Since S&P Global Ratings launched its Analytical Approach: Second Party Opinions in 2023, 52% of its published second party opinions (SPOs) have included an energy category (66% when considering green financings only). Renewable energy remains the dominant project category globally in use of proceeds frameworks according to Environmental Finance.

We view climate transition risks, physical climate risks, land use, and other environmental risks as the most material environmental factors for the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity (see "ESG Materiality Map: Power Generators").

We apply our Shades of Green approach in the context of our SPOs on sustainable finance frameworks or transactions and in our Climate Transition Assessments (see "Analytical Approach: Climate Transition Assessments"). An S&P Global Ratings Shade of Green (shade) represents our qualitative opinion on how consistent an economic activity or financial instrument is with a low-carbon climate resilient future. In this report, we explain how we use our Shades of Green analytical approach to assess several activities in the power generation, distribution, and transmission sectors and the distribution of shades that results.

The Power Sector Holds The Keys To The Transition

The power sector remains the largest direct source of greenhouse gases, accounting for roughly 25% of global emissions according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. The sector's decarbonization has progressed considerably in recent years in some economies, but the global picture remains mixed. Coal still generates over one-third of the world’s electricity, and fossil fuels collectively exceed 60% of the global power mix. To meet decarbonization objectives in line with the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) Net Zero Emissions (NZE) by 2050 scenario, electricity generation would need to shift decisively toward low-emission sources. This implies output from renewables and nuclear rising substantially, while generation from unabated fossil fuels falls by 40% by 2030 and is virtually eliminated by 2050 (see chart 1).

Chart 1

At the same time, the IEA projects that global electricity demand will increase by over 60% by 2040, driven by electrification of heating, transport, and industry; population growth; rising living standards; and digital infrastructure expansion. Power demand in emerging and developing economies is expected to more than double by mid-century, while demand in developed economies is expected to rise more moderately due to energy efficiency and decoupling from economic growth.

Three Main Factors Drive Shades In Power Projects

The shade we assign to power generation projects represents our analytical conclusion on how well such projects perform in terms of lifecycle emissions, as well as how the issuer mitigates land use and other environmental and physical climate risks.

Lifecycle emissions

These refer to the total greenhouse gas emissions over the entire lifespan of an energy source, from raw material extraction, manufacturing of components, and construction of the generation facility or network, alongside its operation and maintenance, to the assets' eventual decommissioning and disposal. Typically, the lower the carbon intensity of the generation technology, the darker the shade of green we assign, provided negative impacts on the local environment and physical risks are sufficiently mitigated.

Renewable energies such as solar PV, wind, and hydroelectric power generate low lifecycle emissions and are thus key to the transition to low carbon power production. The lifecycle emissions for these technologies are typically well below 100 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt hour (gCO2e/kWh), with a median of 48 gCO2e/kWh for solar PV and 12 gCO2e/kWh for wind. Hydropower has a wide range depending on the reservoir size, location, and land use changes (from 1 gCO2e/kWh to more than 2,200gCO₂e/kWh, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), with a median of 24 gCO2e/kWh (see chart 2). In tropical areas, emissions from hydropower reservoirs can be very high due to the release of methane from decomposing vegetation. Bioenergy and biomass lifecycle emissions vary widely depending on the feedstock. Low-carbon sources such as nuclear energy projects have similar lifecycle emissions as solar PV projects.

Although the deployment of renewable generation sources has accelerated, challenges remain. These include the intermittency of such sources and the limited maturity and use of long-duration storage such as batteries. In addition, reliable power supply requires firm, dispatchable generation capacity, which mature solutions like pumped hydropower can provide but are often geographically constrained. Low-carbon technologies still face barriers such as siting constraints, permitting delays, local opposition, geopolitical trade dynamics, and, in the case of nuclear, high upfront costs and long lead times.

Emissions from other sources of power can vary significantly. The generation of electricity from fossil fuels has the highest emissions intensity, averaging 700gCO2/kWh-900gCO2/kWh for coal, and approximately 400gCO2/kWh-600gCO2/kWh for unabated natural gas (that is, gas used without substantial efforts to reduce emissions). Additionally, these assets have the highest risks of locking in emissions and becoming stranded, leaving them prematurely devalued and no longer in use in a low-carbon and climate resilient future. Gas-fired assets continue to play a role in providing flexible generation capacity and ensuring network stability, particularly during periods of peak demand or low renewable output; however, their long-term use presents significant transition risks because key abatement solutions--such as carbon capture and green hydrogen infrastructure--are not yet commercially viable at scale.

Chart 2

Land use and other environmental impacts

Power generation projects and transmission and distribution networks can have adverse impacts on the local environment, including on biodiversity. The development of energy projects can entail significant land use change, which has the potential to degrade carbon sinks or disrupt terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems. Bioenergy projects have additional considerations related to the sustainability of practices in feedstock and supply chains. For projects to be assigned a shade of green, we would expect adequate consideration of local environmental impacts and the most salient value-chain risks, from design to decommissioning, also taking into account the jurisdictional and regulatory context.

Physical climate risks

Physical climate risks--such as heat waves, droughts, storms, and floods--represent mounting hurdles for power generation and grid infrastructure assets, as well as for fuel supply chains. Because water is often a significant resource for hydro, nuclear, and fossil-fuel power plants, exposure to flooding, drought, or warmer temperatures can also hamper such operations.

The utilities, financial, and energy sectors are likely to face the greatest share of economic losses due to impacts associated with worsening climate hazards through the 2050s (see "Climate Costs Are Rising, But Few Companies Have An Adaptation Plan"). In California, for example, the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires have intensified financial pressures on utilities, not only from asset damage, but also from liability when their infrastructure contributes to such events. This results in a dual exposure to such risks (see "Credit Risks Associated With Wildfires Are Increasing For California Public Finance Entities").

As such, we consider how issuers identify and seek to adapt infrastructure to worsening climate hazards. We consider it best practice when an issuer performs a climate risk and vulnerability assessment (using future scenarios consistent with the expected lifetime of the activity) to assess the materiality of physical climate risks on the economic activity and identifies adaptation and resilience solutions that can reduce the risks (see "Risky Business: Companies' Progress On Adapting To Climate Change").

How Project Activities Relate To The Shade Drivers

We analyze power generation, transmission, and distribution projects based on how well they perform in terms of lifecycle emissions (for power generated or transmitted). We also consider how the issuer mitigates land use and other environmental and physical risks, including whether appropriate risk assessments are carried out (including for climate change vulnerability) and the necessary safeguards are in place. Additionally, our assessment considers the whole value chain, which means we also capture the end use of the asset in our analytical considerations.

Chart 3

Solar and wind

Our analysis mainly considers lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, environmental management, and physical climate risks.

Low lifecycle emissions, typically in the 10gCO2/kWh-60gCO2/kWh range, make activities like power generation from wind and solar PV eligible for a Dark green shade. Beyond lifecycle emissions, we consider how the issuer mitigates environmental risks in its supply chain. We also assess environmental management practices during the construction and operational phases--including, for instance, environmental impact assessments--and management of physical climate risks. In addition, we assess how the issuer addresses circularity to extend the lifespan of assets and ensure the recyclability and reusability of panels and turbines at the end of their life. These factors, although important, do not typically lead to a change in shade; however, we may highlight these practices in the Strengths, Weaknesses, or Areas to Watch sections of our report. To date, we have typically assigned a Dark green shade to solar and wind activities (see our SPOs on "Ørsted's Green Finance Framework" and "Ontario Power Generation Inc.'s Sustainable Finance Framework" for examples of Dark green solar and wind assets).

Hydro

We analyze total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions, land- and water-use management, biodiversity impacts, and vulnerability to physical climate risks such as droughts and shifting precipitation patterns.

Reservoir-based projects, particularly large installations, can have a considerable environmental footprint. This is due, for example, to flooding ecosystems, disrupting river continuity, and altering sediment flows. In some cases, reservoirs may also emit methane from decomposing organic material.

Although we consider lifecycle emissions more indicative of the environmental impact than operational metrics alone, power density can be a relevant indicator. Low values often suggest extensive land use, ecological disruption, and methane emissions from submerged vegetation, while higher density typically signals a lower environmental footprint per unit of energy. Nevertheless, a project's actual climate impact will also depend heavily on reservoir design, vegetation, and climatic conditions. Given these risks, we view favorably the use of thresholds such as minimum power density of 5 W/m² (watts per square meter) or higher and/or low lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions (100 gCO2e/kWh or lower) for large hydropower plants.

The type and scale of projects also matter. Run-of-river plants usually have lower impacts, while large reservoirs provide firm capacity but often entail greater ecological and social risks. To date, we have typically assigned a Dark green shade where reliable data on power density and emissions is available, robust thresholds are met, and strong safeguards are in place. Projects lacking such data or facing high site-specific risks--particularly regarding methane emissions and biodiversity--may receive a Medium green, Light green, or non-green shade. We ensure transparency about our assessment of these factors in our reports (see our SPOs on "SABESP’s Sustainable Finance Framework" and "Statkraft’s Green Financing Framework" for examples of Dark green hydropower projects).

Nuclear

Nuclear energy can provide low-carbon, baseload electricity with a relatively small operational land footprint. However, lifecycle factors, particularly regarding the disposal of highly radioactive waste, remain key challenges.

One of the primary shade drivers for nuclear energy projects is the waste management strategy. In our view, deep geological repositories (DGRs) are the only credible long-term solution for permanent nuclear waste storage. Although no DGR is yet operational, construction has begun at the Onkalo site in Finland, and other countries such as France and Sweden are progressing through licensing or site selection. Interim storage solutions are widely used but not considered sufficient for permanent containment. We may also consider additional factors, such as upstream impacts from uranium mining, the emissions intensity of fuel production, and the potential for high-consequence operational risks. To date, we have assigned a Medium green shade to nuclear power projects we have assessed, reflecting our opinion on their role in decarbonization alongside unresolved lifecycle issues and strong management of the key environmental risks (see our SPOs on "Electricite de France Green Financing Framework" and "Bruce Power L.P.’s 2023 Green Financing Framework" for examples of Medium green nuclear energy projects).

Risks linked to land-use change, biodiversity impacts, and pollution from the uranium value chain are material, but typically mitigated by regulations. Given high potential risks regarding nuclear power operations and the need for secure waste disposal, much of the nuclear power value chain is typically highly regulated, with generally robust safeguards at the country and international levels. Only a handful of countries export nearly all of the world’s uranium, and protections to ensure sustainable mining practices vary from country to country. Uranium enrichment, milling, and conversion can require relatively high energy use and consequently generate greenhouse gas emissions.

In the future, we may assign a Dark green shade to nuclear projects where long-term waste disposal at an approved DGR site has been secured. New nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors, are still not available at scale and face near-term technological constraints but pose many of the same risks as conventional reactors.

Bioenergy

We use the feedstock type as an indication of likely lifecycle emission improvements and nature risks. Although lifecycle assessments can be a helpful tool, the findings depend heavily on the scope and assumptions used, particularly regarding land-use change risks, which limits comparability.

The feedstock type can act as a proxy due to its strong links to expected climate benefits, carbon sink maintenance, and ecosystem conversion issues from land-use competition. Waste-based feedstocks, such as forestry or agricultural waste and residues, generally have greater benefits than energy crops like switchgrass or miscanthus, which in turn have lower risks than food and feed crops like soy or palm oil or whole logs from forestry.

We also evaluate the sustainability of feedstock production practices and transportation emissions. Sustainable feedstock production is often indicated by voluntary environmental certification of forestry or agricultural practices. We may also consider that certain feedstocks inherently have higher risks. An example is meat trimmings, due to links to livestock value chains. To understand transport emissions, we identify whether feedstock sourcing is local or international and whether there are efforts to decarbonize vehicles or vessels.

Bioenergy producers that manage local pollution and physical climate risks may receive a green shade. Bioenergy can generate significant pollution at combustion, in some cases more than coal, making mitigation key. In feedstock supply chains, forestry and agriculture are exposed to increasingly frequent extreme weather events and chronic changes (see "Sustainability Insights Research: Ripple Effect: How Value Chains Compound Sector Exposures To Physical Climate Risks").

To assign a Dark green shade, we typically look for waste-based feedstocks from sustainable initial activities and limited transport emissions. An example is in our SPO on "Index Energy Ajax Corp". We generally assign Medium green where bioenergy projects use energy crops with very low land-use change risks, such as switchgrass grown on land unsuitable for food production, or where waste-based feedstocks have higher sustainability risks from the initial activity (see our SPO on "Banco Cooperativo Sicredi S.A."). To receive a Light green shade, which represents more transitional steps toward a low-carbon future, bioenergy projects typically use energy-crop feedstocks and demonstrate sufficient land-use change safeguards.

Yellow, Orange, or Red bioenergy projects have likely lower climate benefits during their lifecycle and higher nature risks. Yellow activities include bioenergy from food and feed crops, reflecting potential emissions benefits compared to fossil alternatives but land-use change risks due to competition with food production. Biomass from certified whole logs is also typically Yellow, since forestry certification may increase the likelihood of carbon stock maintenance but there's a risk that trees cut for whole log biomass are not regrown on climate-relevant timescales. Without an environmental certification that signals that safeguards against these risks are in place, conventional whole-log bioenergy is typically assigned an Orange shade. We consider bioenergy known to be linked with direct ecosystem conversion to be Red due to the associated climate emissions and biodiversity loss.

Fossil fuels

Power generation from crude oil or coal would always be assessed as Red. However, natural gas emits less carbon dioxide than other fossil sources and may serve as a transition fuel in the short and medium terms, particularly in regions where deploying renewable energy faces challenges. Although the use of natural gas must reduce significantly during the transition, gas-fired electricity generation can move to an Orange, Yellow, or even Light green shade under certain conditions.

Highly efficient natural gas power assets with safeguards against emissions lock in can receive a Light green shade. Such cases include existing and new gas-fired plants in countries with a credible national plan to phase out coal, where relevant. These assets must have measures in place to substantially reduce lifecycle emissions, such as blending with a share of renewable gas, improving efficiency, or the implementation of carbon capture and storage technology. Additionally, the asset owner must commit to fully switching to renewable or low-carbon gases in the medium term. Although new assets can receive a Light green shade, these must always replace a coal-fired asset with similar or higher capacity. We also consider the construction date of the plant to assess the risks of locking in emissions (see our SPO on "EPH Green Finance Framework" for an example).

Certain assets may fall short these considerations, but still represent an improvement in the short and medium term. We may assign an Orange shade to existing gas-fired assets, or to new gas-fired assets if they are replacing a coal-fired plant, when they support intermittent renewable energy generation or include measures to somewhat reduce emissions compared to standard practices. If gas-powered assets both support intermittent renewable generation and include measures to reduce emissions, we may assign a Yellow shade.

Transmission, distribution, and storage of electricity

For these activities, our Shades of Green assessment focuses primarily on the emissions intensity of the electricity transmitted or stored and the management of vulnerabilities associated with physical climate risks, value chain, land use, and local environmental impacts.

For transmission and distribution infrastructure, key factors include the grid's average emission factor and decarbonization trajectory, environmental impact of new lines, and adaptation and resilience to worsening climate hazards. The latter include wildfires, storms, and heat stress. Projects that reinforce low-emission grids--which we typically define as those already emitting less than 100 gCO₂/kWh or expecting to operate at that level in the near term--and demonstrate strong environmental safeguards have typically achieved a Dark green shade (see for example, our SPO on "Statnett’s Green Bond Framework").

We may assign a Medium green shade to grids whose emission factor exceeds this threshold, but is set to reduce in the medium to long term, with a clear decarbonization pathway (see our SPO on "China Citic Bank Ltd. Green Financing Framework" for an example).

In contrast, we may assign a Light green shade to grids with an emission factor that exceeds this threshold but which we consider to not have a clear path toward decarbonization. Our view is that most electric grids are green, given the importance of electrification for the transition of other sectors (such as transportation) and the need for robust grids to support intermittent renewable energy. However, we would not assign a green shade if investments target direct physical connections to fossil fuel-fired power generation. For example, we would typically assign a Red shade to a connection to a coal plant and, in exceptional cases, we may assign a non-green shade if there are signs that highly emitting fossil fuel-fired power generation is increasing.

Energy storage technologies such as lithium-ion batteries and pumped hydro are key enablers of decarbonization, supporting the integration of renewable electricity and grids' reliability. Thus, we typically consider these to be Dark green but may take into account additional considerations, such as lifecycle emissions, supply chain practices, and local environmental impacts. In particular, lithium-ion systems offer low operational emissions and are effective for short-term balancing, though challenges remain regarding responsible mineral sourcing, clean manufacturing, and end-of-life management. Pumped hydro delivers long-duration, low-carbon storage, with environmental risks shaped by site-specific factors, including land use, biodiversity, and water availability.

For hydrogen, our assessment largely follows our assessment of the energy input. Green hydrogen produced via electrolysis powered by renewable electricity typically receives a Dark green shade (for an example, see our SPO on "Repsol’s Sustainable Financing Framework"). Pink hydrogen, produced from nuclear power, is generally assessed as Medium green. Blue hydrogen, derived from natural gas with carbon capture and storage, is usually assigned a Light green shade, reflecting remaining lifecycle emissions and upstream methane risks (see our SPO on "Banco de Crédito e Inversiones' Sustainable Financing Framework"). Grey hydrogen, produced from fossil fuels without any abatement, is typically assigned a Red shade, reflecting its comparatively high carbon intensity and risks of methane leakage and lock-in of fossil fuel infrastructure.

Assigning Shades In Practice

Typically, for power generation activities, the main way to achieve a green shade is by having low lifecycle emissions. In the case of transmission and distribution assets, there are different ways to achieve a green shade, since we start from the premise that power grids are needed for electrification across all sectors, as well as to help integrate renewables (see table).

We typically assign a Dark green shade to power generation when lifecycle emissions are low and environmental and physical climate risks are adequately addressed. Power generation typically receives Medium green or Light green shades when lifecycle emissions are higher and/or significant environmental risks persist, but we consider the underlying technologies to still represent steps toward a low-carbon climate resilient future. Power generation with very high lifecycle emissions are usually assigned a Red shade but can achieve an Orange or Yellow shade if we observe measures that significantly reduce such emissions.

For electric grids, we assign a Dark green shade to operations and investments in low-carbon electric grids (typically transmitting electricity with emissions lower than 100gCO2/kWh). For grids whose emission factor exceeds this threshold, we usually assign a Medium green or Light green shade, depending on whether we consider the grid to have a clear decarbonization trajectory.

Utilities and corporates focusing on renewable energy usually receive a Dark Green for their activities. Financial institutions, local governments, and sovereigns, which finance broader energy-related project categories with less project-specific oversight, typically receive shades of Light green or Medium green, occasionally achieving Dark green depending on their portfolio’s composition and risk management.

CO2/kWh--Carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour.

Shades Of Green Assessments For Power Generation In Our CTAs

Our Climate Transition Assessment (CTA) is a qualitative opinion on where a company is on its current transition journey and where we expect it to head into the future, based on an assessment of planned transition activities and implementation drivers. Our CTA consists of three key elements: analyzing current activities, evaluating the climate transition plan, and assigning a future shade based on the Shades of Green analytical approach (see "Analytical Approach: Climate Transition Assessments").

In the power generation sector, we assign shades ranging from Red to Dark Green based on how the power generation mix contributes to the company's economic activities. Companies likely to receive a green shade in our CTA include those operating solely renewable energy activities. The same is true for companies that have diverse energy sources, including fossil fuels, but have significantly invested in renewables and nuclear, as long as the share of Red activities is less than 5%. We may assign a Yellow current shade to a company with 60% of its activity mix from Orange gas-fired power generation, 5% from coal, 20% from solar and wind, and 15% from nuclear (see "Sustainable Finance FAQ: Applying Our Integrated Analytical Approach For Climate Transition Assessments").

The Future Shade reflects our assessment of a company after the implementation of its climate transition plan. This forward-looking view is based on concrete commitments and actions and considers potential blockers, such as regulatory constraints. For the power sector, we expect capital expenditure to help inform our opinion of the future mix of activities. Our CTAs for companies in this sector will therefore typically include assigning a shade to activities funded by capital expenditure. For the power generation and transmission sector, we generally expect the time horizon for the future single shade to be between 2030 and 2035.

For power utilities, we compare the company’s performance with that of other entities using metrics we believe address its most important climate and environmental risks. We consider the share of low-carbon power generation and emissions intensity as key metrics because they are closely related to such companies’ economic activities. In 2023, we estimate the median power generation utility's share of low-carbon power to be 41%, based on disclosures from utility companies representing about 50% of the sector's revenue. Additionally, 30% of the companies we analyzed have an average emissions intensity below 100gCO2e/kWh (see charts 4 and 5).

Chart 4

Chart 5

Appendix: Frequently Asked Questions

Here we provide answers to questions on topics relevant to our shade drivers in the power sector.

How are power purchase agreements (PPAs) considered in your Shades of Green analysis?

We assess PPAs from two distinct perspectives: the generation side and the demand side.

On the generator side, PPAs tied to financed renewable energy assets do not typically influence the shade we assign. Our primary focus is on the environmental attributes of the generation technology, such as solar, wind, or hydro, and its alignment with a low-carbon, climate resilient future. The assessment may however be affected when a PPA establishes a direct, dedicated physical connection between a renewable energy generation asset and a high-emission (Red) activity. In such cases, the renewable asset's shade may be weaker than if there were no such connection, due to its direct support of activities inconsistent with a low-carbon future. In the absence of a direct physical link, when a PPA supplies renewable energy to a high-emitting or fossil-fuel-reliant industry, we would flag this as a weakness or an area to watch.

On the demand side, our assessment focuses on the nature of the PPA and its alignment with decarbonization objectives. In "Purchased Energy Emissions In Second Party Opinions And ESG Evaluations," published March 23, 2023, we differentiate between various types of renewable electricity contracts based on their environmental impact and contribution to additional renewable capacity. In short, physical PPAs are typically assessed as Dark green where there is either a direct connection between the generation asset and the off-taker or delivery through the grid. Renewable electricity contracts (virtual PPAs or bundled Energy Attribute Certificates [EACs]) that contribute to increasing renewable generation capacity at the purchaser’s location have a limited but positive impact on the energy transition and are generally assessed as Medium green. Renewable electricity contracts (virtual PPAs where energy is generated in a market different from the purchaser’s location, or when electricity is produced from old renewable assets, or unbundled EACs) offer limited additionality and are typically considered Light green.

Do you take social risks into account when assigning a shade or conducting a CTA?

Social risks or benefits do not directly influence the shade we assign. However, we may highlight relevant social risks or co-benefits in the strengths, weaknesses, and areas to watch section of our SPOs and CTAs, especially if they are material to the project’s implementation or transition plan. For example, in renewable generation projects or grid-expansion activities, there may be significant opposition, such as conflicts with local communities over the siting of wind farms or high-voltage transmission lines.

Such a situation could be considered an area to watch in our SPOs if perceived as a risk that may hinder the implementation of the projects being financed or, in the context of our CTAs, the transition plan.

Specifically, in our SPOs, our issuer sustainability context analysis considers all relevant material sustainability factors, including social aspects where applicable. Additionally, in the Alignment Assessment, our view of the relevance of social and environmental co-benefits or negative effects depends on the principles against which we are assessing alignment.

For instance, when evaluating alignment with the International Capital Market Association (ICMA)’s Sustainability Bond Guidelines, we expect projects with green and social components to meet the eligibility criteria of both the Green Bond Principles (GBP) and the Social Bond Principles (SBP). Similarly, when assessing alignment with ICMA’s GBP and SBP, or the Loan Market Association’s Green and Social Loan Principles, we consider whether the issuer clearly communicates how it identifies and manages potential social and environmental risks. If these processes are not clearly articulated, we may assess the financing as not aligned.

Editor

Bernadette Stroeder

Digital Design

Jack Karonika

Related Research

• Analytical Approach: Climate Transition Assessments, May 29, 2025
• Sustainable Finance FAQ: Applying Our Integrated Analytical Approach For Climate Transition Assessments, May 29, 2025
• Purchased Energy Emissions In Second Party Opinions And ESG Evaluations, March 23, 2023
• Ripple Effect: How Value Chains Compound Sector Exposures To Physical Climate Risks, March 13, 2025
• Analytical Approach: Second Party Opinions, March 6, 2025
• Climate Costs Are Rising, But Few Companies Have An Adaptation Plan, March 4, 2025
• Credit Risks Associated With Wildfires Are Increasing For California Public Finance Entities, Feb. 20, 2025
• Risky Business: Companies' Progress On Adapting To Climate Change, April 3, 2024
• Analytical Approach: Shades Of Green Assessments, July 27, 2023
• ESG Materiality Map: Power Generators, May 18, 2022

Primary Contacts:	Rafael Heim, Frankfurt 49-1755-8125-58; rafael.heim@spglobal.com
	Bryan Popoola, Washington city 1-202-615-5962; bryan.popoola@spglobal.com
	Luis Solis, Madrid 34-914233218; luis.solis@spglobal.com
	Catherine Rothacker, Oslo 47-9415-7987; catherine.rothacker@spglobal.com
	Maria Ortiz De Mendivil, Madrid 34-914233217; maria.omendivil@spglobal.com
	Carina Waag, Oslo 47-9415-5478; carina.waag@spglobal.com
	Michael T Ferguson, CFA, CPA, New York city 1-212-438-7670; michael.ferguson@spglobal.com