Global CityIntelligence

Energy

Energy Readiness in Jakarta

Jakarta's energy profile reflects an active transition with growing renewable build-out at the national level and rising efficiency programs. Energy in Jakarta scores 68/100, placing it in the developing group of the indexed set.

Last updated
2026-05-16
Data year
2025
Module score
68/100

Energy score

Clean-energy readiness, grid resilience, and solar or efficiency opportunity signals.

Energy in Jakarta68/100

Energy readiness

68/100

Mid-tier baseline with active transition direction.

Primary transition lever

Renewables and efficiency

Renewable build-out and efficiency are the main levers.

Climate stressor

Heat and flooding

Sustained heat and flooding shape adaptation work.

Jakarta energy data table

This HTML table mirrors the visible score cards so important comparison data is never trapped in a browser-only chart.

Jakarta Energy data table
MetricValueContext
Energy readiness68/100Solar resource is strong nationally.
Primary transition leverRenewables and efficiencyDistributed solar continues to expand.
Climate stressorHeat and floodingSubsidence raises long-run flood pressure.

Energy city comparison

A crawlable comparison across a selection of same-country and top-scoring cities. The complete set is reachable via the rankings, the cities index, and each city profile.

Energy city comparison table
CityScoreSummary
Jakarta (this page)68/100Jakarta's energy profile reflects an active transition with growing renewable build-out at the national level and rising efficiency programs.
Reykjavik95/100Reykjavik's energy-readiness profile is a directional indicator that combines national policy framing with city-level adaptation context.
Oslo95/100Oslo benefits from a near-fully-renewable national grid led by hydropower, supporting deep electrification of mobility and buildings.
Copenhagen94/100Copenhagen has a mature energy-transition profile, with district energy experience and strong climate-adaptation planning.
Zurich92/100Zurich operates with a low-carbon electricity baseline, strong building-efficiency standards, and continuous district-energy investment.
Stockholm92/100Stockholm benefits from a low-carbon national grid and a long-running district energy and biofuel transition.
Vancouver90/100Vancouver operates with a low-carbon electricity baseline led by hydropower, with active building and transport electrification work.
Seattle90/100Seattle operates with a low-carbon electricity baseline led by hydropower, with active building and transport electrification work.
Amsterdam89/100Amsterdam has a clear clean-energy direction with district heat, offshore wind context, and active building-efficiency policy.
Stavanger88/100Stavanger's energy-readiness profile is a directional indicator that combines national policy framing with city-level adaptation context.
Berlin88/100Berlin has strong clean-energy direction supported by national renewable-electricity progress and city-level efficiency programs.
Helsinki88/100Helsinki is moving steadily through heating decarbonization with nuclear and renewable electricity supporting the wider transition.
Wellington88/100Wellington benefits from New Zealand's low-carbon electricity baseline with hydropower and geothermal providing most generation.
Vienna87/100Vienna has strong clean-energy direction supported by national hydropower, mature district-heating, and active building retrofits.
Bergen86/100Bergen's energy-readiness profile is a directional indicator that combines national policy framing with city-level adaptation context.
Paris86/100Paris has strong energy-transition direction, with building retrofits and heat adaptation central to its readiness profile.
San Francisco86/100San Francisco operates with active climate policy, a comparatively low-carbon grid, and strong building-efficiency programs.
Auckland86/100Auckland operates with a low-carbon electricity baseline led by hydropower and geothermal generation, with active building-efficiency work.
Montevideo86/100Montevideo benefits from Uruguay's leading renewable-electricity share with wind and hydropower providing most generation.
Aarhus86/100Aarhus's energy-readiness profile is a directional indicator that combines national policy framing with city-level adaptation context.
Trondheim85/100Trondheim's energy-readiness profile is a directional indicator that combines national policy framing with city-level adaptation context.
Singapore85/100Singapore is energy-import dependent but progressing on renewables, regional power imports, and strong building efficiency.
Lucerne84/100Lucerne's energy-readiness profile is a directional indicator that combines national policy framing with city-level adaptation context.
Lausanne84/100Lausanne's energy-readiness profile is a directional indicator that combines national policy framing with city-level adaptation context.
Bern84/100Bern's energy-readiness profile is a directional indicator that combines national policy framing with city-level adaptation context.
Frederiksberg84/100Frederiksberg's energy-readiness profile is a directional indicator that combines national policy framing with city-level adaptation context.
Vejle84/100Vejle's energy-readiness profile is a directional indicator that combines national policy framing with city-level adaptation context.
Laval84/100Laval's energy-readiness profile is a directional indicator that combines national policy framing with city-level adaptation context.
Longueuil84/100Longueuil's energy-readiness profile is a directional indicator that combines national policy framing with city-level adaptation context.
Tokyo84/100Tokyo has strong engineering capacity and resilience discipline, but energy transition is constrained by dense demand and climate stress.
London84/100London has strong clean-energy direction with retrofit-led building strategy, balanced against legacy infrastructure complexity.

Interpretation

Energy readiness scoring weighs grid context, transition strategy, and adaptation. Indonesia's renewable transition is steadily progressing. Across the indexed cities the energy average is 64/100, so Jakarta is 4 points above the median. Data year 2025; last updated 2026-05-16. Drawn from 3 institutional references.

Read this module with the main open the jakarta city profile and the read the scoring methodology page so single-topic pages do not hide tradeoffs across dimensions.

Structured indicators on this page are directional and intended for orientation. Verified datasets are being integrated; official sources should be used for critical decisions.

Sources

3 institutional references inform this view, listed below with reliability notes. Structured indicators on this page are directional and intended for orientation; verified datasets are being integrated and official sources should be used for critical decisions.

Continue exploring

These links connect module pages back to city, ranking, and sibling topic paths with crawlable href values.

Jakarta city profile

Return to the complete Jakarta profile with all module scores and source context.

Safety in Jakarta

Personal safety, institutional trust, and resilience signals informed by international safety and crime data.

Internet Speed in Jakarta

Broadband and mobile connectivity quality, latency, and digital-readiness signals for residents and remote workers.

Climate Risk in Jakarta

Climate exposure, hazard frequency, and adaptation context for floods, heat, storms, and wildfires.

Overall Intelligence

A balanced ranking of cities across affordability, air quality, clean-energy readiness, and resilience.

Quality of Life

Cities that combine strong services, mobility, safety, clean air, and resilience into a healthy day-to-day profile.