Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The climate mitigation opportunity behind global power transmission and distribution

An Author Correction to this article was published on 29 June 2021

This article has been updated


Inefficient transmission and distribution (T&D) infrastructure that results in losses as electricity travels from supplier to customer contributes to compensatory power generation and therefore to unanticipated GHG emissions. Pilferage, poor planning and management in the T&D system also contribute to losses that can increase total electricity generation. Because the combination of electricity generation, combined heat and power generation and heat plants account for over 40% of global GHG emissions1, mitigation efforts tend to focus on electricity generated rather than delivered. We combine life cycle assessments of power generation with uncertainty analysis to bound potential emissions from compensatory generation from T&D aggregate losses (that is, technical and non-technical) in 142 countries. We estimate that electricity generated due to losses from T&D infrastructure is associated with nearly 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (GtCO2e yr–1). Our global average estimates for potential emissions reductions that may be achieved by improvements in technical losses and aggregate losses are 411 and 544 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year (MtCO2e yr–1), respectively. By reducing T&D losses, not only may compensatory emissions be reduced, but more electricity from low-carbon power-plant investments may reach the intended consumers.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Emissions from electricity generation by countries included in this analysis as a function of total T&D losses in 2016.
Fig. 2: Average potential reductions in compensatory emissions from reduction in technical T&D losses, by country.
Fig. 3: Average potential reductions in compensatory emissions from reduction in aggregate T&D losses (that is, both technical and non-technical T&D losses), by country.
Fig. 4: Estimated compensatory emissions under three power generation scenarios.

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary information files. All remaining data are publicly available by the referenced source and available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Change history


  1. CO 2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2018 edn (IEA, 2018).

  2. Pacala, S. & Socolow, R. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305, 968–972 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hertwich, E. G. et al. Integrated life-cycle assessment of electricity-supply scenarios confirms global environmental benefit of low-carbon technologies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 6277–6282 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kneifel, J. Life-cycle carbon and cost analysis of energy efficiency measures in new commercial buildings. Energy Buildings 42, 333–340 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Jackson, R. et al. Opportunities for Energy Efficiency Improvements in the U.S. Electricity Transmission and Distribution System (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2015).

  6. Reducing Technical and Non-Technical Losses in the Power Sector (World Bank, 2009).

  7. Smith, T. B. Electricity theft: a comparative analysis. Energy Policy 32, 2067–2076 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. IEA Electricity Information Statistics (OECD iLibrary, 2018);

  9. Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs); Mitigation Content Database (World Bank, accessed 16 March 2019);

  10. Weisser, D. A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy 32, 1543–1559 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lombardi, L. Life cycle assessment comparison of technical solutions for CO2 emissions reduction in power generation. Energy Convers. Manage. 44, 93–108 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Whitaker, M., Heath, G. A., O’Donoughue, P. & Vorum, M. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of coal-fired electricity generation. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, S53–S72 (2012).

  13. O’Donoughue, P. R., Heath, G. A., Dolan, S. L. & Vorum, M. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of electricity generated from conventionally produced natural gas. J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 125–144 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kasumu, A. S., Li, V., Coleman, J. W., Liendo, J. & Jordaan, S. M. Country-level life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from liquefied natural gas trade for electricity generation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 1735–1746 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Turconi, R., Simonsen, C. G., Byriel, I. P. & Astrup, T. Life cycle assessment of the Danish electricity distribution network. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 19, 100–108 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jorge, R. S. & Hertwich, E. G. Grid infrastructure for renewable power in Europe: the environmental cost. Energy 69, 760–768 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Arvesen, A., Hauan, I. B., Bolsoy, B. M. & Hertwich, E. G. Life cycle assessment of transport of electricity via different voltage levels: a case study for Nord-Trøndelag county in Norway. Appl. Energy 157, 144–151 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Masanet, E. et al. Life-cycle assessment of electric power systems. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 38, 107–136 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pehl, M. et al. Understanding future emissions from low-carbon power systems by integration of life-cycle assessment and integrated energy modelling. Nat. Energy 2, 939 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hsu, D. D. et al. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of crystalline silicon photovoltaic electricity generation: systematic review and harmonization. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, S122–S135 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kim, H. C., Fthenakis, V., Choi, J.-K. & Turney, D. E. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of thin-film photovoltaic electricity generation:systematic review and harmonization. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, S110–S121 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dolan, S. L. & Heath, G. A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of utility-scale wind power. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, S136–S154 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Warner, E. S. & Heath, G. A. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear electricity generation. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, S73–S92 (2012).

  24. Coleman, J. W., Kasumu, A., Liendo, J., Li, V. & Jordaan, S. M. Calibrating Liquefied Natural Gas Export Life Cycle Assessment: Accounting for Legal Boundaries and Post-export Markets Occasional Paper No. 49 (Canadian Institute of Resources Law, 2015).

  25. Burkhardt, J. J., Heath, G. & Cohen, E. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of trough and tower concentrating solar power electricity generation. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, S93–S109 (2012).

  26. Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, accessed 18 November 2018);

  27. World Energy Outlook 2017; International Energy Agency (OECD iLibrary, 2017);

  28. Jiménez, R., Serebrisky, T. & Mercado, J. Sizing Electricity Losses in Transmission and Distribution Systems in Latin America and the Caribbean (Inter-American Development Bank, 2014).

  29. Fragile States Index 2016 (The Fund for Peace, 2016);

  30. Comoros—Electricity Sector Recovery Project (English) (World Bank, 2013).

  31. Upadhyay, A. & Singh, R. K. How One Woman Tried to Stop a $10 Billion Theft (BloombergNEF, 2017);

  32. Quadrennial Energy Review: Energy Transmission, Storage, and Distribution Infrastructure (US Department of Energy, 2015);

  33. Tracking Clean Energy Progress (International Energy Agency, accessed 20 August 2018);

  34. World Energy Investment 2018 (IEA, 2018);

  35. Grid Modernization Initiative (US Department of Energy, accessed 18 November 2018);

  36. National Smart Grid Mission (NSGM) (Government of India, Ministry of Power, accessed 18 November 2018);

  37. MIT Energy Initiative. The Future of the Electric Grid (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2011).

  38. Chicco, G. & Mancarella, P. Distributed multi-generation: a comprehensive view. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 13, 535–551 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jorge, R. S., Hawkins, T. R. & Hertwich, E. G. Life cycle assessment of electricity transmission and distribution—part 1: power lines and cables. Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 17, 9–15 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Agüero, J. R. Improving the efficiency of power distribution systems through technical and non-technical losses reduction. In Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, IEEE PES 1–8 (IEEE, 2012).

  41. Sub-Saharan Africa—Monitoring Performance of Electric Utilities: Indicators and Benchmarking in Sub-Saharan Africa (World Bank, 2009).

  42. Heath, G. A. & Mann, M. K. Background and reflections on the life cycle assessment harmonization project. J. Ind. Ecol. 16, S8–S11 (2012).

  43. Turconi, R., Boldrin, A. & Astrup, T. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: overview, comparability and limitations. Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev. 28, 555–565 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Heath, G. A., O’Donoughue, P., Arent, D. J. & Bazilian, M. Harmonization of initial estimates of shale gas life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for electric power generation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E3167–E3176 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Energy Efficiency Indicators (World Energy Council, 2016);

  46. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance: Direct Emissions from Stationary Combustion Sources (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2016).

  47. Oracle Crystal Ball Release (Oracle, 2018);

  48. Firestone, M. et al. Guiding Principles for Monte Carlo Analysis (US Environmental Protection Agency, 1997).

  49. Hussy, C., Klaassen, E., Koornneef, J. & Wigand, F. International Comparison of Fossil Power Efficiency and CO 2 Intensity—Update 2014 (Ecofys, 2014).

  50. Bilis, E. I., Kröger, W. & Nan, C. Performance of electric power systems under physical malicious attacks. IEEE Syst. J. 7, 854–865 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. National Research Council. Terrorism and the Electric Power Delivery System (National Academies, 2012).

  52. Panteli, M. & Mancarella, P. Influence of extreme weather and climate change on the resilience of power systems: Impacts and possible mitigation strategies. Electr. Pow. Syst. Res. 127, 259–270 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Zerriffi, H., Dowlatabadi, H. & Strachan, N. Electricity and conflict: advantages of a distributed system. Electr. J. 15, 55–65 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  54. World Development Indicators (World Bank, accessed 28 March 2019);

Download references


We are grateful for feedback from B. Hobbs on an early version of this paper and for comments from J. Huenteler. V. Specioso, a graduate student at the School for Advanced International Studies of Johns Hopkins University, provided research support for the literature review and data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



K.S. and S.M.J. contributed equally to the paper. Both designed the research, compiled and analysed the data, reviewed literature and wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah M. Jordaan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information: Nature Climate Change thanks Maryam Arbabzadeh, Anders Arvesen, Constantine Samaras and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–5, Figs. 1–4 and references.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data 1

Monte Carlo Simulation: input and output distributions.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Surana, K., Jordaan, S.M. The climate mitigation opportunity behind global power transmission and distribution. Nat. Clim. Chang. 9, 660–665 (2019).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing