtual Power Purchase Agreement w ramach którego RWE zbudowało w Polsce nowe farmy wiatrowe a KP uzyskała gwarancje dostaw energii z OZE), która umożliwia firmie całkowite pokrycie ze źródeł odnawialnych zapotrzebowania browarów na energię elektryczną. Wykorzystanie energii elektrycznej ze źródeł odnawialnych pozwoliło Kompanii Piwowarskiej na redukcję emisji CO2e w browarach o ponad 70 tysięcy ton CO2e, redukując dzięki temu swoje emisje na browarach o 66% w stosunku do 2019 roku.”

Warzenie piwa wymaga dużej ilości energii cieplnej. Firma rozpoczęła instalację pomp ciepła w swoich browarach w 2023 roku, dążąc do zwiększenia efektywności energetycznej i zmniejszenia śladu węglowego: „Pierwsza instalacja odbyła się w 2023 roku Tychach, a kolejne 2 pompy ciepła zainstalowano w tym roku w Poznaniu. Jest to innowacyjne rozwiązanie, które polega na przechwyceniu energii cieplnej z procesu chłodzenia piwa w fermentorach oraz zbiornikach leżakowych i ponownym jej wykorzystaniu do wytwarzania wody gorącej.” 

„Przy użyciu pompy ciepła oraz łącznej mocy elektrycznej układu 500 kW firma jest w stanie uzyskać aż 1500 kW energii cieplnej. Dzięki temu rozwiązaniu KP zredukuje emisje o ponad 4 tysiące ton CO2 w skali roku.”.

Firma dąży również do redukcji emisji w całym swoim łańcuchu wartości, w tym emisji z zakresu trzeciego, poprzez zwiększenie efektywności chłodzenia: „Specyfiką polskiego rynku piwa jest wprowadzanie do sklepów lodówek należących do poszczególnych producentów. Dlatego podjęliśmy wyzwanie zmniejszenia emisji CO2 o 50% do roku 2030 w obszarze chłodzenia swojego piwa w sklepach.”. Producent optymalizuje liczbę używanych lodówek, stopniowo wymieniając modele na modele o wyższej wydajności, eliminując lodówki otwarte i regulując temperaturę w swoich urządzeniach, aby oszczędzać energię.

Do tej pory skutkowało to „co najmniej 15% zmniejszeniem emisji w chłodnictwie, co przekłada się na zredukowanie śladu węglowego o 25 milionów kilogramów CO2 względem 2019 roku.”

O firmie

Kompania Piwowarska jest liderem polskiego rynku piwa i zatrudnia około 2700 osób. Posiada cztery zakłady w całej Polsce, w tym trzy browary. Firma zobowiązała się do działań na rzecz ochrony środowiska, w tym pozyskiwania energii elektrycznej dla swoich browarów ze źródeł odnawialnych.

Obniżki emisji i przejrzystość mogą pomóc wyróżnić się polskim produktom 

Przejrzystość w zakresie emisji może wyróżniać jedną firmę spośród innych, umożliwiając nabywcom wybór przedsiębiorstw, które podzielają ich wartości związane z klimatem. Oznacza to, że przejrzystość w zakresie emisji dwutlenku węgla może być drogą do uzyskania przewagi konkurencyjnej.

Konsumenci coraz częściej poszukują produktów lub usług od firm, które oferują „ekologiczne” produkty i są gotowi zapłacić więcej za marki zapewniające pełną przejrzystość swoich działań. 80% polskiego społeczeństwa postrzega zmiany klimatyczne jako bardzo poważny lub dość poważny problem, a 74% popiera cel UE, jakim jest osiągnięcie neutralności klimatycznej do 2050 r. Sugeruje to, że istnieje motywacja dla przedsiębiorstw, aby przodować w odgrywać wiodącą rolę w przeciwdziałaniu zmianom klimatycznym.

W UE duże przedsiębiorstwa będą zobowiązane do ujawniania swoich emisji z zakresu 1 i 2 zgodnie z dyrektywą CSRD, natomiast mniejsze przedsiębiorstwa będą musiały składać sprawozdania od 2026 r.8Zakres wymogów sprawozdawczych rośnie z czasem. W 2024 roku duże jednostki zainteresowania publicznego, firmy zatrudniające ponad 500 pracowników lub z bilansem powyżej 20 mln EUR/rocznymi przychodami powyżej 50 mln EUR musiały raportować Zakresy 1 i 2. Do 2026 roku firmy spełniające dwa z tych trzech kryteriów będą również zobowiązane do raportowania: zatrudniające ponad 10 pracowników, z bilansem powyżej 350 tys. EUR, z rocznymi przychodami powyżej 700 tys. EUR. Przejrzystość w kwestii emisji z zakresu 3 może budować wiarygodność, wzmocnić relacje z klientami i inwestorami oraz tworzyć kontekst do działania w gospodarce o zerowym bilansie emisji.

Dekarbonizacja może dać przewagę konkurencyjną branży usługowej

Dyskusje na temat przewagi konkurencyjnej tradycyjnie koncentrowały się na produkcji i przemyśle, które wnoszą istotny wkład w polską gospodarkę. Jednak polska gospodarka się zmienia. Od 2015 roku sektory przemysłu i produkcji zmniejszyły swój udział w PKB, podczas gdy sektor usług wzrósł z 55% do prawie 60% (rysunek 7). Rosnący udział sektora usług w gospodarce oznacza, że ​​świadczenie usług taniej, efektywniej lub w unikalny sposób również stwarza możliwości uzyskania przewagi konkurencyjnej.

Sektor przemysłowy w Polsce jest znaczącym konsumentem energii, dlatego też może zwracać uwagę ze względu na swój potencjał w zakresie redukcji zapotrzebowania i poprawy efektywności energetycznej. Jednakże Forum Energii twierdzi, że złożoność tego sektora i brak danych sprawiają, że przemysł ten jest w dużej mierze pomijany w polskiej polityce energetycznej i przepisach prawnych.

Rysunek 7
  • 1
    Usługi to działania niematerialne, a nie dobra materialne. Przykładami są doradztwo, korzystanie z call center oraz działalność informatyczna dozwolona przez centra danych. Polska staje się regionalnym liderem w obu tych dziedzinach.centra telefoniczne I centra danych.
  • 2
    Wyższe wyniki osiągnęły jedynie Czechy, Estonia, Węgry i Luksemburg.
  • 3
    Wywiady i oświadczenia były w języku polskim, automatycznie tłumaczone na język angielski i ręcznie weryfikowane.
  • 4
    Państwa członkowskie UE są zobowiązane do przedłożenia swoich planów wkładu w realizację celów klimatycznych UE w formie Krajowych Planów Energii i Klimatu (KPEiK). Polska jest jednym z trzech państw członkowskich (Belgia, Estonia i Polska), którenie przesłano jeszcze ostatecznej wersji swoich planów krajowychdo Komisji Europejskiej.
  • 5
    Obecna roczna redukcja limitu wynosi obecnie 4,3% i wzrośnie do4,4% od 2028 r.. A nowy system handlu emisjami, znany jako ETS2obejmujące budynki, transport drogowy i inne sektory, w tym drobny przemysł, będą obowiązywać od 2027/2028 r.
  • 6
    2022 to najnowsze dostępne dane
  • 7
    Umowy PPA na odnawialne źródła energii występują w dwóch formach:fizyczny PPAgdzie generator dostarcza energię elektryczną bezpośrednio do konsumenta po ustalonej cenie przez określony czas, afinansowy (lub wirtualny) PPA, gdzie wytwórca sprzedaje energię elektryczną na rynku, a konsument płaci uzgodnioną „cenę wykonania”. Jeśli cena rynkowa jest wyższa od ceny wykonania, wytwórca dopłaca różnicę konsumentowi; jeśli cena rynkowa jest niższa od ceny wykonania, konsument dopłaca różnicę wytwórcy. Konsument otrzymuje również Gwarancje Pochodzenia (GO) związane z wytwarzaniem, które stanowią dowód, że energia elektryczna została wytworzona ze źródeł odnawialnych i umożliwiają konsumentowi obrót GWARANCJAMI POCHODZENIA, jeśli sobie tego życzy.
  • 8
    Zakres wymogów sprawozdawczych rośnie z czasem. W 2024 roku duże jednostki zainteresowania publicznego, firmy zatrudniające ponad 500 pracowników lub z bilansem powyżej 20 mln EUR/rocznymi przychodami powyżej 50 mln EUR musiały raportować Zakresy 1 i 2. Do 2026 roku firmy spełniające dwa z tych trzech kryteriów będą również zobowiązane do raportowania: zatrudniające ponad 10 pracowników, z bilansem powyżej 350 tys. EUR, z rocznymi przychodami powyżej 700 tys. EUR.

Decarbonising for competitive advantage in Poland

by

This briefing is also available in Polish. It was co-written with Forum Odpowiedzialnego Biznesu and Instytut Zielonej Gospodarki.

Key points

  • Decarbonisation could be a key route to competitive advantage for Polish businesses, offering opportunities beyond emission reductions, such as cost reduction, improved productivity and strategic market positioning.
  • The energy transition is a political reality for Poland at the national and EU levels. Companies and economies can get ahead of the curve by decarbonising, capitalising on policy change and avoiding the costs of emissions.
  • Poland’s high-carbon, energy-intensive economy results in higher energy costs for businesses compared to other EU countries. For non-household consumers, Poland had the fourth-highest power prices in the EU at the end of 2024, and the fourth-highest gas prices at the end of 2023.
  • The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) was estimated to cost Polish businesses USD 8 billion in 2022. This could rise to USD 40 billion by 2030. Decarbonising the economy would enable businesses to avoid energy and ETS costs and enhance the country’s economic competitiveness. 
  • The World Bank estimates that achieving net-zero emissions will add around 0.2% to the country’s GDP annually between now and 2050, a cumulative 4% increase in GDP by 2050, compared to what would be achieved under current policies.
  • For Polish businesses, improving energy efficiency can lead to significant cost savings, with some companies seeing cumulative savings of 40-60% in the long term.
  • Cheap renewables generation can help reduce electricity bills for Polish companies. The prices from wind and solar projects awarded contracts in the most recent government renewables auctions and from power purchase agreements (PPAs) between companies and renewables generation are both well below general wholesale power prices. 
  • Emissions transparency and actions to decarbonise can help Polish businesses stand out as consumers increasingly look for climate-aligned products.

Poland, trade and decarbonisation

Trade is an important indicator of a country’s competitiveness and economic health in the global market. A trade surplus can signal strong demand for a nation’s goods and services, leading to increased domestic production and job growth. Conversely, a persistent trade deficit, where imports exceed exports, suggests that a country is consuming more than it produces, potentially weakening its currency and increasing its reliance on foreign borrowing.

International trade is an important contributor to Poland’s economy. It is a net exporter of both goods and services, but only by a small margin. In 2024, it exported goods worth USD 380.3 billion and imported goods worth USD 379.5 billion. The difference is more pronounced in services, where it exported services worth USD 118.4 billion and imported services worth USD 75.1 billion.1Services are intangible activities rather than physical goods. Examples include consultancy, the use of call centres and the IT activities allowed by data centres. Poland is becoming a regional leader in both call centres and data centres. Nearly 74% of Poland’s exports stayed within the EU in 2024, one of the highest proportions in the bloc, with the main export partner for goods being Germany (USD 103 billion).2Only Czechia, Estonia, Hungary and Luxembourg were higher.

A country can boost its exports and improve its trade balance by gaining a competitive advantage over other countries. Competitive advantage comes from the factors which make a company’s products or services more attractive to customers than those of rivals. This enables a company to generate more sales or greater margins and to gain and retain more customers. The goods and services that these companies generate contribute to improving the country’s trade balance and GDP. 

The factors contributing to competitive advantage can be quantitative, such as production costs and pricing, or qualitative, like the uniqueness or quality of the item or service. A company can also gain a competitive advantage by a very narrow specialisation that targets a specific market (Box 1). 

This briefing explains how decarbonisation can provide a route to gaining a competitive advantage for Poland and Polish businesses. Decarbonisation presents business opportunities by reducing costs, improving productivity and helping Polish companies stand out to increasingly climate-conscious buyers. All of these can help Polish business and industry generate a competitive advantage in a rapidly evolving global marketplace. Forum Odpowiedzialnego Biznesu and Instytut Zielonej Gospodarki spoke with five Polish companies working on decarbonisation to provide case studies for this report: Galmet, Kompania Piwowarska, Maxpro, ORLEN S.A. and ZPUE.3Interviews and statements were in Polish, automatically translated into English and manually verified.

Box 1: Lowering costs and differentiation are strategies for competitive advantage

The concept of competitive advantage was set out by Michael Porter in 1990 and has become a foundational strategy for businesses. 

Porter sets out two basic ways in which a company can have a competitive advantage: low costs or product differentiation (Figure 1). Depending on whether the company has a broad or narrow focus for its activities, this can lead to three routes for achieving competitive advantage: cost leadership, differentiation and cost-differentiation focus. 

Differentiation means a company becomes unique within its sector in a way that is valued by buyers, such as by positioning itself as the only company that can meet a particular set of needs, like durability, customer service or product image. The company can then charge a premium for its product, as the offer is unique. 

Achieving competitive advantage through these routes will require companies to innovate to implement both new technologies and new practices. 

Figure 1

Decarbonisation is a political reality in Poland and the EU

Businesses in Poland operate in a context where climate action at the national and international level is increasingly normalised. The strategic shift has already begun, with global investment in manufacturing capacity in clean and energy-efficient technologies growing by 67% between 2022 and 2023.

The Polish government has committed to net zero as part of EU action on climate change, and joined the pledge to triple renewables and double energy efficiency at COP28. It has policies and regulations in place to deliver on these promises and is currently revising its strategy set out in the Energy Policy of Poland for 2040. 

Poland’s National Energy and Climate Plan, updated in July 2025, sets out the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 53.9% against a 1990 baseline by 2030.4EU member states are required to submit their plans to contribute to EU climate targets in the form of National Energy and Climate Plans (NECP). Poland is one of three Member States (Belgium, Estonia and Poland) which have not yet submitted the final version of their NECPs to the European Commission. Achieving this will involve increasing the share of renewables in electricity consumption to 51.8%, and enhancing the energy efficiency of the economy by reducing final energy consumption by approximately 12.8% (58.5 Mtoe) by 2030.

Renewables already provide around 30% of Poland’s electricity, up from about 13% in 2015. This is partly due to the rapid growth in solar PV, which generated nearly 9% of Poland’s electricity in 2024, compared with less than 1% in 2019. Renewables generation overall is expected to receive a significant boost from the 1.2GW Baltic Power offshore wind farm in 2026, which is intended to produce around 3% of Poland’s electricity.

The country’s national climate and energy policies are increasingly shaped by action at the EU level. The Fit for 55 package of legislation includes measures on renewables, energy efficiency and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), aiming to reduce the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 and achieve climate neutrality by 2050.

More national and international action on climate can be expected in future as the impacts of climate change become increasingly evident. The changes required by these laws may pose challenges for Polish business and industry, but companies that act to decarbonise now can avoid the growing costs of carbon regulation and achieve a competitive advantage over businesses that have been slower to act.

However, policy changes also provide opportunities: the Green Deal Industrial Plan aims to enhance the competitiveness of the EU’s net-zero industries. As part of this, the Net-Zero Industry Act sets a goal that at least 40% of the EU’s annual deployment of net-zero technologies should be manufactured in the EU by 2030. 

Box 2: The EU ETS means polluting activities cost more

The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) sets a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from high-emitting installations. The cap is lowered annually in line with the EU’s climate commitments.5The current annual reduction in the cap is currently 4.3% and will increase to 4.4% from 2028. A new emissions trading scheme, known as ETS2, covering buildings, road transport and other sectors including small industry will operate from 2027/2028. 

Companies that are part of the ETS can either be awarded or buy allowances, each representing one tonne of CO2e. These allowances can be traded – if a company emits less than its individual cap, it can sell its extra allowances to other companies, creating an additional revenue stream for companies that reduce their emissions. Those that emit more than their cap must buy extra allowances, incurring an additional cost as a result of their emissions.

The price that companies can achieve for selling surplus allowances, or that they must pay for buying additional ones, changes according to the level of supply and demand – the higher the demand, the higher the price. The allowance permits currently tend to trade at between EUR 60 and EUR 70/tCO2e.  

As the overall cap for emissions lowers, it is expected that the price of allowances will increase for companies that wish to emit more. This incentivises businesses to invest in low-carbon practices to avoid having to buy allowances, potentially also allowing them to use any excess allowances to create revenue. 

Currently, Polish energy is relatively high-carbon compared to other EU countries, meaning Polish companies are paying for more ETS allowances than many competitors. The impact of the ETS on energy prices for Polish businesses can be reduced by improving energy efficiency and decarbonising the energy mix.

Poland could be well-placed to capitalise on the opportunities presented by the EU’s Net-Zero Industry Act and the recent EU Global Climate and Energy Vision. It has already achieved success in manufacturing low-carbon technologies and components, including electric vehicles, components for wind turbines, solar technologies, heat pumps, and zero-carbon buses. It ranked 7th globally in the Green Complexity Index, which assesses countries’ competitiveness based on the number and technical sophistication of their products. Poland also performed well in the Green Complexity Potential Index, which measures countries’ potential to diversify into green, complex products in the future, again ranking 7th.

Company case study: Galmet

Interview with Robert Galara, President of Galmet

“When we noticed the rapid development of heat pumps, photovoltaics, and solar panels abroad, especially in Western Europe, a dozen or so years ago, it was natural for us to respond to these changes… This impulse from Europe sparked our desire to introduce this type of product to the Polish market,” says Galara. 

“We had the ambition to catch up with the West, because if it sells there, why not showcase it in Poland and proudly write ‘Made in Poland’ on the product?” 

“The fact that we can produce very good products in Poland, based on modern technology, which also do not pollute the environment and are in line with the development direction of the European Union… is an additional plus.” 

Galara points out that Galmet is the largest employer in the Głubczyce district, although employment has dropped in recent years. The reduction, he says, is due to the weakening of the market since the beginning of 2023. The key reasons he points to are unequal competition with non-European producers, based solely on price criteria and omitting quality, as well as inappropriate criteria for assessing the quality of goods and service providers in state subsidy programs. This leads to poor-quality installations, resulting in negative publicity for heat pump sales. 

He suggests that support for the development of Polish heat pump production could be provided through programs aimed at combating energy poverty, but price should not be the sole factor in awarding contracts under such programs. Requiring equipment to be manufactured in Europe – preferably in Poland – along with certifications and production standards for procurement could help protect Polish producers against cheap, low-quality competition:

“This is the last chance, so that we, as a country, become a significant producer of heat pumps. If we don’t, we will lose a unique opportunity, and the profits from the production of such products will go to the budgets of Western countries or China.”

About the company

Galmet is a family-owned business with 43 years of experience in producing heating and domestic hot water equipment using renewable technologies. The company’s products include heat pumps, solar collectors, heat storage systems and heat recovery systems designed for single-family homes, multi-family buildings, and public buildings. The company employs around 700 people.

Polish businesses are paying high prices for gas and electricity

Despite a decline in recent years, coal, gas and other fossil fuels still made up over 70% of Polish electricity generation in 2024, and fossil fuels supplied more than 83% of the country’s total energy. High reliance on fossil fuels leaves Poland vulnerable to fossil fuel price spikes and threats to its energy security, and means charges from the EU ETS are passed on to businesses.

Non-household energy consumers in Poland pay high prices compared with many other EU countries. At the end of 2024, Poland had the fourth-highest power prices in the EU for non-household consumers at EUR 0.26 per kilowatt-hour, compared to an EU27 average of EUR 0.22/kWh (Figure 2). 

Figure 2

The most recent price data available for gas, as of the end of 2023, show that the average gas prices for non-household consumers in Poland were around EUR 0.073/kWh, compared to an EU27 average of EUR 0.06/kWh (Figure 3).

Figure 3

These energy costs are on the rise. Average prices for both electricity and gas in Poland are nearly twice as high for non-household consumers as they were in 2021, despite having fallen since the peaks seen in 2023 (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Company case study: ORLEN S.A.

Dr Maciej Gątarek, Eng., Project Manager in the Office of Sustainable Development and Energy Transition at ORLEN

“Projekt Baltic Power is our flagship [decarbonisation] project… with a capacity of up to 1.2 GW… In parallel, we are developing further offshore projects with a total capacity of approximately 5.2 GW, as well as onshore wind and photovoltaic farms, aiming for 12.8 GW of installed renewable energy capacity by 2035.”

Gątarek explains the business benefits of Orlen’s diversification into renewable power: “Our decarbonisation efforts directly translate into profits. Achieving 12.8 GW of renewable energy capacity by 2035 will enable the diversification of our product and service portfolio and provide stable, more sustainable revenue streams.” 

In addition to benefits for the business, Gątarek foresees that Baltic Power will have benefits across Poland: “The Baltic Power farm alone is expected to ultimately meet approximately 3% of the country’s electricity demand… This will not only reduce the emissions intensity of the Polish energy mix but, above all, create sustainable, competitive energy production costs. Utilising our own low- and zero-emission energy will make us independent from fluctuating fossil fuel prices and greenhouse gas emission allowance prices.”

To continue the pace of the energy transition and for Poland to remain competitive internationally, Gątarek points out that government support is critical. He emphasises the need for further streamlining of administrative procedures, alongside the development of infrastructure to support large-scale renewable energy production, including enhanced transmission networks and energy storage.

“Public support, understood as a stable and predictable regulatory environment, is our best support. We need long-term regulations that support large-scale investments…. The transition in Poland must be attractive and legally secure enough to allow us to compete for international capital and technology.”

About the company

ORLEN S.A. is an integrated multi-energy company with numerous energy investments in Central Europe. It operates in the upstream and downstream sectors of the oil and gas industry, as well as in renewable power generation. Together with Northland Power, ORLEN is developing the Baltic Power offshore wind farm. 

Poland’s energy and carbon-intensive economy passes costs on to businesses and hinders competitive advantage

The impact of high energy prices on Polish businesses is exacerbated by the country’s relatively energy-intensive economy compared to other EU countries (Figure 5), meaning that more energy is needed to produce a unit of economic output. The cost of raw materials, production processes and waste management can also be reduced with greater efficiency. 

Figure 5

Reliance on coal means Poland’s energy sector is also one of the most carbon-intensive in the EU. Although emissions have decreased as the country transitions away from coal for electricity generation, the country’s carbon emissions remain more than three times the EU27 average (Figure 6).

Figure 6

This carbon intensity, particularly in energy supply, means the country is subject to high EU ETS costs. The ‘ETS gap’ – the difference between the number of allowances allocated to Poland and the actual emissions from its installations – was estimated to cost Polish businesses USD 8 billion in 2022. The World Bank estimates that this will reach nearly USD 40 billion by 2030, under the policies in place as of 2024. 

Many of these costs are borne by electricity generators, resulting in higher electricity bills that affect all electricity consumers – including businesses. The World Bank report concludes that “Polish firms will […] need rapid adjustments to remain competitive compared to companies located in lower-emission EU economies.”

Energy costs make up a higher proportion of total production costs in Poland than the EU average – in 2021, the proportion of energy costs for manufacturing motor vehicles in Poland was 0.79%, more than 40% higher than the EU average.62022 is the most recent data available. The difference is even more striking in iron and steel manufacturing, where energy costs made up 9.3% total production costs in Poland, compared with an average of around 5.36% across the EU. The differences are also apparent in non-manufacturing sectors, where, for example, energy costs accounted for 2.8% of total IT service costs, compared with an average of 0.7% across the EU.

Company case study: Maxpro CNC

Interview with Tomasz Abratański, Chief Commercial Officer at MaxPro

According to MaxPro, switching from cars to electric-assisted bicycles can reduce operating costs, create jobs, and provide greater flexibility for customers: “We currently have around 20 of our bicycle garbage trucks operating in London. This solution has proven to be a great success there. The bicycles collect waste in the area, and with high levels of car congestion and traffic jams, this has proven to be a game-changer. The bicycles have increased waste collection efficiency.”

The manufacturer cites the financial benefits of replacing combustion buses with cargo bikes, based on its own calculations: “If we assume that a combustion engine-bus consumes an average of 10 litres of fuel at an average price of PLN 6 per litre, the cost of travelling 100 km is approximately PLN 60 gross. A cargo bike requires approximately 7 kWh of battery charging to operate effectively over 100 km. Assuming an average price of around PLN 1/kWh, the total cost will be approximately PLN 7 gross. Therefore, we can assume that the cost of travelling 100 km by cargo bike is more than eight times lower than the bus.” 

In terms of decarbonising their own operations, most of the bicycle components are made in MaxPro’s production halls, located in Wałbrzych Special Economic Zone. These draw their energy from their own solar PV installations: “During the summer season, we are able to use over 90% of our energy from photovoltaics. Outside of this period, it’s around 50%,” says Abratański.

The company emphasises that industrial decarbonisation must be led by the state, based on a strategy, and sees the state’s role in guiding economic development and creating a regulatory environment conducive to transformation, as well as providing incentives.

“The opportunities provided by the state and subsidies were the impetus for investing in decarbonising production. There was support for photovoltaics, so we calculated and took advantage of it. This allowed us to save on electricity costs.” 

About the company

MaxPro manufactures electric-assisted rickshaws and cargo bikes for transporting heavy loads. It also supports partners in infrastructure planning and the implementation of cargo bikes, including the co-creation of last-mile logistics solutions for cargo bikes, as well as technical support and services. The company has operated a production facility in Walbrzych since 2016.

Routes to achieving competitive advantage through decarbonisation for Polish businesses

Decarbonisation is in Poland’s economic interest, with the World Bank estimating that achieving net-zero emissions will add around 0.2% to the country’s GDP annually between now and 2050 as a result of reduced production costs and technology-driven changes in the energy mix. This would result in a cumulative 4% increase in GDP by 2050 compared to what would be achieved under current policies.

Individual businesses can also gain a competitive edge through climate-aligned practices: Improving energy efficiency can lower costs, switching to renewable energy can provide lower and more stable power prices, and transparent communications about emissions can be used to appeal to climate-conscious consumers.

Energy efficiency reduces costs

Improving energy efficiency can help reduce reliance on fossil fuels and reduce energy bills. It can also help reduce carbon costs in schemes like the EU’s ETS. Volatile fossil fuel prices, threats to energy security and increasing commitments to decarbonisation have all led to an increase in demand for energy efficiency technologies such as electric vehicles and heat pumps. 

The IEA estimates that heavy industry companies with energy management techniques can save between 5% and 11% in costs a year at the start of an energy management programme, while light industry can save between 10% and 18%. In the longer term, cumulative energy cost savings can total between 40% and 60%. The majority of companies surveyed by the IEA report a return of more than 10% on investments made in energy efficiency, and view improving energy efficiency as a way to achieve a competitive advantage in future.

Some sectors, such as iron and steel, building materials, and pulp and paper, have narrow profit margins, so achieving savings in manufacturing processes can significantly impact business performance. The IEA estimates that in the EU, savings for these businesses from energy efficiency equate to the profits made by a 4% to 16% increase in sales.

As well as reducing energy costs, the benefits of improved efficiency can include:

  • Increased productivity from more efficient processes and lower production costs
  • Improved resource use from reduced equipment downtime and shutdowns
  • Reduced waste production by reducing use of raw materials and processing chemicals.

When these multiple benefits are included, the value of efficiency for businesses increases by 40% – 250%.

Company case study: ZPUE

Interview with Katarzyna Wypychewicz, member of the Supervisory Board of ZPUE, responsible for the supervision of ESG

Wypychewicz explains that ZPUE’s products can be used for both coal-fired and renewable energy sources, but “Already in 2021, 30% of our transformer stations were going to the renewable energy sector. Since 2017, our engineers have also been working on energy storage… We began producing storage facilities and have already implemented them on a large scale, not only in Poland but also abroad.”.

The company has seen the development of green energy drive its growth: “We are convinced that the energy transition is not only an economic opportunity, but also a condition for Poland’s energy security and independence, and we, as a company, are an important part of this crucial change,” says Wypychewicz.

In its own operations, the company is implementing renewable energy and efficiency initiatives that Wypychewicz says bring both economic and ecological benefits: “Companies that consume a lot of energy with rising costs certainly benefit financially from having their own renewable energy sources.” Although ZPUE is not an energy-intensive industry, it is installing solar PV this year, expected to cover 90% of its energy needs. 

The company is also aiming to increase its efficiency by reducing its resource consumption, reducing product weight and shortening transport routes. “98% of the company’s metal waste is recycled, and this also brings real economic benefits to us. The company follows a similar principle when purchasing metals… This indicator is very often asked about by clients from Western Europe,” she explains.

When it comes to the regulatory environment, Wypychewicz explains that ZPUE would like to see increased bureaucratic efficiency at the state and EU levels, as well as a better ability to respond to a changing reality. But, regulatory stability is also key: “In such a strategic area as energy, linked to security, we need regulatory stability. As producers, we are pained by the frequent changes in regulations, which make planning for the coming years difficult,” she says. 

About the company

ZPUE was founded in 1988. It currently employs around 3,500 people and has five production plants in Poland. The company earned PLN 1.14 billion in revenue in 2022. ZPUE is the largest manufacturer of container transformer stations and also a leader in the production of medium and low-voltage switchgear in Poland and Europe. It also supplies energy storage technologies, vehicle charging stations and proprietary software systems.

Renewable energy lowers power prices and protects companies from volatile energy markets

Although Poland’s electricity remains comparatively expensive, the increased use of renewables is helping to bring these prices down. McKinsey estimates that this trend will continue, with prices falling by around 15% by 2035 and 30% by 2050 as a result of cleaner energy leading to lower exposure to ETS allowance costs. These savings are equivalent to about 1% of Poland’s GDP annually.

The most recent government auctions for renewable electricity led to fixed-price contracts for output for onshore wind farms larger than 1 MW ranging from PLN 100/MWh to PLN 320/MWh. Solar PV projects over 1 MW were awarded contracts priced between PLN 217/MWh and PLN 329/MWh. This compares with recent wholesale prices of around PLN 425/MWh.

Because the renewables contracts fix the price of projects’ output for 15 years, the auction scheme can contribute to stabilising electricity prices.7When auctions for offshore wind take place later this year, the contract length will be 25 years to reflect the high capital costs of the projects. In addition, Forum Energii has found that there is a correlation between the share of renewables generation and electricity spot market prices, with prices falling as renewables generation increases.

Companies will clearly benefit from overall lower power prices, but they can also take independent action to reduce costs by negotiating Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) with renewable electricity generators.8Renewable PPAs come in two forms: a physical PPA, where the generator supplies the consumer directly at a fixed price for the power for a specified amount of time, and a financial (or virtual) PPA, where the generator sells into the electricity market and the consumer pays an agreed ‘strike price’. If the market price is higher than the strike price, the generator pays the difference to the consumer; if the market price is lower than the strike price, the consumer pays the difference to the generator. The consumer also receives the Guarantees of Origin (GO) associated with the generation, proving that the electricity was produced from renewables and allowing the consumer to trade the GO if they wish. Renewable PPAs enable businesses to benefit from the certainty of fixed-price contracts for their electricity, while also demonstrating their use of zero-carbon power. This insulates them from both carbon pricing under the EU ETS and the volatility of fossil fuel prices. 

At the end of 2024, typical PPA prices agreed between companies and generators for solar were around EUR 78/MWh (PLN 332/MWh), while wind PPAs were around EUR 94.5/MWh (PLN 402/MWh).  Again, this is significantly lower than wholesale prices for electricity. As a result, PPAs are increasingly popular among major companies based in Poland, with Google, Allegro, Zabka Polska and NGK Ceramics all having renewable PPAs for some of their consumption.

Company case study: Kompania Piwowarska

Krzysztofa Bełz, Sustainability Manager at Kompania Piwowarska

“As part of its carbon neutrality goals, in 2019 [we] entered into a groundbreaking partnership with RWE Renewables (Virtual Power Purchase Agreement, under which RWE built new wind farms in Poland and KP obtained guaranteed renewable energy supplies), which enables the company to fully cover its breweries’ electricity needs from renewable sources.” It says that using renewable power has reduced CO2 emissions at its breweries by over 70,000 tons of CO2e, “reducing emissions by 66% compared to 2019.”

Brewing beer requires lots of thermal energy. Bełz explains that the company began installing heat pumps at its breweries in 2023, aiming to increase energy efficiency and reduce its carbon footprint: “The first installation took place in 2023 in Tychy, and two more heat pumps were installed this year in Poznań. This innovative solution involves capturing thermal energy from the beer cooling process in fermenters and lager tanks… and reusing it to generate hot water.” 

“Using the heat pump and the system’s total electrical output of 500 kW, the company can generate as much as 1,500 kW of thermal energy. Thanks to this solution, KP will reduce CO2 emissions by over 4,000 tons annually.”

The company also aims to reduce emissions across its value chain, including scope three emissions, by increasing efficiency in refrigeration: “The Polish beer market is characterised by the introduction of refrigerators belonging to individual producers into stores. Therefore, [we have] taken on the challenge of reducing CO2 emissions by 50% by 2030 from the refrigeration of its beer in stores,” she explains. The manufacturer is optimising the number of refrigerators in use, gradually replacing models with higher-efficiency ones, eliminating open-top refrigerators, and adjusting the temperature in its appliances to save energy. 

So far, this has resulted in “at least a 15% reduction in emissions in refrigeration, which translates into a reduction of our carbon footprint by 25 million kilograms of CO2 compared to 2019.”

About the company

Kompania Piwowarska is the leader of the Polish beer market and employs around 2,700 people. It has four facilities across Poland, including three breweries. The company has a commitment to environmental action, including sourcing the electricity for its breweries from renewable sources.

Emissions reductions and transparency can help Polish products stand out 

Transparency about emissions can differentiate one company from another, allowing buyers to choose companies that align with their climate values. This means that carbon transparency can be a route to gaining a competitive advantage. 

Consumers are increasingly demanding products or services from companies that offer ‘clean’ products and are willing to pay a premium for brands that provide full transparency about their activities. 80% of the Polish public views climate change as a very or fairly serious problem, and 74% support the EU’s goal of achieving climate neutrality by 2050. This suggests that there is an incentive for businesses to be at the forefront of addressing climate change.

In the EU, large companies will be required to disclose their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, while smaller companies will have to report from 2026.9The scope of the reporting requirements grows over time. In 2024, large public interest entities, companies with over 500 employees or a balance sheet of over EUR 20M/annual revenues over EUR 50M had to report Scope 1 and 2. By 2026, companies meeting two of these three criteria will also have to report: more than 10 employees, a balance sheet total of over EUR 350 K, annual revenue over EUR 700 K. Being transparent about Scope 3 emissions can build credibility, strengthen customer and investor relations and set the context for operating in a net-zero economy. 

Decarbonisation can give the service industry a competitive edge

Discussions of competitive advantage have traditionally focused on manufacturing and industry, both big contributors to Poland’s economy. However, Poland’s economy is changing. Since 2015, the industrial and manufacturing sectors have reduced their contribution to GDP while the service sector has increased from 55% to nearly 60% (Figure 7). The growing economic contribution of the service sector means that providing services more cheaply, efficiently or in a unique way also offers opportunities to gain a competitive advantage. 

The industrial sector in Poland is a significant consumer of energy and has therefore attracted some attention for its potential for demand reduction and improved energy efficiency. However, Forum Energii argue that the sector’s complexity and a lack of data mean that the industry has been largely neglected in Polish energy policy and law.

Figure 7

  • 1
    Services are intangible activities rather than physical goods. Examples include consultancy, the use of call centres and the IT activities allowed by data centres. Poland is becoming a regional leader in both call centres and data centres.
  • 2
    Only Czechia, Estonia, Hungary and Luxembourg were higher.
  • 3
    Interviews and statements were in Polish, automatically translated into English and manually verified.
  • 4
    EU member states are required to submit their plans to contribute to EU climate targets in the form of National Energy and Climate Plans (NECP). Poland is one of three Member States (Belgium, Estonia and Poland) which have not yet submitted the final version of their NECPs to the European Commission.
  • 5
    The current annual reduction in the cap is currently 4.3% and will increase to 4.4% from 2028. A new emissions trading scheme, known as ETS2, covering buildings, road transport and other sectors including small industry will operate from 2027/2028.
  • 6
    2022 is the most recent data available.
  • 7
    When auctions for offshore wind take place later this year, the contract length will be 25 years to reflect the high capital costs of the projects.
  • 8
    Renewable PPAs come in two forms: a physical PPA, where the generator supplies the consumer directly at a fixed price for the power for a specified amount of time, and a financial (or virtual) PPA, where the generator sells into the electricity market and the consumer pays an agreed ‘strike price’. If the market price is higher than the strike price, the generator pays the difference to the consumer; if the market price is lower than the strike price, the consumer pays the difference to the generator. The consumer also receives the Guarantees of Origin (GO) associated with the generation, proving that the electricity was produced from renewables and allowing the consumer to trade the GO if they wish.
  • 9
    The scope of the reporting requirements grows over time. In 2024, large public interest entities, companies with over 500 employees or a balance sheet of over EUR 20M/annual revenues over EUR 50M had to report Scope 1 and 2. By 2026, companies meeting two of these three criteria will also have to report: more than 10 employees, a balance sheet total of over EUR 350 K, annual revenue over EUR 700 K.

90 billion dollars of LNG with no buyers?

by

The following text went straight to our readers’ inboxes and is now available here for your interest. If you’re not a subscriber yet, sign up via the subscribe button in the top right corner.

Hello readers,

This month is a bumper edition of the newsletter, rounding up the biggest stories covering oil and gas in the energy transition from September and October. Apologies for the lack of an update from me last month, I discovered that covid is not a thing of the past and had to take a couple of weeks off to recover.

Some of the biggest stories have been the reported agreement on a potential new gas pipeline from Russia to China that could reshape the LNG market, and the Trump administration’s sabotage of an international agreement to tackle emissions from shipping. Taken together with the collapse of Plastics Treaty talks earlier this year, the prospects for major progress at COP aren’t looking brilliant. On the topic of COP, only 23 of the 63 Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted so far express support for transitioning away from, phasing out or phasing down the use of fossil fuels. There’s still a long way to go to make that commitment from COP28 a reality.

One piece I would recommend reading is by the influential Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas, whom I don’t often agree with (in Bloomberg, or without a paywall here). In it, he questions the traditional argument that gas and LNG is the “bridge fuel” between the phaseout of coal and the rise of renewables so many expected. As Blas puts it, “the shores that LNG was meant to bridge — coal and renewables — are a lot closer than anyone thought; a viaduct may still be needed, but it’s much shorter than expected.”

Please share this newsletter with your colleagues and contacts who can subscribe here. It’s always great to hear from you, so do email me any feedback or suggestions.

Thanks,
Murray

Oil and gas in the transition

The Russia-China pipeline that could upend the LNG market

Russia announced that it has signed an agreement with China to build the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, which would transport 50 billion cubic metres a year of gas to Northern China. This triumphant announcement overlooked that the fundamentals of any deal on the building of a pipeline – the gas pricing and construction cost sharing – have not been agreed. Until this is agreed, the pipeline will remain on paper. The South China Morning Post reported that Russia was looking to set a price for its gas nearly six times higher than the price the Chinese were looking to buy it for – a very large gap to close.

If built, the pipeline would account for around a third of the expected growth in gas demand from China, which had previously been assumed would be met by increasing LNG demand, largely from growing US exports. If China no longer needs this LNG, that leaves a huge amount of gas with no clear buyer – the FT’s Lex estimates that the US could lose out on USD 90 billion a year in lost revenue from LNG exports.

OPEC keeps turning on the taps, into a world awash with oil

OPEC members surprised oil market watchers in September by announcing yet another production hike, following months of rises that have increased the group’s production by an additional 2.2 million barrels per day. However, raising the production threshold is not the same as expanding production, with most OPEC+ members already near capacity. Saudi Arabia, however, has significant ability to increase production, meaning it stands to reap the biggest benefit as it aims to secure a greater share of the market.

The recent ramping up of production has led the IEA to say that “something has to give” in the market, with supply set to significantly exceed demand. Increasing oil going into storage, mostly in China, has stopped prices from falling further this year, but there’s a limit to how much oil can be stored. As that threshold approaches, the downward pressure on prices next year is set to become even greater. OPEC has now said it won’t increase production again in the first quarter of 2026, but that won’t be enough to stop the expected oil glut. 

Oil and gas oversupply enables Western sanctions on Russia

One geopolitical twist is that the huge amount of supply means that the Trump administration has felt able to introduce more stringent sanctions on the Russian oil industry. Previously, the US had been concerned that any sanctions on Russian oil could limit global supply, pushing up prices for US consumers. With more oil supply, the US has a freer hand to curb Russia’s exports. 

The same is happening in the gas market, with the expansion of US (and Qatari) LNG leading to fears of a significant supply glut. Even TotalEnergies CEO has said he thinks the US is building too many LNG export terminals, with no sign of an uptick in demand from major importers like China. Under pressure from the US, the EU is now aiming to end imports of Russian LNG by the start of 2027, a year earlier than previously planned. This decision stands to benefit the US, with the EU likely to replace much of those Russian LNG imports by buying up the huge wave of new supply coming from the US.

The twilight of US shale?

The oversupply of oil isn’t good news for the US though – low oil prices are starting to hurt domestic producers. As one US oil executive commented, “We have begun the twilight of shale. The US isn’t running out of oil, but she sure is running out of $60-per-barrel oil.” After years of booming growth, it appears that the low prices are about to push US oil production into decline. The US government isn’t giving up on the fossil fuel industry – new analysis shows that it is now handing out USD 35 billion a year in subsidies.

Carbon majors responsible for heatwaves

New research in Nature has found that emissions from the largest fossil fuel and cement producers contributed to half of the increase in intensity of heatwaves since pre-industrial times. The emissions from the 180 companies that make up the ‘carbon majors’ were found to be responsible for 0.7C of the 1.3C rise in global temperatures by 2023. Just 14 companies – including ExxonMobil, BP, Saudi Aramco and Shell – are responsible for 0.3C of that warming. This study adds to the growing body of literature linking the emissions of oil and gas companies to specific weather events, exactly the kind of research that’s likely to prove pivotal in future legal claims for climate damages. 

Trump snatches defeat from the jaws of victory on shipping

The US government waged an unprecedented campaign of “intimidation” against countries and negotiators on the verge of agreeing an unprecedented global carbon tax on shipping at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Its campaign was successful, and the decision to adopt the proposed Net Zero Framework for shipping has been delayed by a year. Over that period we will see whether the overwhelming majority of countries that backed the deal are able to reassemble their coalition, or whether the US will further escalate its tactics, described by one IMO veteran as “behaving like gangsters”.

Court case lost, but the climate test for new extraction confirmed

The European Court of Human Rights sided with Norway in the long-running People vs Arctic Oil case, finding that the country’s granting of exploration licences in the Barents Sea did not violate the claimants’ human rights. Europe’s top court did, however, confirm the legal requirement for an environmental impact assessment to include the emissions from the oil and gas extracted before opening new fields, in order to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. This follows similar rulings in the domestic courts of Norway and the UK, and cements this principle for countries across Europe.

Energy transition strategies

ExxonMobil is continuing its battle to limit shareholder and regulator efforts to scrutinise its climate policy. The SEC has approved a proposal by ExxonMobil to allow it to build a system that automates retail shareholders’ votes in line with those of the board of directors. This would build in a huge default wave of support for management, and against any shareholder activism efforts. The company is also suing the state of California over rules that would require it to report its Scope 3 emissions – those from the use of the fuel it sells – on the grounds that this disclosure would violate its free speech rights. 

Clean energy investments

Only 49 of the largest 250 oil and gas companies own any renewable energy projects, totalling around 1.4% of operating capacity, according to a new study in Nature. I think that fairly definitively answers any claims that the industry is making a meaningful contribution to global renewables deployment.

BP has abandoned its plans for a biofuels plant in Rotterdam and dropped its target for producing more biofuels by the end of the decade. The move follows a similar decision earlier this year by Shell amid a wider collapse in investment in biofuels.

Equinor announced that it would invest almost USD 1 billion in offshore wind group Ørsted to maintain its 10% ownership stake, as the renewables company issues more shares to raise capital. Equinor was reported to be considering combining its renewable assets with Ørsted’s as part of the future of its stake in the firm.

ExxonMobil is increasing its investment in minerals for electric vehicles with an investment in graphite production through a Chicago-based firm. The move builds on the company’s efforts to extract lithium, another major component of EV batteries, in Arkansas.

TotalEnergies won a EUR 4.5 billion tender to build France’s largest offshore wind farm, which would be the country’s largest renewable energy project.

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

The world’s potential for the storage of captured carbon is just 10% of industry estimates, according to a study published in Nature. Storing carbon should be seen as a “scarce resource” rather than “an unlimited solution to bring our climate back to a safe level”, according Joeri Rogelj, one of the authors of the study.

Finance

The giant insurance marketplace Lloyd’s of London has u-turned on its commitment to end coverage for the most polluting fossil fuels in the name of granting insurers “more freedom”.

From Zero Carbon Analytics

  • Nearly a third of deals in the Japan-backed Asia Zero Emissions Community (AZEC) involve fossil fuel technologies, including 30% of new deals announced in October 2025. We’ve launched the  AZEC tracker where you can find all the details of the deals.
  • We updated this handy guide to ‘temperature overshoot’, explaining why it matters and the risks involved of crossing critical climate tipping points. It’s all the more relevant given UN Secretary General Guterres’ comments in October that limiting warming to 1.5C is no longer possible, and could only be achieved by overshooting that goal then bringing temperatures back down by the end of the century.

AZEC project tracker finds that nearly a third of Japan’s AZEC deals are fossil fuel-related

by

Key points:

  • ZCA has launched a new interactive dataset with analysis of the deals signed under AZEC – Japan’s flagship decarbonisation initiative for ASEAN – including the latest deals announced in October 2025.
  • Analysis shows that approximately 31% of AZEC agreements signed since March 2023 involve fossil fuel technologies. 
  • In October 2025, Japan signed 49 new MoUs with ASEAN partners. Of these, 15 (30%) involve fossil fuels, while just 11 (22%) involve renewables.
  • Biomass/biofuels is the most mentioned technology across all AZEC deals. Four of the top 10 technologies are fossil fuel-related: CCUS (2nd), gas and LNG (5th), ammonia and ammonia co-firing with coal plants (6th), and hydrogen (7th).
  • Indonesia leads in the number of AZEC deals signed with Japan, both overall (125 MoUs) and in new deals announced in October 2025 (15 new MoUs).  After Indonesia, Thailand ranks second in the number of AZEC deals signed since March 2023 (43 MoUs), and Vietnam and Malaysia are tied for third (36 MoUs each).
  • Fossil fuel technologies come with emissions, security and cost risks for ASEAN countries. Investing in them could jeopardise the region’s transition and its clean energy goals. 

Fossil fuels are still prevalent in Japan’s flagship decarbonisation initiative for Asia 

The Asia Zero Emissions Community (AZEC) is an initiative launched by Japan in March 2023 to achieve the three goals of “decarbonisation, economic growth and energy security.” AZEC was launched with 10 partner countries, including Australia and nine Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam. 

A total of 316 AZEC Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) have been signed between Japan and ASEAN partners since March 2023, including 49 new MoUs announced at the Third AZEC Leaders Ministerial in October 2025

– Visit the AZEC Tracker website for the interactive dataset and latest analysis

New analysis of the technologies planned in the deals finds that 31% involve fossil fuel technologies, the same proportion that involves renewables and electrification tech. Of the MoUs signed in October 2025, 15 (31%) involve fossil fuel technologies and just 11 (22%) involve renewables and electrification.

Four of the top 10 technologies mentioned across all AZEC deals are fossil fuel-related: CCUS ranks second, gas and LNG rank fifth, ammonia and ammonia co-firing with coal plants rank sixth, and hydrogen ranks seventh. All these technologies pose significant risks for ASEAN countries compared to renewable energy generation, including high costs, feasibility limitations, supply security risks, and increased emissions.

– Visit the AZEC Tracker website for a breakdown of technology risks and policy context

In October, ASEAN energy ministers adopted an action plan to increase the share of renewable electricity to 45% of total capacity across the region within the next five years. Deals signed that support the continuing use of fossil fuels risk jeopardising the region’s transition and its clean energy goals. 

– Visit the AZEC Tracker website for the full analysis and figures

Power grid issues are the leading cause of blackouts

by

Key points:

  • Electricity systems are complex networks where a failure in one component can lead to a cascade of failures elsewhere, resulting in widespread blackouts. These blackouts can have severe impacts on all aspects of society and the economy.
  • Blackouts are typically caused by a combination of interrelated factors, rather than a single event. Common causes include equipment failure – often due to ageing infrastructure and underinvestment – grid overload, human error, cyberattacks, fuel supply issues, and natural disasters or extreme weather.
  • While power generators have sometimes been blamed for blackouts, the 20 major blackouts described in this briefing are overwhelmingly driven by failures in network infrastructure, human error or severe weather.
  • As electricity systems evolve to accommodate renewable technologies, increased use of energy storage technologies and interconnections between different countries’ systems can enhance system security.
  • Grids need to expand and develop as energy systems decarbonise, but investment is currently inadequate. The IEA said there is a risk of grids being “the weak link” in the energy transition.

Introduction

Electricity systems are complex networks of interrelated components, including power plants, transmission and distribution lines, the technologies that control them, and large and small consumers. A failure in one component can disrupt other components or cause them to fail, creating a cascade effect that can result in a blackout covering a wide area.

The April 2025 Iberian Peninsula blackout affecting Spain and Portugal was characteristic of this complex cascade effect. Blackouts can have severe impacts on all aspects of society and the economy.

The briefing outlines the main causes of a selection of significant blackouts over the last 20 years. 

What causes blackouts?

Blackouts tend to be the result of a number of interrelated factors, rather than being caused by one single event. The different factors might include:

  • Equipment failure: Ageing infrastructure in transmission or distribution networks, faulty components like transformers, generators, and circuit breakers, and material fatigue – when materials crack and eventually fail from repeated stress – can all lead to system failures. This is often exacerbated by underinvestment in maintenance and upgrades.
  • Grid overload/instability: When electricity demand suddenly exceeds the available supply or the grid’s capacity, it can lead to cascading failures as parts of the system automatically disconnect themselves from the grid – known as tripping – to prevent equipment damage. This can be caused by high demand, like during heat waves, or unexpected loss of generation.
  • Human error: Mistakes during operation, maintenance or dispatching can trigger outages that can cascade across the system.
  • Cyberattacks: As grids become more digitised, they are increasingly vulnerable to malicious cyberattacks targeting control systems.
  • Fuel supply issues: Disruptions to the supply of fuel for power plants, like coal or gas, can lead to a sudden drop in generation capacity and cause grid disruption and blackouts.
  • Natural disasters and extreme weather: Severe storms, floods and earthquakes can directly damage infrastructure, while events such as heatwaves raise electricity demand and cause equipment strain. Climate change is increasing the threat that extreme weather poses to electricity systems, and large-scale power disruptions were experienced around the world in 2024.

Infrastructure failure was the leading cause of blackouts over the last two decades

Table 1 shows a selection of blackout events that occurred over the last twenty years and indicates the initial event likely to have led to a blackout. Appendix 1 provides more details on the events.1These events were selected because of the number of people affected and also to give a broad geographical spread. The list is far from exhaustive. There is a longer list on Wikipedia (which also may not be exhaustive). World Population Review provides an overview of some of the countries most affected by blackouts, and detail on the number of firms that experience electrical outages in different countries is included in the results of the World Bank’s Formal Sector Enterprise Surveys.

Of this selection, the most common initial causes are:

  • Infrastructure failure, often faults in transmission lines.
  • Human error, including failure to implement protection standards or to inform other system actors of changes in operating conditions.
  • Extreme weather, often damaging infrastructure or preventing it from working properly.

Table 1

Upgrading the grid can prevent blackouts and support renewables

Variable renewables have often been erroneously blamed for blackouts, including in relation to the recent Iberian Peninsula event. However, as can be seen in Table 1, blackouts are overwhelmingly driven by failures in network infrastructure, with the resulting grid disruption driving all types of power plants offline.

The increasing deployment of renewable energy technologies means that electricity grids will need to change and adapt to accommodate these new technologies and practices while also maintaining system security. 

While the technologies and practices exist to enable renewables and storage to make a greater contribution to grid security, they are not yet receiving adequate political attention or investment. The security and resilience benefits of decarbonised electricity systems are being missed because electricity grids have not yet been upgraded to cope with the new technologies.

With grid upgrades, renewables can provide a secure electricity supply

The security of electricity systems can be defined by three qualities: 

  • Adequacy: the system’s ability to meet demand at all times under normal operating conditions.
  • Operational security: The system’s ability to retain a normal state during any type of event, or to return to a normal state as soon as possible afterwards.
  • Resilience: the system’s ability to absorb, accommodate and recover from short- and long-term shocks.

Traditional electricity systems were designed around very large-scale fossil fuel, nuclear or hydroelectric power plants, relying on the transmission network to deliver their output over long distances. The qualities of system security tended to be provided by fossil fuel or hydroelectric plants.

The increased deployment of renewables means that there is a more diverse set of smaller power plants that often provide variable output in response to the availability of wind or sun. 

Renewable energy integration involves modernising electricity grids with innovative technologies and enhanced operational flexibility, creating a more dynamic and resilient power system. The technologies to ensure stability and security in decarbonised electricity networks already exist, but are often underutilised. 

A renewables-based system can meet the three qualities of a secure grid in the following ways:

Adequacy 

Operational security 

Resilience

  • Energy storage technologies such as batteries or pumped storage can help electricity grids restart after a blackout, a process known as a ‘black start’. These technologies have rapid response times, stable voltage and frequency, and can operate independently of the grid, known as ‘island mode’, meaning they can kickstart blacked-out areas of the grid.
  • To date, grid operators have not usually required renewable power projects to have black start capabilities. However, the increasing deployment of renewables has focused attention on whether they can deliver these services. ScottishPower has successfully shown that wind power can restore a blacked-out section of the transmission network, using grid-forming technology to regulate the voltage and frequency of the wind farm’s output and allow it to contribute to stabilising or even restarting the grid.

Renewables, ageing assets and increasing demand mean grids need more investment

Electricity grids urgently need investment to deal with future challenges of electricity production and use. While the growth in renewables is often highlighted as responsible for this need, in reality, there are several factors driving the need for investment to expand and upgrade electricity grids:

  • Integration of new generation: The rapid expansion of renewable electricity generation means that grid infrastructure has to be updated and expanded to allow these sources to connect. Often, renewable projects are based in new areas, rather than in places where generation has traditionally taken place, requiring new lines to be built. In addition, the operating characteristics of variable renewable projects may mean upgrading or replacing grid management technologies to maintain grid stability. Other power plants might also require grid construction or expansion.
  • Ageing assets: Much of the existing network infrastructure in mature electricity systems was built decades ago, often in the mid-20th century. This equipment is reaching or has exceeded its design lifetime. Investment is needed for the maintenance, refurbishment or replacement of ageing components.
  • Increased electricity demand: Global electricity demand is rising, driven by climate change, population growth, economic development, and increasingly, the electrification of other sectors such as transport and heating. Data centres are also emerging as a major driver of increasing electricity demand. Existing grids may not have the capacity to handle this growing demand, necessitating upgrades and expansion to prevent overloads and ensure a reliable supply. Electrolysers for hydrogen production are also expected to need grid investment.
  • Modernisation and digitalisation (smart grids and decentralised generation): This requires improved network monitoring and control, demand-side management techniques, and enabling two-way power flows on networks. The development of smart grids is often coupled with the decentralisation of electricity systems and the use of more locally generated power, sited on lower-voltage distribution lines as well as transmission lines. 

Data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) gives an indication of how investment will be split between these categories until 2050 (Figure 1). In BNEF’s Net Zero scenario2BNEF’s Net Zero Scenario describes a pathway to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 consistent with 1.75°C of warming. the deployment of renewable generation is the largest single driver (35%), but it is closely followed by the need to replace ageing assets (30%). Overall, drivers that are not directly related to decarbonisation (ageing assets, increasing demand and non-renewable generation) make up more than 50% of the projected investment in grids up to 2050. 

Figure 1

Although not explicitly addressed in the BNEF figures, the need to ensure grid resilience and security in the face of more frequent and severe weather-related damage due to climate change is also a key driver. Cybersecurity threats to grid control systems are also a growing concern, requiring significant investment in advanced security measures and monitoring capabilities. 

Grids risk being the “weak link” in the energy transition, says IEA

Grid investment has not kept pace with the rate of increase in electricity demand and the growing deployment of renewables, and falls far short of what is needed. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that USD 390 billion was invested in electricity grids in 2024, an increase of nearly 20% since 2015, but still much less than the USD 600 billion a year needed globally by 2030 to ensure that grids can deliver a secure energy transition. 

Figure 2 shows that investment in renewables has more than doubled since 2015, while investment in grids has only grown by 24% in the same period. Although the level of investment compared to growing electricity demand has improved since about 2021, it still lags behind demand growth. The IEA believes that this disparity means that grids risk being the “weak link” in the energy transition. 

Figure 2

The IEA has also expressed concern that grid infrastructure is “one of the biggest energy security risks” at present due to the lack of investment. The recent blackout on the Iberian Peninsula focused attention on the state of the region’s grid, as well as on electricity generation. Figure 3 shows that, although investment in the Iberian grid has grown in the last couple of years, it still lags behind other similar economies. 

The challenges faced by the Spanish grid were reassessed as a result of the blackouts, with the Spanish government announcing an additional EUR 750 investment in increasing its resilience.

Figure 3

Appendix

Debunking common renewable energy myths

by

Key points:

  • Common myths about renewables are outdated and unsupported by evidence. Misinformation is often behind concerns that renewables are inefficient, too intermittent or too damaging to nature. This briefing helps debunk the myths by providing evidence-based facts, including:
    • Renewables are now the cheapest and fastest-growing source of electricity. Solar and wind costs have fallen dramatically since 2010 (by up to 90%), making them more affordable than fossil fuels.
    • Modern energy systems can rely on renewables. Battery storage, diversified supply, and smart grid systems can manage variable solar and wind generation. Local renewable energy generation shields countries from supply shocks in fossil fuel markets, making energy systems more resilient and secure.
    • Wind and solar energy have lower impacts on wildlife, public health and waste compared to fossil fuels. Renewables help mitigate the impacts of climate change on people and the planet.

Renewable energy is fundamental to net zero, but myths still circulate

Renewable energy and energy efficiency are crucial for the transition to sustainable energy. Switching to energy from renewable sources and using energy more efficiently are two of the most fundamental steps on the path to net zero, curbing greenhouse gas emissions and helping to mitigate global warming. 

Renewables are expanding quickly around the world, mainly driven by the rapid deployment of wind and solar photovoltaic (solar PV) generation. In 2000, renewables met around 19% of global electricity demand, a share that increased to nearly 32% by 2024. This is even more impressive when you consider that global demand for electricity more than doubled from just under 15,300 TWh in 2000 to nearly 31,000 TWh in 2024. Wind and solar generation together grew from 31 TWh in 2000 to over 4,600 TWh in 2024. 

Renewables have become the least expensive source of new power generation globally. In 2023, the average cost of generating electricity from a solar PV plant, known as the levelised cost of energy (LCOE),1Calculated using the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) for solar PV vs. the weighted average LCOE of fossil fuel alternatives. LCOE is the average cost of electricity generation over the lifetime of a power plant, including the costs of building and operation. It allows a comparison of the costs of different technologies, even if they have different fuels, life spans, capacities and financial profiles.was 56% less than the average of fossil fuel-fired alternatives. The LCOE of new onshore wind projects was 67% lower. Since 2000, the rise in renewable power generation worldwide has saved the electricity sector at least USD 409 billion in fuel costs.

Despite their benefits, some common misunderstandings still circulate about renewable energies, mainly around solar and wind, often as a result of misinformation. This briefing helps to debunk them.

Common renewable energy myths

Myth: Renewable energy technologies are expensive

Compared with fossil fuels or nuclear power, many renewable technologies were developed relatively recently. As manufacturing processes and technologies have improved, the cost of most renewable electricity has plummeted and will continue to fall. The most dramatic declines in electricity costs globally between 2010 and 2023 were seen in solar PV (90%), onshore wind (70%), and offshore wind (63%).

The falling cost of building a renewable energy project means that the technologies compare very favourably with fossil fuel options. In 2023, the global average cost of building a new onshore wind project was 67% lower than the cheapest fossil fuel option, while the cost of a solar PV project was 56% lower than the average fossil fuel option. 

The fall in the cost of renewable projects is making them an increasingly attractive investment option. Investment in renewables, and the grid and storage technologies to support them, now outstrips investment in all fossil fuel technologies combined.

Generating electricity from renewables can help people save money. Solar and wind projects have driven down electricity prices in wholesale markets in some countries, especially at times of peak generation, sometimes to below zero. The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that consumers in the EU saved around EUR 100 billion between 2021 and 2023 as a result of new solar and wind replacing expensive fossil fuel generation following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. These savings could have been 15% higher if renewable deployment had increased more quickly.

Both the IEA and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) say that taking early action to transition to a more sustainable energy system will be cheaper for countries in the long run. Delay will mean much more stringent and costly policies will be needed in the future to limit global temperature rise, meaning greater macroeconomic impacts, whereas shifting to renewable energy allows consumers to benefit from lower power prices. 

The rapid decline in costs also helps explain why some renewables technologies are being deployed so quickly. 450 GW of new solar capacity was installed globally in 2024, compared to 350 GW in 2023.2Zero Carbon Analytics estimations based on IEA data.

The amount of wind capacity installed between 2019 and 2023 avoids around 830 million tonnes of CO2 a year, and the solar capacity installed over the same period avoids 1.1 billion tonnes of CO2 a year – more than the annual emissions of Germany and Japan combined.

Myth: Renewables are unreliable and cannot meet power demand

Some renewable technologies, such as solar and wind, have variable output depending on weather conditions, also known as intermittency. Lack of wind or low wind speeds can reduce output from wind turbines and lack of sun can impact solar generation, but reductions or pauses in generation are manageable for power grid operators.

Renewable technologies are becoming more efficient as designs and reliability improve, improving their capacity factor—the ratio of a technology’s actual energy output to its maximum potential. The average capacity factor for solar PV rose from 14% to 16% between 2010 and 2023, while that of onshore wind rose from 27% to 36%.

The capacity factors of other renewable technologies are even more impressive. Concentrated solar power (CSP) has an average capacity factor of 55%, an 83% increase in efficiency since 2010, and for offshore wind it increased from 28% in 2010 to 41% in 2023. The capacity factor of offshore wind is comparable to conventional fossil fuel generation – higher than that of onshore wind thanks to bigger turbines and more sustained winds at sea. The IEA classifies offshore wind as a “variable baseload” technology, meaning that, while output will vary, it can be relied on to contribute to the steady background demand of a power system, known as the baseload. 

As renewable energy capacity grows and more of the grid relies on renewables, projects will increasingly need to be combined with electricity storage technologies as part of an integrated grid. Energy storage stores surplus power when demand is low and generation is high, and releases it at times of peak demand to maintain a consistent power supply. An interconnected power system allows grid operators to draw on other forms of renewable generation or from storage when one technology is producing less. A review of academic studies found that 100% renewable electricity systems backed up with energy storage are both technically and economically feasible.

Batteries are rapidly becoming cheaper and more widely deployed. The cost of lithium-ion battery cells dropped by an impressive 97% over the three decades from 1991, dramatically improving the affordability of both energy storage and electric vehicles. New storage technologies such as Long Duration Energy Storage (LDES), which can store power for anywhere from days to weeks or months, can increase reliability, particularly in isolated power systems with limited interconnectivity. Hybrid systems, with solar, wind, lithium-ion batteries and LDES, lower costs compared to standalone battery or LDES systems.

Sometimes renewable generation is stopped because the networks they are connected to have not been upgraded sufficiently to accept all of their output, rather than from a failure of the renewable source itself. This is a practice known as ‘curtailment’ or ‘constraining off’. In some areas, it is common to see wind turbines not turning and, less obviously, solar PV projects might be non-operational for this reason. The IEA estimates that around 3% of renewable output was curtailed in 2021 in ten markets with high levels of renewables, amounting to around 40 TWh – equivalent to New Zealand’s annual electricity demand.

In reality, all sources of power will be unavailable at some point. Large fossil fuel and nuclear power plants are generally offline around 7–12% of the time due to maintenance, refuelling or unexpected outages. Nuclear plants may be shut down unexpectedly for safety reasons. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa facility in Japan, the largest nuclear power plant in the world, had to be closed in 2007 after an earthquake, and 46 of France’s 56 nuclear reactors were offline for at least a quarter of the time between 2019 and 2023. Although rare, a problem at a nuclear power station that results in a nuclear accident has long-lasting impacts that reach far beyond interrupting the power supply.

Renewables can actually help make energy systems more secure. The IMF found that Europe’s policies to reduce emissions, including installing renewables, help to ensure a secure power supply and make the system more resilient. Renewables help limit Europe’s reliance on imported energy, diversify its energy imports and reduce vulnerability to energy shocks. A package of measures to lower emissions in line with the EU’s Fit for 55 proposals, which aims to reduce emissions by at least 55% by 2030 from 1990 levels, would improve energy security by nearly 8% over the same period.

Reports point to the grid, not renewables, as the cause of the Iberian Peninsula blackout

The widespread electricity blackout that affected Spain and Portugal in April 2025 led to speculation on the role of renewables. A few days earlier, the Spanish power grid had been supplied solely by renewable power, causing some commentators to hypothesise that the high level of renewables caused the blackout.

However, official investigations into the incident by the Spanish government and the grid operator (Red Eléctrica) have concluded that the cause was a complex set of technical and planning issues in the Spanish grid. This includes unexpected oscillations in voltage and frequency, insufficient voltage control and the disconnection of mainly fossil fuel plants, meaning that they did not maintain voltage as expected. The failure to maintain voltage across the network led to a cascading failure. 

A further report into the incident by AELEC, the trade association for Spanish electricity utilities, also identified voltage control as a key issue. Both the Spanish government and AELEC have blamed Red Eléctrica for failing to keep the system under control, while Red Eléctrica has pointed to conventional power generators for not providing voltage control.

Initial reports clearly identify the grid’s inability to manage fluctuations and remain stable as the key issue, rather than the high level of renewables. As the reports state, the blackout highlights the need to update the Spanish grid by investing in grid resilience and flexibility through technologies, such as battery storage. 

Myth: Fossil fuels are more efficient than solar and wind generation

Solar and wind are more efficient than fossil fuels. They produce more usable electricity per unit of energy put in. Fossil-based thermal power plants typically convert only 30–40% of input energy into usable electricity. Renewable sources like solar and wind deliver nearly 100% efficiency, making them two to three times more efficient. It is also worth noting that the input energy for renewable power generation – light energy from the sun and kinetic energy from wind – is free.

When it comes to heating, gas boilers operate at around 85% efficiency, while heat pumps can deliver 300–400% efficiency. In transport, internal combustion engines are just 25–40% efficient, whereas electric vehicles convert 80–90% of energy into motion.

Myth: Renewables create too much waste for disposal 

As with any other energy option, renewable technologies create some waste. The issue is how much waste, and whether it can be reduced by recycling or reusing components. 

To give an idea of scale, global municipal waste is projected to reach approximately 70 billion tonnes by 2050, and coal ash – waste from burning coal, mostly in coal-fired power plants – will reach 45 billion tonnes. By contrast, even in the most pessimistic scenario, end-of-life solar panel waste is expected to total just 160 million tonnes (Figure 1). This means municipal waste and coal ash will outweigh solar PV waste several thousand times.

Figure 1

Renewable energy technologies offer strong potential for recycling. Modern recycling techniques can reclaim up to 95% of a solar panel’s materials by weight, recovering valuable components such as glass and aluminium. Steel used in wind turbines can be recovered and reused, reducing the need to extract new raw materials. Recycled steel produced using renewably powered electric arc furnaces produces 86% less greenhouse gas emissions than traditional steelmaking, and recycled steel consumes significantly less energy and water, and produces less pollution.

Improved standards for solar panels and wind turbines mean both have much longer lifespans today than they did a decade ago. Panels typically last 30 to 35 years and turbines have a lifespan of about 30 years. 

Common myths about wind energy

Myth: Wind turbines are too dangerous for wildlife, especially birds and bats

All forms of energy production have environmental impacts, including on wildlife. Renewable technologies present a relatively low risk to wildlife compared to other human activities. Any comparison of risks must take into account the threat that global warming presents to many species, which renewable energy can help mitigate. 

Estimates of the number of birds killed by wind turbines compared to other energy-related causes vary. One study showed that wind power causes fewer bird deaths than fossil fuels when assessed per unit of energy produced. Fossil fuels cause 5.2 avian fatalities per GWh, whereas wind turbines are associated with only 0.3 to 0.4 deaths per GWh.

The extraction of oil and gas disrupts biodiversity during both drilling and production, through, for example, air and groundwater pollution from leaks and spills, light and noise disturbances, and heightened human presence in undeveloped areas. A study in the US found that fracking reduced the number of birds by 15%, whereas wind farms had no significant effect on bird counts.

Nuclear power plants pose other risks to wildlife. Birds are affected by hazardous pollution at uranium mine sites and collisions with draft cooling structures. It has also been proven that bird populations decrease due to radiation after a nuclear disaster.

Figure 2

Looking more broadly, a range of US studies shows that the number of birds killed by wind turbines is a tiny fraction of those killed by cats, buildings, or cars. The American Bird Conservancy estimated in 2021 that approximately 681,000 birds are killed by wind turbines in the US each year. Other estimations indicate a range between 200,000 to 1.2 million for 2022. In comparison, buildings killed an estimated 365 to 988 million birds in the US in 2014, and domestic cats killed between 1.3 billion and 4 billion birds in 2013. 

A review by Sustainability by Numbers provides an indication of the scale of difference between wind turbine-related deaths and some other hazards in the US (Figure 2). 

The impacts of wind development on certain bat species may be more severe. If measures are not taken to reduce fatalities, the North American population of hoary bats could decline by 50% by 2028.

However, many species face much greater risks from global warming. A WWF study of 35 biodiversity-rich places around the world found that 2°C of warming would put a quarter of species at risk of local extinction, rising to 50% at 4.5°C of warming. 

Seabirds in particular are highly threatened – climate change ranks as one of the three major threats to seabirds, alongside invasive species and fishing. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would benefit 76% of vulnerable bird species, according to the National Audubon Society.

Critically, wildlife protection organisations generally support the development of wind power as a response to the threat of climate change. The American Bird Conservancy recognises that renewables are a “critically important component” in the shift away from fossil fuels, stating that more wind turbines should be deployed but sited to avoid high-risk areas for birds. The UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has adopted a similar position, stating that climate change is the “greatest long-term threat to nature” and calling for a strategic approach to siting wind projects. 

How wind turbines are located and operated can help reduce their impact on wildlife. Wind turbines can be slowed or stopped at certain times to allow for bird migration or bat activity. Using ultrasound to deter bats is also effective. Bladeless wind turbines are another option – these are cylindrical, flexible structures that capture wind energy by resonating with air flow, with benefits like lower environmental impact and greater safety.

BirdLife International and The American Bird Conservancy both work to ensure that wind energy’s benefits for birds outweigh its impacts. Bat Conservation International also supports renewable energy deployment in a way that minimises impacts on bats.

Myth: Offshore wind farms are too dangerous to marine life

The construction and operation of offshore wind farms can impact marine wildlife by disrupting natural habitats, creating noise and electromagnetic interference, and potentially spreading invasive species. However, these impacts are not unique to the wind industry – they are also caused by offshore oil and gas development. Plus, the oil and gas industry has caused repeated pollution incidents that have degraded habitats and killed wildlife.

Wind farm operations generate relatively low underwater noise. Noise can lead to whales becoming stranded, but this is linked to sudden bursts of noise rather than the continuous operation of turbines. A Danish study found that underwater noise from offshore wind turbines was at least 10–20 decibels lower than that of ships in the same frequency range.

The construction phase can be significantly louder. Marine species such as whales, dolphins, sea turtles and certain fish are particularly vulnerable to the elevated noise levels and tend to move away from the area. But, once established, offshore wind farms can act as artificial reefs that benefit marine life, and some species can come back in larger numbers than before. 

The UN’s Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) recognises the importance of wind energy in addressing climate change and argues for siting decisions to take into account impacts on migratory species. Different technologies, like bubble curtains, can be used during construction to reduce noise and vibrations. 

The biggest human-caused threats to whales, porpoises and dolphins are being caught as bycatch, entanglement in fishing nets, oil spills, vessel strikes and whaling. 

Myth: Wind turbines create harmful noise pollution

Wind turbines are typically located at least 300 metres away from homes. At that distance, the sound measures around 43 decibels (dB). Sound levels fall below 40 dB beyond 400m from modern wind turbines, lower than the level of noise linked to annoyance in epidemiological studies, and decrease to 38 dB at 500m. By comparison, an air conditioner produces 50-75 dB and background noise in urban areas ranges from 40 to 45 dB. Even in quiet rural areas, background noise is 30 dB.

Although the sound produced by close wind turbines may be perceived as annoying, the Iowa Environmental Council and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health concluded that there is no link between health outcomes and proximity to wind turbines.

Figure 3

Myth: Wind turbines hurt neighbouring communities 

Whilst the announcement of a wind turbine project can impact nearby property prices in the first few years, prices have been shown to recover. A recent US study looked at the prices of houses located within 1.6 kilometres (1 mile) of a commercial turbine. It found that property values declined by 11% following the project’s announcement, but recovered after the project was built. The price difference was insignificant by the five-year mark. The impacts on houses more than 1.6 kilometres away were much smaller or non-existent.

Communities can also make big gains from wind projects. Wind power projects in the US have been shown to increase GDP, boosting the local economy and household incomes. Rural communities benefit the most, as construction and operation can create jobs and diversify work opportunities. Wind projects that are community-owned can bring even greater economic benefits.

Myth: The life cycle emissions of wind turbines are more harmful than burning fossil fuels

Life cycle assessments (LCA) evaluate a product’s environmental impacts throughout its life, from the extraction of raw materials to produce it through to disposal. They allow the impacts of different products to be compared. 

Comparing LCAs shows that renewable electricity generation technologies produce a fraction of the emissions of fossil fuel generation over the product lifecycle (Figure 4). 

Figure 4

Common myths about solar energy

Myth: Solar farms are a waste of agricultural land 

Solar farms are projected to take up a very small proportion of land area. A study projected the land use for solar farms in the EU, India, Japan and South Korea in 2050, when solar energy will account for between 25% and 80% of the electricity mix. It found that solar infrastructure would occupy between 0.5% and 5% of total land area. In comparison, agricultural land accounted for 38.8% of the EU’s land area in 2022.

In the UK, Carbon Brief estimated that existing solar farms (230 km2) and future solar farms (464 km2) combined would use roughly half the land taken up by golf courses. Solar farms make up just under 0.1% of UK land, and government net-zero plans will increase this to less than 0.3%.

In the US, the deployment of solar could lead to between 1.1% to 2.4% of croplands and 0.3% to 0.7% of natural lands being converted for solar PV infrastructure by mid-century. The US Department of Energy calculated that in a 2050 scenario where solar meets 44-45% of electricity demand, solar development would take up around 10.3 million acres (41,683 km2), equivalent to 1.17% of US farmland3Zero Carbon Analytics estimation based on USDA data for 2023 – total farmland of 878,560,000 acres.

Myth: Solar farms are too dangerous for wildlife, especially birds

Like any electricity-generating technology, solar PV will impact the environment and wildlife, although evidence is limited. Birds might collide with PV panels, and there is a theory that water birds could mistake solar farms for water and try to land on them. 

As with wind power, the number of fatalities is small compared to other threats. Mortality estimates vary widely, with studies calculating the annual average avian fatalities from solar to be 2.49 fatalities/MW, 4.5 fatalities/MW, and 9.9 fatalities/MW. 

To address this, some developers are adopting measures such as adding distinctive patterns to panels or choosing places with less bird abundance.

A study by the RSPB and the University of Cambridge found that solar farms in the UK can actually increase the number of bird species, especially if they are managed to encourage wildlife and flowering plants. In the US, the National Audubon Society and other conservation groups work with developers to ensure that climate action, conservation and community engagement go hand in hand on large-scale solar developments.

Myth: Solar panels pollute the environment with toxic materials

According to the Clean Energy Council, solar panels mainly consist of glass (77%), followed by aluminium (10%), polymers (9%), silicon (3%), and copper, silver and tin (<1%). 

The vast majority of solar cells, the part of a solar panel that converts solar energy into electricity, are made using crystalline silicon, as in the Clean Energy Council’s example. They can also contain cadmium telluride, copper indium diselenide and gallium arsenide. These chemicals are enclosed in a solid matrix in the solar cell, insoluble and non-volatile under normal conditions. Because they are stable and enclosed, there is little risk of chemicals escaping during normal use. 

Any pollution of the environment is undesirable, but the impacts of solar panels are minimal compared with the contamination caused by extracting and burning fossil fuels. One study found that soil samples close to solar PV systems showed increased levels of selenium, strontium, lithium, nickel and barium compared to areas further away, but no elements were found in high enough concentrations to endanger local ecosystems. 

Solar module waste is significantly less toxic than coal ash or oil sludge waste from fossil fuel energy generation. The amount of coal ash produced globally in a single month is equivalent to the total projected weight of PV module waste over the next 35 years. Without decarbonising and transitioning to renewable energy sources, the coal ash and oil sludge generated by fossil fuels would be 300–800 times and 2–5 times greater than the waste produced from PV modules, respectively. 

  • 1
    Calculated using the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) for solar PV vs. the weighted average LCOE of fossil fuel alternatives. LCOE is the average cost of electricity generation over the lifetime of a power plant, including the costs of building and operation. It allows a comparison of the costs of different technologies, even if they have different fuels, life spans, capacities and financial profiles.
  • 2
    Zero Carbon Analytics estimations based on IEA data.
  • 3
    Zero Carbon Analytics estimation based on USDA data for 2023 – total farmland of 878,560,000 acres.

Follow Us