G20 performance on energy

Building on Brazil’s clean energy momentum at the 2024 G20 Rio de Janeiro summit, South Africa’s G20 presidency confronts a different challenge – balancing the urgent need for decarbonisation with the realities of grid instability and energy poverty. Rolling blackouts (known as load shedding), volatile fuel prices and climate-driven grid disruptions throughout Africa are regular reminders of the precariousness of global energy systems and security. South Africa has thus positioned energy security as a key pillar of its 2025 G20 presidency by focusing on the ‘energy trilemma’ – security, affordability and sustainability – through a comprehensive and inclusive energy framework.

Deliberations

Since the G20’s first summit in 2008, references to energy issues have been consistently included in the leaders’ declarations. The 2009 Pittsburgh Summit had the peak focus with 14% of its declaration on the topic. This was closely followed by the 2020 Riyadh and 2022 Bali summits, each allocating 11%, and Hamburg in 2017 and Rome in 2021 with 9% each. Seoul 2010, Cannes 2011 and St Petersburg 2013 each devoted 7% to energy. Washington 2008 and Toronto 2010 had the least emphasis at just 1%. The 2023 New Delhi and 2024 Rio summits dedicated 9% and 6%, respectively. Notably, standalone energy documents were produced at the 2014 Brisbane and 2017 Hamburg summits.

Decisions

Since 2009, the G20 has produced 200 energy commitments, placing energy fifth among all subjects. The 2009 Pittsburgh Summit made 16 energy commitments (13%), followed by a sharp decline to one at Toronto 2010 (2%). This rebounded to 14 at Seoul in 2010 (9%) and 18 (5%) at Cannes in 2011. From there, commitments fluctuated, with notable highs of 19 (8%) at St Petersburg in 2013 and a peak at Hamburg at 42 (8%). It dropped significantly at Osaka in 2019 to two commitments (1%). Energy commitments have been steady and moderate recently, with 4 (4%) at Riyadh in 2020, 8 (4%) at Rome in 2021, 11 (5%) at Bali in 2022, 13 (5%) at New Delhi in 2023 and 7 (4%) at Rio in 2024.

Delivery

The G20 Research Group has assessed 27 energy commitments for members’ compliance. It found average compliance of 70%, close to the G20’s overall 71% average. Energy commitments typically outperform those on climate change, development, gender and trade, but underperform those on macroeconomic policy, health, financial regulation, and food and agriculture.

Compliance has fluctuated, with peaks for Cannes 2011 at 90%, Buenos Aires 2018 at 89%; Seoul 2010, Los Cabos 2012 and Bali 2022, each close to 80%; and St Petersburg at 78%. The lowest compliance came for Antalya 2015 at 33% and Rome 2021 at 30%, followed by Hangzhou 2016 at 49%. Moderate scores were noted for Brisbane 2014 at 61% and Riyadh 2020 at 70%. By May 2025, compliance with the energy commitments made at the 2024 Rio Summit averaged 88%.

Energy compliance is led by France, Korea and the United Kingdom, each at 82%, followed by the United States at 78%, Germany at 76%, and Brazil and China, each at 74%.

Causes

Three causes of G20 compliance with energy commitments stand out. First, there is a clear connection between the number of energy commitments at a summit and overall compliance with the priority ones. The seven summits with the highest compliance averaged 81% and together produced 97 commitments. Conversely, the seven summits with the lowest compliance averaged only 54% and issued 52 commitments in total. A notable exception is the 2017 Hamburg Summit, with 54% compliance and 42 commitments.

Second, the strength of the language used in G20 energy commitments significantly influences compliance. Commitments with firm, politically binding language such as ‘we will take steps to create’ or ‘we commit to’ average 81% compliance. Commitments with passive language such as ‘we welcome the work of’ average 62%.

Third, a similar pattern emerges when comparing compliance to the total words on energy in summit declarations. The seven summits with the highest compliance produced 6,631 such words and averaged 81% compliance, and the seven lowest complying summits produced 3,928 words and averaged 54%. Again, Hamburg 2017 is an exception with 3,290 words and 54% compliance.

Thus, the G20 should increase the number of clearly defined and actionable commitments, develop comprehensive outcome documents with clear expectations and timelines, and frame commitments with firm, politically binding language that signals political will and accountability.

Conclusion

Johannesburg’s success will hinge on South Africa’s ability to leverage its G20 presidency to place access and equity at the centre of its energy agenda. Yet external pressures will test the G20’s ability to do so, given Middle East instability, volatile gas markets, shipping disruptions, tight supply chains and mounting debt distress in emerging economies. The ultimate test will be whether G20 leaders can unite on a credible framework that balances energy security with climate goals and unlocks the capital needed to drive transition financing in fossil fuel–reliant economies.