The Generation Generation
IEA: Renewables Scale Up to Meet Demand Growth, US Says "Nah"
The International Energy Agency was formed in response to the 1974 oil crisis, with the mission of coordinating a collective response to disruptions in the global supply of oil. Since that time, the agency has become a trusted source of data on the use of energy – all types of fuels and technologies. The agency makes energy-related policy recommendations and facilitates cooperation globally in energy security, data, policy, efficiency, and improvements in energy technology.
The IEA recently released a report titled “Electricity 2026”, on global systems and markets for generating electricity. The report includes forecasts for the period 2026-2030 on demand for electricity, supply of electricity, and carbon dioxide emissions.
The report’s conclusions echo the concerns energy experts in the US have raised, including meeting growing demand for electricity, incorporating new technologies into existing grid systems, and finding ways to make electrical systems more robust and flexible as energy markets and generation methods change.
The report reflects hope for a plateau in emissions from electrical generation in the coming years, but the IEA stresses that to meet growing demand while maintaining energy security and continuing to pursue climate goals, electrical systems around the world will need to build more more transmission and more flexibility into the system.
Air Conditioning Use As a Climate Feedback
Global demand for electricity is forecast to increase at an annual rate of 3.6% over the 2026-2030 forecast period. The rise in demand reflects rising consumption from industry, as well as electric vehicles, data centers, and air conditioning.
The rise in demand for electricity from air conditioning is an interesting climate feedback. When temperatures rise, the demand for air conditioning rises too. This is not only a matter of comfort. Extreme heat is a dangerous public health threat. People without access to air conditioning are vulnerable to a host of health impacts, including heat stroke and death. At COP30 this year, we heard Dr. Mary Rice of Harvard Medical School described air conditioning as an important health intervention.
One of the climate impacts experts are most worried about is the expansion of the zone in which temperatures can rise to a level health experts call “uninhabitable.” A combination of extreme heat with high humidity creates dangerous conditions for more than three months a year in the lower latitudes. Climate change is expanding that zone to include areas where millions of people live.
For those places, access to air conditioning is a safety issue, even though when generated using conventional methods it causes emissions that worsen climate change. That’s what makes it a climate feedback: warmer temperatures leads to more air conditioning use which leads to more emissions which leads to more climate change. That cycle can be broken by finding ways to run air conditioning units with renewable energy.
Rate of Energy Demand Increase Accelerating, Renewables Play a Key Role
The IEA also found that the rate of increase in demand for electricity is twice as high in these new projections than it was a decade ago. The agency reports that much of the demand is coming from emerging economies, including China.
There is good news on the generation side. Generation of electricity by renewables, like wind and solar, is overtaking generation by coal.
“Renewable output is forecast to grow by about 1,000 terrawatt hours (TWh) annually through 2030, with solar PV alone accounting for over 600 TWh. In percentage terms, renewable generation is forecast to rise at an annual rate of 8% per year. Renewables and nuclear are together expected to account for around half of global electricity generation by 2030.”
That’s good news for emissions, since electrical generation is a major source of climate harming emissions. The growth of renewables is a good thing. But it is important to note that the report indicates that renewables (and nuclear) will grow to meet new demand for electricity. That leaves existing demand still generating power from a mix of natural gas, coal, and renewables.
Emissions from Electricity Generation Sector to Plateau
The IEA electricity report projects that global emissions from electricity generation will plateau through 2030, largely because of the growth of renewables and nuclear generation.
If the plateau projection is realized, that will mean continuing to add renewables and nuclear to the generation portfolio will one day result in falling greenhouse gas emissions for the electrical generation sector.
We can hurry that moment along in the meantime by focusing on energy efficiency for homes and buildings, investing in public transit and walkable spaces that reduce the need for personal vehicles, and incentivizing energy efficient building practices in all sectors. These improvements improve quality of life and building comfort in addition to being a smart energy choice.
For developing countries, renewables are an even more attractive option for improving electrification, since there is no ongoing fuel cost. Renewables can also be deployed quickly and in remote locations with minimal infrastructure support. Renewable manufacturers have identified this opportunity and are benefitting from this growth in the industry.
Unfortunately, the future of US manufacturing of renewable energy technology, which was spurred by investment from the Inflation Reduction Act, is now uncertain, both because of the rollback of the IRA’s clean energy tax credits which incentivize solar installation on homes and businesses, but also because of high tariffs which has made purchasing component parts more expensive. This puts us at a disadvantage in a growing market for renewable technologies.
US Pressures IEA to Drop Climate Priorities
The current administration has made rolling back all climate mitigation policy a priority in their first year, overturning the waste emission charge for methane by congressional review, delaying the compliance deadline for the Section 111 methane rule, rescinding the endangerment finding, and threatening the greenhouse gas reporting program, among other changes.
In addition to rolling back domestic climate policy, the administration is now turning to the international sphere. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has threatened to withdraw the US from the International Energy Agency. Wright said in an interview that if the IEA is not willing to reform to better align with the Trump administration’s energy agenda, then the US would be forced to withdraw.
Seemingly in response to threats by Secretary Wright, the IEA removed climate change as a top priority after a high-level ministerial this week in Paris. Two years ago addressing climate and phasing out fossil fuels was listed as a top IEA priority. After this week’s ministerial, the stated priorities include energy security, resilience, critical minerals, and electricity systems.
It would appear that not everyone present at the ministerial agreed with the change. In the IEA chair’s summary at the end of the ministerial he stated that “a large majority of ministers stressed the importance of the energy transition to combat climate change and highlighted the global transition to net zero emissions in line with COP28 outcomes.”
The views of Energy Secretary Chris Wright and the Trump administration are out of step with the rest of the world, which has recognized the change in how we think about “energy security as bigger, more reliable, and more flexible grids, affordability, demand reduction, cyber security, clean technology supply chains, and managing the economic transition for fossil-producing countries.”
This announcement comes as the global climate community, at least the ones who are serious about transitioning the economy away from fossil fuels, are planning a conference in Santa Marta, Colombia to gather the “coalition of the willing” to have a serious conversation about what an energy transition could look like away from the influence of actors who do not share their priorities.
This demonstrates not that multilateralism is dead, but rather that those who most value the spirit of multilateralism have moved to shield it from actors who have habitually failed to participate in the process in good faith.