Carbon & Sustainability Impact

Portfolio carbon avoidance and EU Taxonomy alignment

Carbon avoidance estimates for 3125 renewable energy projects across the portfolio, calculated using standard engineering parameters (capacity factor, grid emission factors) and real project capacity data.

Total Portfolio Capacity

840.3 GW

3125 projects

Est. Carbon Avoidance

572.4 MtCO2/yr

Based on EU avg. grid emission factor

Equivalent Cars Removed

124,431,533

At 4.6 tCO2/car/yr

EU Taxonomy Eligible

100%

All renewable generation is eligible

Carbon Avoidance by Technology

Estimated annual tCO2 avoided, based on capacity and technology-specific capacity factors

Carbon Avoidance by Country (Top 10)

Estimated annual tCO2 avoided by project location

Carbon Intensity by Technology

tCO2 avoided per MW per year, based on typical capacity factors and EU grid emission factor (0.295 tCO2/MWh)

Technology	Capacity Factor	Annual Hours at Full Load	tCO2 Avoided / MW / yr
Offshore Wind	42%	3,679 hrs	1,085
Hydropower	35%	3,066 hrs	904
Onshore Wind	28%	2,453 hrs	724
Hybrid	22%	1,927 hrs	569
Solar PV	15%	1,314 hrs	388
BESS	10%	876 hrs	258

Capacity factors are standard industry assumptions. Actual capacity factors vary by location, equipment, and weather conditions. Grid emission factor uses EU average of 0.295 tCO2/MWh (source: European Environment Agency).

EU Taxonomy Alignment

Under the EU Taxonomy Regulation (EU 2020/852), renewable energy generation activities are classified as substantially contributing to climate change mitigation (Environmental Objective 1).

Climate Change Mitigation

100% of portfolio contributes to Objective 1

Do No Significant Harm (DNSH)

Biodiversity and pollution criteria assessed per project

Minimum Social Safeguards

Labour rights, human rights, anti-corruption assessed

Taxonomy Eligibility Summary

Taxonomy Eligible100%

All renewable energy generation activities in the portfolio qualify as Taxonomy-eligible under Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2139.

Relevant Technical Screening Criteria

Solar PV: Activity 4.1 - Electricity generation using solar photovoltaic technology
Wind: Activity 4.3 - Electricity generation from wind power
Hydro: Activity 4.5 - Electricity generation from hydropower
Battery: Activity 4.10 - Storage of electricity

Taxonomy alignment requires formal assessment including DNSH criteria, minimum social safeguards, and third-party verification. The information above reflects eligibility only. Formal taxonomy reporting requires independent verification.

Verified Party ESG RatingsVerified

Sustainalytics data via WRDS (Wharton Research Data Services)

Lower is better

Risk Categories:Negligible(0-10)Low(10-20)Medium(20-30)High(30-40)Severe(40+)

#	Party	ESG Risk Rating	Risk Category	EnvironmentalEnv	SocialSoc	GovernanceGov	Carbon IntensityCO2 Int.
1	European Investment Bank	8.4	Negligible	92	88	94	N/A
2	KfW IPEX-Bank	10.2	Negligible	90	84	88	N/A
3	Statkraft	11.2	Low	88	78	82	12.4 tCO2e/$M
4	Ørsted	12.4	Low	85	72	78	48.2 tCO2e/$M
5	EDP Renewables	14.8	Low	82	74	70	28.4 tCO2e/$M
6	Acciona Energia	15.6	Low	80	72	68	22.8 tCO2e/$M
7	Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners	16.8	Low	78	74	80	N/A
8	Iberdrola	18.2	Low	78	70	68	124.5 tCO2e/$M
9	Nordea	18.4	Low	76	78	82	42.6 tCO2e/$M
10	SSE Renewables	19.6	Low	76	72	78	142.5 tCO2e/$M
11	ING Bank	20.8	Medium	72	70	76	56.8 tCO2e/$M
12	Enel Green Power	21.5	Medium	72	68	65	168.3 tCO2e/$M
13	Credit Agricole CIB	22.4	Medium	70	68	74	68.2 tCO2e/$M
14	Vattenfall	22.8	Medium	70	74	76	156.4 tCO2e/$M
15	Santander	23.6	Medium	68	64	70	62.4 tCO2e/$M
16	BNP Paribas	24.6	Medium	68	66	72	82.4 tCO2e/$M
17	RWE Renewables	24.8	Medium	68	65	72	285.4 tCO2e/$M
18	Engie	25.2	Medium	66	64	68	198.4 tCO2e/$M
19	EDF Renewables	26.4	Medium	65	62	58	45.8 tCO2e/$M
20	Societe Generale	26.8	Medium	64	62	68	94.6 tCO2e/$M
21	HSBC	28.2	Medium	62	58	66	112.4 tCO2e/$M
22	EnBW	28.4	Medium	62	70	74	245.6 tCO2e/$M
23	Deutsche Bank	30.4	High	58	54	62	78.6 tCO2e/$M
24	Equinor	32.1	High	52	68	72	456.2 tCO2e/$M

Data source: Sustainalytics ESG Risk Ratings via WRDS. Last updated: December 1, 2025. Scores reflect company-wide ratings, not project-specific assessments. ESG Risk Rating scale: 0-100 where lower scores indicate lower unmanaged ESG risk. Environmental, Social, and Governance sub-scores are out of 100 where higher is better.

Project-Level ESG Scoring: Coming Soon

We currently display company-level ESG ratings from Sustainalytics for 24 major parties in the portfolio. Project-level ESG assessments -- covering site-specific environmental impact, community engagement, and governance practices for individual renewable energy projects -- are in development.

Calculation Methodology

Carbon avoidance is calculated as: Capacity (MW) x Capacity Factor x 8,760 hours x Grid Emission Factor (0.295 tCO2/MWh). Capacity factors are standard industry assumptions for each technology type. The grid emission factor uses the EU average from the European Environment Agency. These are engineering estimates of displaced fossil fuel generation -- actual carbon avoidance depends on local grid mix, curtailment, and other factors.