News Feeds

.entry-header{display:none;}

The post Tell Wells Fargo: Stop the Racist Lending + Environmental Racism! appeared first on Stop the Money Pipeline.

Philadelphia’s trail network is one of the city’s greatest assets.

With more than 80 miles of trails, these spaces connect neighborhoods, schools, parks, and local businesses. They provide safe places to walk, bike, commute, and spend time outdoors. For many residents, they are some of the most accessible and welcoming public spaces in the city.

But that safety and accessibility don’t happen automatically.

Trails require regular maintenance to stay usable. That means clearing debris, repairing damaged surfaces, trimming overgrowth, and making sure paths remain visible, clean, and safe.

Right now, much of that work is being done by a small trail maintenance crew funded through a temporary grant. Thanks to that support, progress has been made. But without permanent, dedicated funding, that progress is at risk.

If funding disappears, the trails can quickly become harder to use, less safe, and less welcoming.

Philadelphia has an opportunity to get ahead of that.

City Council can invest in a long-term solution by funding a dedicated trail maintenance crew and supporting trail development across departments. The current proposal includes:

• $300,000 in new funding for trail maintenance (FY28–FY30)
• $500,000 in sustained funding through the Streets Department
• $250,000 in sustained funding through Parks and Recreation

These investments would ensure that Philadelphia’s trails remain safe, clean, and accessible for years to come.

Philadelphia’s trails already connect the city. With the right investment, they can continue to serve everyone.

Tell City Council: invest in trail maintenance now.

A major right-wing political funder has dramatically increased his fossil fuel investments this year, DeSmog can reveal.

Jeremy Hosking, who owns the hedge fund Hosking Partners, donated £1.7 million to Reform UK between 2019 and 2024. The party, led by Nigel Farage, campaigns to scrap the UK’s flagship 2050 net zero emissions target, remove environmental protections, and turbocharge new fossil fuel extraction.

Hosking also owns The Critic magazine, which frequently attacks climate policies and supports new North Sea oil and gas exploration. Its current edition carries a cover story titled “The Green Myth: Fossil Fuels are Britain’s Real Energy Source”.

DeSmog’s analysis of the latest U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings from Hosking Partners reveals that it held $440.8 million (around £326.5 million) worth of stock in oil, gas, and coal companies as of the end of March 2026.

The filing, which covers the first quarter of the year, shows an increase of more than $154 million (£114 million) since the previous entry – up by 53.8 percent.

“This exposé highlights the urgent need for an honest debate about the fossil fuel industry’s toxic influence over our media,” said Richard Wilson of the campaign group Stop Funding Heat.

“Thanks to DeSmog, we already knew that GB News is co-owned by a fossil-fuelled billionaire, and that the Daily Mail’s parent company makes millions running oil and gas conferences. Now we learn that yet another outlet which regularly attacks climate action is similarly compromised.”

He added: “Democracy depends on having a media that tells the truth without fear or favour, not one beholden to special interests.”

Subscribe to our newsletter

Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts

Email Address What content do you want to subscribe to? (check all that apply) All International UK Sign Up (function($){ $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-us').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619D07B21962C5AFE16D3A2145673C82A3CEE9D9F1ADDABE965ACB3CE39939D42AC9012C6272FD52BFCA0790F0FB77C6442'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-vdrirr-vdrirr'); }); $('.newsletter-container .ijkidr-uk').click(function() { $('.js-cm-form').attr('data-id', '2BE4EF332AA2E32596E38B640E905619BD43AA6813AF1B0FFE26D8282EC254E3ED0237BA72BEFBE922037EE4F1B325C6DA4918F8E044E022C7D333A43FD72429'); $('.js-cm-email-input').attr('name', 'cm-ijkidr-ijkidr'); }); })(jQuery);

The U.S.-Israeli war in Iran – which began in late February – has disrupted global supply chains for consumer goods, and major commodities including fossil fuels.

It has also delivered windfall profits to the world’s biggest oil and gas companies, with the top 100 making $23 billion (almost £17 billion) in March alone. The oil major BP today announced £2.4 billion in profits for the first quarter of this year – up 130 percent from the same period last year.

Although it’s unknown if Hosking Partners increased its fossil fuel investments in response to the Iran war, the firm has stood to benefit from its expanded oil and gas holdings.

The hedge fund has $369.7 million (around £273.7 million) invested in oil and gas. This includes $34.7 million (£25.6 million) in ConocoPhillips, $8.4 million (£6.2 million) in ExxonMobil, and $7.9 million (£5.8 million) in Chevron.

Shares in ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil soared by 41 percent in the first quarter of this year, while Chevron’s share price rose by 35.7 percent.

Hosking’s firm also has $71 million (around £52.6 million) invested in coal companies: $61 million (£45 million) in Warrior Met Coal, $7 million (£5 million) in Core Natural Resources, and $2.7 million (£1.9 million) in Peabody Energy.

Hosking did not respond to our request for comment but previously told DeSmog: “I do not have millions in fossil fuels; it is the clients of Hosking Partners who are the beneficiaries of these investments.”

Farage Funding

Hosking has used his wealth to support right-wing political projects – including parties that campaign for new fossil fuel extraction and against clean energy development.

He donated more than £1.7 million to Reform over a four-year period, including £125,000 before the 2024 general election.

Reform has led the charge against the UK’s net zero targets, calling for new fossil fuel extraction, including North Sea exploration and the reopening of coal power plants. It also campaigns for state renewable energy investment to be scrapped, and has used the Iran war to double-down on its pro-oil policies, pledging to extract “every last drop” of oil and gas out of the North Sea.

The party – leading in UK-wide polls and expected to gain ground in this year’s May elections across Britain – has also promoted climate science denial. Farage has claimed it’s “absolutely nuts” for CO2 to be considered a pollutant, despite admitting: “I can’t tell you whether CO2 is leading to warming or not”.

In reality, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said it is “unequivocal” that human influence has caused “unprecedented” global warming.

And while Reform has claimed that the UK’s climate policies are “economic suicide”, a report by the New Economics Foundation concluded that the party’s anti-renewables agenda could cost 60,000 jobs and wipe £92 billion off the economy.

In March, the independent Climate Change Committee said the entire cost of cutting emissions to net zero by 2050 would be less than a single fossil fuel price shock – two of which have been experienced by the UK in the past five years.

Hosking has also donated £4.3 million since 2019 to the Reclaim Party, led by radical right-wing commentator and former actor Laurence Fox. The party, which has a minimal electoral presence, claims “there is no climate emergency”, wants to ditch net zero, and frack for shale gas.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.

Credit: Associated Press / Alamy Stock Photo / Alastair Grant Pro-Oil Coverage

Hosking’s magazine The Critic routinely dismisses the need to switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Its current cover story is written by contributing editor Chris Bayliss, who argues that renewable energy is unreliable and expensive. In a follow-up piece online, he blames “elite” support for net zero on “climate hysteria”.

Bayliss is a former civil servant who works in the energy sector in Iraq. He’s the Iraq Country Lead for IM Power, which runs liquefied natural gas (LNG), oil and coal power plants, offers “oil and gas refining, storage and pipeline solutions”, and works to “maximise value from hydrocarbon resources”. IM Power also provides renewable energy from solar power, an energy source Bayliss criticises in his articles.

In The Critic, Bayliss cites debunked policy papers authored by individuals and groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry.

His position is endorsed by the magazine. The current edition includes an editorial titled “On a Wind and a Prayer” arguing that “beggaring ourselves will not cool the rest of the planet’s weather”.

The Critic has also run articles by senior figures at the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the UK’s foremost climate science denial group, which has claimed that carbon dioxide emissions are “a benefit to the planet”.

In February, The Critic ran a piece titled “We Can’t Just Stop Oil: Oil and Gas are inevitable elements of our future” by Kathryn Porter, an oil and gas industry consultant who has authored reports for the GWPF.

In November, the magazine published an article by GWPF head of policy Harry Wilkinson calling for the United Nations COP climate negotiations to “be realistic” and drop its push for “centrally planned decarbonisation”. Wilkinson added that “COP delegates have long demonised fossil fuels as a problem to be expunged, instead of an engine of economic development”.

Wilkinson has long dismissed the threat from climate change, writing in 2018: “A temperature rise of more than two degrees is not inherently dangerous.”

The magazine has also run anti-net zero articles by Craig Mackinlay, a Tory peer and the current director of the GWPF, and similar articles by Steve Baker, a former GWPF director and Tory MP who spoke at a U.S. fundraiser for the group in February.

The Critic and Bayliss were contacted for comment.

The post Reform Donor Expands Fossil Fuel Portfolio to £300 Million appeared first on DeSmog.

The Caribbean region of CLOC–Vía Campesina commemorates April 17 struggle and calls for comprehensive agrarian reform, while upholding food sovereignty as the central banner of the peasantry’s struggle.

The post 17 April | CLOC (Caribbean) commemorates the 30th anniversary Peasants’ Struggle Day appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

OTTAWA — CHRIS SEVERSON-BAKER, Executive Director at the Pembina Institute, made the following statement in response to the federal government’s 2026 Spring Economic Update:“Today’s federal economic update paints the picture of a country with all the...

National Nurses United (NNU) today announced its endorsement of Abdul El-Sayed from Michigan for U.S. Senate. El-Sayed has been a longtime partner to NNU in the fight to win a single-payer health care system, and nurses are ready to send him to Congress.

Electricity demand is rising faster than new generation and transmission can be built. Active efficiency—through demand flexibility, controls, and smarter operations—helps utilities expand usable capacity at a fraction of the cost of new infrastructure. For ASE, this is foundational: the cleanest, cheapest kilowatt is the one you don’t have to generate.

Demand Flexibility = New Capacity

Flexible load reduces peak demand and reshapes how the grid operates:

• Automated HVAC adjustments
• Thermal storage and pre-conditioning
• Smarter ventilation strategies
• Shifted load during predictable peak windows

Instead of building a new peaker plant, utilities can unlock capacity through smarter use of existing buildings.

Real-World Examples of Active Efficiency

For example, PSE&G, a New Jersey-based utility, offers energy efficiency solutions for businesses and worked with the Montclair Public Library to modernize how energy is managed across its busy, seven-day-a-week facility. Improvements, including upgraded HVAC systems, digital controls and remote monitoring, are projected to deliver more than $125,000 in annual energy cost savings while improving comfort and reliability for the community. By optimizing how existing systems operate, the library is able to reduce unnecessary energy demand and make more efficient use of available capacity, illustrating how building-level improvements can translate into broader system benefits.

At the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, leadership set out to improve the performance of its historic headquarters through a more strategic approach to energy use. Recognizing that every kilowatt-hour saved contributes back to available grid capacity, they partnered with PSE&G to implement upgrades including lighting, heating systems and building controls. These improvements are expected to deliver more than $17,000 in annual energy cost savings.

Together, these examples show how smarter energy use can improve performance while helping make better use of available grid capacity.

The Avoided Cost Advantage

According to EIA:

• New peaker plant capacity: $150–$250/kW-year
• Active efficiency: $20–$40/kW-year

Demand flexibility delivers affordable, scalable capacity—accessible to both large and small customers.

Why This Matters for Energy Efficiency—and ASE’s Work

ASE’s Active Efficiency initiative demonstrates how flexible load strengthens reliability, reduces bills, and improves system efficiency. VPPs aggregate these benefits, transforming distributed flexibility into a dependable grid asset.

Interested in shaping utility flexibility policy? Email jrobinson@ase.org with “Interested in IPC.”

A Practical Policy Step: Value Demand-Side Capacity

Regulators and utilities should:

• Include demand flexibility in integrated resource plans
• Standardize valuation methodologies
• Expand incentives for VPP participation

More Flexibility = More Reliability

Active efficiency lets utilities meet rising demand without expensive new infrastructure—delivering practical, scalable capacity where and when it’s needed.

Resources & Further Reading

• U.S. Energy Information Administration: Electric Power Monthly — Capacity, Generation, and Peak Demand Data
  https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/
• American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE): Guidance on Valuing Energy Efficiency in Utility Capacity Planning
  https://www.aceee.org
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings (GEB) Research Hub
  https://geb.lbl.gov 
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Demand Flexibility and Grid Integration Research
  https://www.nrel.gov
• Alliance to Save Energy: Active Efficiency Initiative
  https://www.ase.org/active-efficiency
• Alliance to Save Energy: Advancing Virtual Power Plants to Scale: Policy, Market Trends, and Deployment Pathways (2025)
  https://www.ase.org/resources/advancing-virtual-power-plants-scale-policy-market-trends-and-deployment-pathways

North Yorkshire councillors are free to issue a formal refusal of plans by Europa Oil & Gas for drilling for gas and lower-volume fracking at Burniston, near Scarborough.

Banner at Burniston decision meeting, 24 April 2026. Photo: DrillOrDrop

The council’s strategic planning committee voted almost unanimously (11 votes and 1 abstention) in a “minded to” refusal of the planning application last Friday afternoon (24 April 2026) .

The formal decision had to wait for a ruling by the local government secretary, Steve Reed, on whether another environmental impact assessment was needed.

Earlier this month, Friends of the Earth asked Mr Reed to consider an additional screening direction for the Burniston plans. The organisation suggested that more information was needed on the environmental impact of the application.

Friends of the Earth said this afternoon it had now received a reply from the minister, which said:

“the Secretary of State declines to issue a screening direction in response to your request.” 

In a statement issued on 29 April 2026, North Yorkshire Council’s head of development management, Martin Grainger, said:

“We have been notified by the Secretary of State that the Government does not intend to re-screen the application.

“Officers will now look to finalise reasons for refusing the application in line with members’ decision. A formal decision notice will then be issued in the near future.”

Friends of the Earth said this clears the way for councillors to issue a formal refusal.

Tony Bosworth, of Friends of the Earth, said:

“With the final issue resolved, North Yorkshire councillors can now formally reject this damaging and unnecessary fracking proposal at Burniston.”

The organisation is urging the government to ensure that its promised ban on hydraulic fracturing will include all fracking techniques for fossil fuels, including the lower-volume proppant squeeze intended for Burniston.

Environmental campaigners have argued for more than six years for the closure of a legal loophole that allows fracking techniques using volumes of fluid below the legal threshold.

The moratorium, introduced in England in 2019, prevents only operations using more than 1,000m3 per fracking stage or more than 10,000m3 in total.

Mr Bosworth said: 

“Fracking blights our countryside, won’t lower UK energy bills, and remains deeply unpopular. 

 “The focus now shifts to the government: it must deliver on its promise to ban fracking for good – with no loopholes. That means covering all forms of fracking, including ‘proppant squeeze’. If it fails, communities across England will remain under threat.” 

Yesterday, Europa Oil & Gas formally announced to investors it intended to appeal against the North Yorkshire decision.

DrillOrDrop report of the decision meeting and reaction

Updated 29 April 2024 with statement from North Yorkshire Council

At a ceremony in Spain, Kallen Oliveira received the award on behalf of the MST and commemorated the 30th anniversary of the Eldorado dos Carajás Massacre.

The post 17 April | MST receives Berta Cáceres Award on International Day of Peasant Struggle appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

Key Takeaways

• Reporting on electricity outages due to supply-side shortfalls is scarce and unreliable.
• Although most grid investments are targeted to increasing generation, customers experience more outages due to failures on the distribution system and extreme weather.
• Renewable resource deployment has not worsened reliability outcomes.
• RMI’s Reliability Dashboard can help inform system planning practices so that grid investments truly reduce customer outages.

Electric grid reliability has been a major topic of public policy and discourse over the past year. If we want to improve grid reliability, and do so in an affordable way, grid planners need to take steps to ensure that the investments they’re making will actually reduce the types of outages their customers experience.

To that end, we decided to take a close look at the numbers to see if the data backs current strategies to enhance reliability. RMI developed a new dashboard, leveraging data reported annually to the Energy Information Administration, to showcase the differences in electric reliability across utilities in the United States.

Recent public policy discourse has focused on the impact of load growth on grid reliability, particularly from data centers, and some policies go as far as trying to prescribe certain types of generators in the name of meeting reliability needs. However, available historic data does not show that load growth or supply-demand imbalances have driven customer outages. Over the past decade, extreme weather and failures on the distribution system — the lower-voltage wires connecting homes and businesses to the bulk electric grid — have been the primary causes of customer outages nationwide.

This reality is already all too familiar to customers, with outages caused by these “major events” reaching a decadal high in 2024. Yet public policy is currently focused on rising energy demand, which does not address distribution system needs and extreme weather risks.

To ensure grid investments are informed by reliability data, utilities and regulators must improve how they track reliability events and incorporate these insights into planning so that the right investments are being made to keep the lights on for all customers.

Planning for a reliable grid

Most regions in the United States plan for grid reliability using a one-day-in-ten-year loss-of-load expectation, a standard that functions as a benchmark that indicates whether further investment in generation is necessary to ensure sufficient ability to meet future demand (“resource adequacy”). While investments can reduce customer outages when they address the specific weaknesses causing outages, this only holds if planning decisions are aligned with the actual sources of interruption. Many outages originate on distribution systems, such as from tree contact or severe weather, where additional generation supply provides little benefit.

Although the grid is only planned to meet the aforementioned resource adequacy standard at the bulk power system level, grid reliability is best understood as an umbrella concept that depends on three distinct components: resource adequacy, stability (or operational reliability), and resilience, across both the high-voltage bulk power system and the lower-voltage distribution system.

Different reliability investments affect these components in different ways and come with very different costs, ranging from low-cost operational and maintenance measures to capital intensive infrastructure investments. Ideally, planners would sequence investments by prioritizing lower-cost actions first and ensure that higher-cost measures are tightly targeted to pesistent, demonstrated sources of unreliability.

This approach would help ensure that spending produces measurable improvements in customer reliability metrics rather than defaulting to an overreliance on resource adequacy alone. However, current data collection practices obscure which component(s) failed during an outage, making it difficult to align investments with the true drivers of customer interruptions.

Quantifying grid reliability

Utilities track two key metrics when looking at the historical reliability of their system: outage durations and outage frequencies, with the threshold for an “outage” being a loss of power for five minutes or longer.

Outage duration is tracked using the System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI). This metric tracks how long the average customer was without power over the course of each year. Outage frequency is tracked using the System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI). This metric tracks how many times the average customer lost power over the course of each year.

Both of these metrics can be combined to determine a utility’s outage restoration, also known as the Customer Average Interruption Duration Index (CAIDI). CAIDI tracks the average time it took electric providers to restore power to customers each year, or put differently, how long the average customer was without power when there was an outage.

From our new Reliability Dashboard on the Utility Transition Hub, we can see that over the past decade, US electricity customers experienced, on average, about six hours without power annually. However, variation from state-to-state and utility-to-utility can be significant, so be sure to check out our full dashboard to explore reliability in your state or utility.

Three key takeaways from historical reliability data

When we look at reliability data and drivers of outages for customers over the past decade, we see three key trends:

1. Reporting on outages due to supply-side shortfalls is scarce and unreliable. Only about half of utilities report this metric, and each utility’s definition of “loss of supply” can vary. Utilities that do report this show that loss of supply was a minor contributor to customer outages over the past decade.

Inconsistent definitions mean that some outages classified as supply-related may actually occur on distribution systems. As a result, it is impossible to parse whether reported supply-side outages are due to power plant outages, transmission versus distribution failures, fuel supply issues, or any other factors. This reduces planners’ ability to ensure that future investments are actually addressing the most critical system needs.

For utilities that track those occurrences, loss of supply was a minor contributor to system outages. From 2014 to 2024, 57% of respondents separated outages that were due to loss of supply, and in the past five years, those outages represented less than 10% of the duration of outages the average customer experienced. In other words, for over 90% of the time that customers were experiencing outages, their utilities did not attribute these outages to supply-side shortfalls, and instead attributed them to distribution system failures.

2. Although planned investments achieve modeled targets, in reality, customer outages can exceed those targets due to failures on the distribution system and extreme weather.

The one-day-in-ten-year (which can be translated to 2.4 hours per year) planning standard is typically used to propose new supply-side resources (power plants, transmission, etc.) until modeling results meet that bulk system resource adequacy target. However, when we retroactively evaluate the average duration of customer outages over the past 10-year period, we see that many customers do not experience that standard — especially when incorporating major events.

This indicates that although utilities may be meeting their supply-side standard in planning, other types of vulnerabilities not accounted for — particularly on the distribution system — are driving customer outages beyond planning standards.

Utilities in more than half of states do not conduct comprehensive integrated system planning that includes the distribution system. As a result, while utilities plan to have enough power plants to limit bulk system outages to an acceptable resource adequacy standard, the same is not applied to the distribution system, leading to worse outcomes for customers.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

3. In contrast to what some policies suggest, renewable resource deployment has not worsened reliability outcomes.

When we pull in data from the amount of deployed renewable resources in each state over the years, and connect it with this measured reliability data, we don’t see evidence that renewable resources reduce reliability. In fact, states exposed to extreme weather and heavy forests have longer customer outages on average. Overall, clean energy deployments have supported grid reliability through day-to-day operations and numerous extreme storms.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

What regulators and grid planners can do to make informed decisions about reliability and encourage affordable investment

The same focus that has been placed on potential outages of the future needs to be placed on the experienced outages of today to ensure customers aren’t overpaying for grid investments that don’t meet their needs. To ensure data-driven decision-making that produces an affordable, reliable grid, regulators and grid planners can pursue the following:

• • Use RMI’s new Reliability Dashboard to learn more about your state’s reliability, inform system planning practices, and improve the way that reliability data is tracked and reported so that grid investments truly reduce customer outages.
    • With the rapidly evolving needs of consumers today (and entirely new classes of consumers, like datacenters), data tracking must be updated to better assess and address reliability. For example, outages from supply-side shortfalls should be clearly distinguished from transmission or distribution issues. In 2025, the Hawaiian Electricity Reliability Administrator in filing F-338153 recommended this be addressed with a generator-specific outage metric, as well as the use of segment-specific derivatives of SAIDI and SAIFI that differentiate between transmission and distribution. These metrics are already in use by other utilities internationally, such as those in Canada, Sri Lanka, and some African countries.
    • Regulators can initiate compliance dockets for more detailed data, such as Michigan Public Service Commission’s docket U-21122, which requires utilities to report information about their worst-performing circuits and zip codes with the worst and best outage rates, and outline their plans to improve reliability.

• • Deploy available technologies that address the specific reliability issues localities face today, keeping in mind the evolving grid. 
    • Solutions to load growth are often framed around large, capital-intensive investments on the bulk power system, like new power plants, which can be expensive and may do little to reduce customer outages. In contrast, commonly overlooked and lower-cost solutions such as energy efficiency, virtual power plants, and advanced transmission technologies can both help accommodate load growth and meaningfully improve customer reliability, particularly where outages are driven by the distribution system and extreme weather. These lower-cost solutions are often overlooked due to the prevailing cost-of-service utility regulation model, which biases utility investment toward high capital cost investments. Regulators can investigate performance-based regulation practices that would help counter this bias and restructure utility incentives to ensure affordable approaches are leveraged.
    • Regulators can require their utility to perform integrated distribution system planning aligned with best practices that considers investments at all levels of the grid.
  • Intentionally plan for resilience to major events via improved forecasting and infrastructure.
    • Improve forecasting and extreme weather considerations to better plan for the system to be resilient to future excursions beyond normal conditions.
    • Build resilient inter-regional transmission in coordination with neighboring regions to access resources and support across the United States during wide-area storms.
    • Leverage battery energy storage systems (both transmission-connected and distributed in virtual power plants) to directly reduce outages, and also reduce costs via temporal electricity price arbitrage.

As utilities ask consumers to pay more for their investments amid soaring bills, data-backed and informed decisions matter now more than ever. Improving data collection practices to become more standardized and reflect different levels of the grid is necessary to capture the complexities of grid needs to a sufficient level of detail. RMI’s new Reliability Dashboard can help regulators and planners interact with and learn from existing data, and identify smart improvements that serve all customers’ needs.

RMI’s Gaby Tosado and Jon Rea were both critical collaborators in developing the new Reliability Dashboard on the Utility Transition Hub.

The post Reliability Explored: What a Decade of Data Tells Us About US Grid Reliability appeared first on RMI.

For the last two decades, conservationists on the remote Pacific atoll of Palmyra have been working to uproot invasive palm trees and restore native wildlife. A new study finds that native fungi could be instrumental to that process.

Read more on E360 →

The National Farmers’ Union calls for a national agricultural model that guarantees full food sovereignty, advances rural development, and upholds human dignity for all.

The post Morocco: The Meknes Appeal Reaffirms the Role of Peasants and Small-scale Farmers in Defending Food Sovereignty appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

A much-discussed “return to coal” by some countries in the wake of the Iran war is likely to be far more limited than thought, amounting to a global rise of no more than 1.8% in coal power output this year.

The new analysis by thinktank Ember, shared exclusively with Carbon Brief, is a “worst-case” scenario and the reality could be even lower.

Separate data shows that, to date, there has been no “return to coal” in 2026.

While some countries, such as Japan, Pakistan and the Philippines, have responded to disrupted gas supplies with plans to increase their coal use, the new analysis shows that these actions will likely result in a “small rise” at most.

In fact, the decline of coal power in some countries and the potential for global electricity demand growth to slow down could mean coal generation continues falling this year.

Experts tell Carbon Brief that “the big story isn’t about a coal comeback” and any increase in coal use is “merely masking a longer-term structural decline”. 

Instead, they say clean-energy projects are emerging as more appealing investments during the fossil-fuel driven energy crisis.

‘Return to coal’

The conflict following the US-Israeli attacks on Iran has disrupted global gas supplies, particularly after Iran blocked the strait of Hormuz, a key chokepoint in the Persian Gulf.

A fifth of the world’s liquified natural gas (LNG) is normally shipped through this region, mainly supplying Asian countries. The blockage in this supply route means there is now less gas available and the remaining supplies are more expensive.

(Note that while the strait usually carries a fifth of LNG trade, this amounts to a much smaller share of global gas supplies overall, with most gas being moved via pipelines.)

With gas supplies constrained and prices remaining well above pre-conflict levels, at least eight countries in Asia and Europe have announced plans to increase their coal-fired electricity generation, or to review or delay plans to phase out coal power.

These nations include Japan, South Korea, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, Germany and Italy. Many of these nations are major users of coal power.

Such announcements have triggered a wave of reporting by global media outlets and analysts about a “return to coal”. Some have lamented a trend that is “incompatible with climate imperatives”, while others have even framed this as a positive development that illustrates coal’s return “from the dead”.

This mirrors a trend seen after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which many commentators said would lead to a surge in European coal use, due to disrupted gas supplies from Russia. 

In fact, despite a spike in 2022, EU coal use has returned to its “terminal decline” and reached a historic low in 2025.

Gas to coal

So far, the evidence suggests that there has been no return to coal in 2026.

Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air found that, in March, coal power generation remained flat globally and a fall in gas-fired generation was “offset by large increases in solar and wind power, rather than coal”.

However, as some governments only announced their coal plans towards the end of March, these figures may not capture their impact.

To get a sense of what that impact could be, Ember assessed the impact of coal policy changes and market responses across 16 countries, plus the 27 member states of the EU, which together accounted for 95% of total coal power generation in 2025.

For each country, the analysis considers a maximum “worst-case” scenario for switching from gas to coal power in the face of high gas prices.

It also considers the potential for any out-of-service coal power plants to return and for there to be delays in previously expected closures as a result of the response to the energy crisis.

Ember concludes that these factors could increase coal use by 175 terawatt hours (TWh), or 1.8%, in 2026 compared to 2025.

(This increase is measured relative to what would have happened without the energy crisis and does not account for wider trends in electricity generation from coal, which could see demand decline overall. Last year, coal power dropped by 63TWh, or 0.6%.)

Roughly three-quarters of the global effect in the Ember analysis is from potential gas-to-coal switching in China and the EU.

Other notable increases could come from switching in India and Indonesia and – to a lesser extent – from coal-policy shifts in South Korea, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

However, widely reported policy changes by Japan, Thailand and the Philippines are estimated to have very little, if any, impact on coal-power generation in 2026. The table below briefly summarises the potential for and reasoning behind the estimated increases in coal generation in each country in 2026.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

Dave Jones, chief analyst at Ember, stresses that the 1.8% figure is an upper estimate, telling Carbon Brief:

“This would only happen if gas prices remained very high for the rest of the year and if there were sufficient coal stocks at power plants. The real risk of higher coal burn in 2026 comes not from coal units returning…but rather from pockets of gas-to-coal switching by existing power plants, primarily in China and the EU.”

Moreover, Jones says there is a real chance that global coal power could continue falling over the course of this year, partly driven by the energy crisis. He explains:

“If the energy crisis starts to dent electricity demand growth, coal generation – as well as gas generation – might actually be lower than before the crisis.”

‘Structural decline’

Energy experts tell Carbon Brief that Ember’s analysis aligns with their own assessments of the state of coal power.

Coal already had lower operation costs than gas before the energy crisis. This means that coal power plants were already being run at high levels in coal-dependent Asian economies that also use imported LNG to generate electricity. As such, they have limited potential to cut their need for LNG by further increasing coal generation.

Christine Shearer, who manages the global coal plant tracker at Global Energy Monitor, tells Carbon Brief that, in the EU, there is a shrinking pool of countries where gas-to-coal switching is possible:

“In Europe, coal fleets are smaller, older and increasingly uneconomic, while wind, solar and storage are becoming more competitive and widespread.”

In the context of the energy crisis, Italy has announced plans to delay its coal phaseout from 2025 to 2038. This plan, dismissed by the ECCO thinktank as “ineffective and costly”, would have minimal impact given coal only provides around 1% of the country’s power. 

Notably, experts say that there is no evidence of the kind of structural “return to coal” that would spark concerns about countries’ climate goals. There have been no new coal plants announced in recent weeks.

Suzie Marshall, a policy advisor working on the “coal-to-clean transition” at E3G, tells Carbon Brief:

“We’re seeing possible delayed retirements and higher utilisation [of existing coal plants], as understandable emergency measures to keep the lights on, but not investment in new coal projects…Any short-term increase in coal consumption that we may see in response to this ongoing energy crisis is merely masking a longer-term structural decline.”

With cost-competitive solar, wind and batteries given a boost over fossil fuels by the energy crisis, there have been numerous announcements about new renewable energy projects since the start of war, including from India, Japan and Indonesia. 

Shearer says that, rather than a “sustained coal comeback” in 2026, the Iran war “strengthens the case for renewables”. She says:

“If anything, a second gas shock in less than five years strengthens the case for renewables as the more secure long-term path.”

Jones says that Ember expects “little change in overall fossil generation, but with a small rise in coal and a fall in gas” in 2026. He adds:

“This would maximise gas-to-coal switching globally outside of the US, leaving no possibility for further switching in future years. Therefore, the big story isn’t about a coal comeback. It’s about how the relative economics of renewables, compared to fossil fuels, have been given a superboost by the crisis.”

Santa Marta: Key outcomes from first summit on ‘transitioning away’ from fossil fuels

International policy

|

30.04.26

Iran war analysis: How 60 nations have responded to the global energy crisis

International policy

|

08.04.26

Q&A: Why does gas set the price of electricity – and is there an alternative?

Oil and gas

|

13.03.26

Q&A: What does the Iran war mean for the energy transition and climate action?

International policy

|

10.03.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_a6dd1abd18950d65e92cc0670b53264a .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post World ‘will not see significant return to coal’ in 2026 – despite Iran crisis appeared first on Carbon Brief.

After years of letting its methane regulation fall further and further behind modern best practices, the Alberta government appeared to have a breakthrough in late March.But slightly later in March, we had to push the corks back into the champagne...

Wetlands, forests, peatlands, and mangrove swamps support native biodiversity and sock away large amounts of carbon. They also bog down invading armies, history shows.

These are the facts behind a new national security strategy concept that researchers from the University of East London call “defensive rewilding.” The idea is that large-scale ecosystem restoration can help protect a country’s borders – deterring invasions, slowing enemy advances, and funneling adversaries into more easily defended corridors.

Climate action and national defense are often cast as competitors for the same limited pot of government funds. But in fact, ecosystem restoration can contribute to both aims, the researchers say.

Take peatlands, for example: they’re unparalleled at storing carbon. And absolutely terrible at holding up heavy-duty military vehicles.

Or dense, mixed-species natural forests: great for biodiversity, and also for hiding defenders from surveillance drones and loitering munitions.

Natural rivers with restored floodplains provide flood control and support aquatic life and fisheries. As a bonus, their banks are too soft and their channels too wide for military tactical bridges.

The Pripyat marshes along the present-day Ukraine-Belarus border were a major barrier to German advances during Operation Barbarossa in 1941. Also during World War II, coral reefs and mangrove ecosystems frustrated amphibious invasions throughout the Pacific theater. More recently, Ukraine’s flooding of the Irpin River floodplain in 2022 was a major factor in stopping the Russian advance on Kyiv.

The latter example did not involve established wetlands, but still illustrates the concept, the researchers say. They define defensive rewilding as “the intentional, pre- or mid-conflict enhancement and restoration of ecosystems to create militarily advantageous terrain, while concurrently delivering significant environmental benefits.”

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:Instead of Trump’s Wall, Let’s Build a Border of Solar Panels

 

Defensive rewilding is not restoration as part of post-conflict nation-building, and it’s not mid-conflict environmental destruction for military advantage (known as WarWilding, like Saddam Hussein’s draining of the Mesopotamian marshes).

Rewilded ecosystems can function as a form of “deterrence by denial” – the enemy takes a look at how an invasion is likely to go, and decides to pass. Another plus is that it is “inherently defensive,” the researchers say: there’s no mistaking wetland restoration for saber-rattling, so rewilding can improve a country’s strategic situation without risking touching off a regional arms race.

Ecosystem restoration is often cheaper than constructing conventional defensive fortifications like anti-tank ditches – and rewilded ecosystems last longer and require little maintenance to boot. However, the researchers note, the ecosystem restoration has to be large-scale to really pose a deterrent.

Rewilding isn’t a national defense strategy on its own. It still takes good intelligence and solid strategy to prevent and repel invasions, and modern military technology means that natural obstacles will sometimes only slow enemy advances rather than stopping them entirely. The same wild landscapes that bog down invaders can frustrate counteroffensives, and ecosystems can be damaged in the crossfire.

Still, defensive rewilding represents a novel way of thinking and a potential win-win approach, the researchers argue. “From a fiscal perspective, this represents a shift from ‘spending’ on defense to ‘investing’ in resilience,” they write.

Source: Jelliman S. et al. “Defensive Rewilding: a Nature-Based Solution for National Security.” The RUSI Journal 2026.

Image: ©Anthropocene Magazine

President Donald Trump and his sons have approximately $1 billion tied to crypto venture World Liberty Financial, which was founded by the Trumps, alongside Steve Witkoff, now Trump's special envoy for peace. A new report by Public Citizen details how the venture hinges on Binance, the world's largest crypto exchange, which pleaded guilty in 2023 to sanctions and money laundering violations tied largely to Iran—the country Trump has taken the United States to war with. The Trump administration has simultaneously dismantled the enforcement tools that would hold crypto outfits like Binance accountable—pardoning its founder, dismissing an SEC lawsuit against the company, and issuing a directive to stop prosecuting crypto platforms.

The report, “Conflict Coin: How the Trumps’ Billion-Dollar Crypto Stake Depends on a Company That Helped Iran Evade Sanctions”, reveals how Trump has leveraged investments in cryptocurrency to enrich himself and officials in his administration, specifically through working with Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, to conduct deals. Binance has hosted accounts used by at least eight entities and individuals that the Treasury Department has sanctioned for supporting terrorism or terrorist-designated groups linked to Iran, some of whom were sanctioned or prosecuted by Trump's own administration, according to court filings. In 2023, Binance reached settlements with the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department, pleading guilty to anti-money laundering, unlicensed money transmitting and sanctions violations, with the U.S. government saying the exchange failed “to implement programs to prevent and report suspicious transactions with terrorists.”

The report states, “The Trump family's entanglement with Binance exposes a dangerous contradiction at the heart of U.S. foreign policy: The same exchange that built the infrastructure for and holds the vast majority of Trump's USD1 stablecoin has facilitated billions of dollars in transactions for Iran and designated terrorist organizations. The opacity that defines crypto isn't a bug. It's the feature that makes it useful to both speculators and sanctioned regimes, and the president of the United States is profiting from it.”

“Binance is the world's largest crypto exchange. It pleaded guilty in 2023 to sanctions and money laundering violations, and paid $4.3 billion in penalties to the United States, one of the largest corporate penalties ever. Its CEO and founder, CZ, pleaded guilty to failing to maintain effective anti-money laundering programs, and served four months in prison,” said Zach Everson, Research Director for Public Citizen’s Trump Accountability Project. “Now, this happened in 2023, about a year before World Liberty Financial launched. But the Trumps made the decision to go into business with these guys anyway, which is just flagrantly corrupt. Recent media reports suggest that Binance has continued to support Iranian interests. And yet rather than pull back, the Trumps’ company has been strengthening its relationship.”

Government ministers and officials from close to 60 countries are on the ground in the Colombian coal-port city of Santa Marta for high-level discussions at the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels.

Speaking at the opening plenary, Selwin Hart, special adviser to the UN Secretary-General on climate action and just transition, said that three out of every four people on the planet live in countries that are net importers of fossil fuels, exposing them to “shocks they did not create and cannot control”.

Against the backdrop of the Iran war, which has caused oil prices to spike, he said the urgency of transitioning away from fossil fuels “is no longer only a climate or environmental imperative. It is a security imperative, an economic imperative and a development imperative.”

Delaying the transition will only make it “more disorderly, disruptive and costly, Hart warned, adding that so far the shift to renewables has been highly concentrated in rich economies and China – “leaving most of the developing world behind”.

Comment: Santa Marta marks a new chapter in climate diplomacy

Meanwhile, a group of 18 nations – mostly made up of small island states and the host country Colombia – called on the Santa Marta summit to recognise the “urgent need to negotiate a new international instrument” for leaving coal, oil and gas beneath the ground. 

They are pushing for the conference to back a formal negotiation process for a binding “Fossil Fuel Treaty” and make progress on new mechanisms for international cooperation and finance including an importers-exporters club, a global just transition fund and a debt resolution facility. 

Teresa Anderson, global lead on climate justice for ActionAid International, said UN climate talks remain essential to ensure all countries act together to tackle global warming. But, she added, “a new Treaty can act as a parallel and complementary space for those that want to move faster in key areas such as phasing out fossil fuels, just transitions and debt justice, without first having to get sign-off from all nations”. 

Partner content: To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”

Aside from a summary report and a statement from the co-chairs, the expected outcomes from Santa Marta’s high-level debates remain unclear. While this is a source of anxiety for some delegates, others say it’s a breath of fresh air compared with the rigid format of COPs.  

Here are highlights from the high-level segment of the conference on April 28:

Host nations seek to revive flagging multilateralism

As right-wing demonstrators outside the conference venue chanted in Spanish that “fossil fuels are a god-given resource”, hosts Colombia and the Netherlands kicked off the first international dialogue of countries on reducing their dependence on coal, oil and gas. 

Both countries reiterated that the conference is meant to drive forward discussions where UN talks like COPs have fallen short.

Delegates had to endure long queues under the sun to enter the five-star resort hosting the high-level segment, as security was tightened in preparation for Colombian President Gustavo Petro this afternoon.

The country’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres opened the talks in a packed room, expressing her frustration with “fossil colonialism” and the failure of the last few COPs to debate pathways away from fossil fuels. 

“Beyond frustrations, we’re summoned today to overcome the crisis of multilateralism,” she said, adding that Santa Marta seeks to become a “deeper, more democratic and more effective” alternative. “We need a multilateralism without de facto vetoes.”

At last year’s COP30 in Belém, a group of 80 countries called for the design of a global roadmap to phase out coal, oil and gas, but it was blocked by large oil producers and consumers like Saudi Arabia, Russia, India and China.

Dutch climate minister Stientje van Veldhoven noted that the energy transition will not be easy, as fossil fuel systems are “hard to disentangle” from economies. She urged countries to have an “open dialogue” and said the conference is about “strengthening multilateralism”.

Some governments also expressed the need to reinforce the UN climate negotiations, with EU climate chief Wopke Hoekstra saying “the COP process is unfortunately not always delivering what it should”, as he urged countries to “make the most” of Santa Marta. Vanuatu’s climate minister Ralph Regenvanu said commitments made here must bolster talks at COP.

Fossil fuel producers want flexibility, Indigenous peoples reject business as usual 

The plenary in Santa Marta adopted a different style for its high-level dialogue compared to the UN process, as government interventions were interspersed with speakers representing social groups, from women to the private sector, who had prepared their contributions at meetings over the past three days. 

The result was a mix of views, with some large oil and gas-producing nations urging caution over how ditching fossil fuels could affect their economic development, while civil society groups piled on the pressure to decarbonise fast.

Türkiye – a large coal producer and consumer that will host COP31- said progress on a just transition “will benefit from an approach that takes into account different national circumstances, capacities and development priorities”, hinting at the need for flexibility for emerging economies.

While this year’s COP president, Murat Kurum, has said that relying on fossil fuels could lead to energy insecurity and “climate collapse”, his country drew criticism for publishing an action agenda for COP31 that does not mention fossil fuels.

Türkiye sets COP31 dates and appoints Australian cattle farmer as youth champion

Oil-rich Nigeria went even further, with the country’s regional development minister, Momoh Abubakar, emphasising he would host an event on a “phase down” of fossil fuels in Santa Marta. “It is ‘phase down’, not ‘phase out’ that is giving room for transition and diversification to drive sustainable development,” he said.

Norway – which supplies Europe with much of its oil and gas – said the country is “strongly committed” to the “era of renewables”. “This needs to be happening in close coordination between all producers and consumers,” said the country’s climate minister Astrid Hoem, as global energy markets are highly interconnected.

Meanwhile, Indigenous peoples and other groups called out what they judge to be a government-led process, winning loud applause for their interventions. The Indigenous delegate said they don’t want to see “another form of colonialism cloaked as a just transition”.

“We will not stand by as our kin, our lands, our waters and our non-human relatives suffer to maintain the status quo,” she said. “This structure will not be where we found our salvation and liberation.” 

Some social groups called for specific measures to be included in the conference’s main output, which Colombia has said will be a summary report. Academics called for action on methane while the private sector recommended the removal of fossil fuel subsidies that keep oil and gas prices “artificially low”. NGOs said they want Santa Marta to recognise the need for a “Fossil Fuel Treaty” to ban new extraction.

France’s climate envoy pictured during the High-level Segment of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia on April 28, 2026 (Photo: Colombia Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development) France’s climate envoy pictured during the High-level Segment of the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia on April 28, 2026 (Photo: Colombia Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development) France delivers first fossil fuel transition roadmap

France came to Santa Marta bearing a gift that was delivered to the podium: its new national roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels. 

Benoît Faraco, the country’s climate envoy, said France was “very proud” to be one of the first countries to publish a domestic roadmap, and encouraged others to follow suit. Both Colombia and Brazil are working on draft roadmaps but have yet to finalise them.

Cat Abreu, director of the International Climate Politics Hub said it was “a big moment to have the world’s first national roadmap to transition away from fossil fuels”. She added that the plan “rationalises France’s existing energy policies and targets into a clear direction of travel to phase out fossil fuels and it sends a strong signal to other countries that they can do the same”. 

The document, which amalgamates different energy and decarbonisation plans, confirms targets France had previously set for ending the consumption of each fossil fuel: coal by 2030, oil by 2045 and fossil gas by 2050.

To get there, France aims to close its last two coal-fired power plants by 2027, carry out large-scale electrification of transport, develop alternative heating methods such as heat pumps and improve energy efficiency through building renovation, the roadmap says. France already decided a decade ago to end fossil fuel exploration and exploitation on its territory by 2040.

Faraco said France is focused on electrification and clean electricity because they provide value to local communities, will shape the future of industry, and “bring solutions when fossil fuel brings problems”.

France’s electricity mix is already 90% low carbon, he said, thanks to nuclear and renewables, and it generates revenues for the national budget by exporting green power. 

France, he added, will help African nations to unleash wind power, and provide support to other countries on the frontline of the current energy crisis.   

Colombian president Gustavo Petro at the stage of the first conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta. (Photo: Colombia’s Ministry of Environment) Colombian president questions whether capitalism can really go green 

Preceded by an Indigenous ceremony, Colombia’s leftist president, Gustavo Petro, stopped by the conference plenary on Tuesday afternoon to warn about the consequences of continuing with the expansion of fossil fuels. 

“One question that needs to be asked is whether capitalism can truly adapt to a non-fossil fuel energy system?” he said. “Today I’m sceptical.”

Petro also criticised last year’s COP30 for failing to formally adopt a process for a global roadmap away from fossil fuels, despite scientific warnings of the need to halt all new coal, oil and gas. Colombia was one of the strongest backers of the initiative.

The country is heading into an election in late May, where Petro’s designated successor Iván Cepeda is leading in the polls against far-right candidate Abelardo de la Espriella. 

After a relatively brief speech that secured a standing ovation from the audience, the Colombian president quickly exited, escorted by his security team.

The post Santa Marta: Ministers grapple with practicalities of fossil fuel phase-out appeared first on Climate Home News.

Sometimes, years after the seeds are planted you see the results. That was certainly the case with an action that a group of Stay Grounded supporters took part in three years ago against Europe’s largest airshow. Last week they saw a huge win. Here, Sean Currie, explains what we’re celebrating. Three years ago, a group of supporters of Stay Grounded went to Geneva with a plan.

Source

Energy affordability has become a dominant concern across the country. After over a decade of household electricity bills growing with or slower than inflation, average residential electricity bills have outpaced inflation in 41 states over the past two years.[1] These rising costs increasingly strain household budgets, driving ongoing efforts to improve energy affordability around the country. And these energy affordability dynamics extend beyond households, to businesses of all sizes.

Governors are in a unique position to promote energy affordability because of their role at the intersection of state decision makers and their ability to affect change through a variety of tools like executive orders, legislative agendas, and regulatory directives. And they’ve been leveraging this unique position. Over the past three years, governors in 37 states have taken action on energy affordability. In the second half of 2025 alone, governors in 26 different states took an affordability-related action.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

We compiled data on governor-led actions between January 2023 and January 2026 and analyzed them across several dimensions to understand how governors are choosing to address this complex issue and to identify examples that others might replicate. While this article is primarily focused on efforts to promote residential affordability, many policy solutions can have impacts that extend to commercial and industrial customers. As states continue to wrestle with this challenge, we find that governors taking effective actions are using two approaches that respond to the gravity of this moment and address longstanding, systemic affordability issues:

1. Deliver holistic reforms: Governors are enacting a suite of policies that together safeguard vulnerable households, control the growth in system costs, distribute costs appropriately to different customers (including between residential, commercial, and industrial customers), and give all customers more control over their bills.
2. Balance the timing of impact: These actions are providing both near-term relief to ensure customers realize benefits quickly and long-term system reforms while considering how long the impacts of different policies are likely to persist.

Looking ahead, governors can drive holistic affordability packages through a coordinated set of actions that safeguard vulnerable households, control system costs, distribute costs efficiently, and improve customer agency, delivering on both near-term relief and long-term system reforms. Below, we draw on our research to share key insights and recommendations for how governors can effectively work with other state decision makers to improve energy affordability through this framework.

Governors sit at the intersection of key decision makers

Governors can play an important role in promoting energy affordability through executive action, legislative proposals, regulatory directives, and convening industry and state leaders. Critically, governors can work with a variety of other actors, or they can act independently to promote energy affordability. Because of their unique position relative to other decision makers, governors can affect a diverse set of actions — from standing up state energy efficiency programs to coordinating with wholesale market operators — to address energy costs. The table below shows how different actors can influence energy affordability and provides real-world examples of governors effectively working with each actor.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

States need holistic reforms to address their affordability challenges

Energy affordability is a complex problem, so we need holistic solutions. A diverse set of factors like aging infrastructure, electricity load growth, and extreme weather are driving energy costs, and there’s no one-size-fits-all approach to address these challenges. Fortunately, policymakers have many tools at their disposal to promote energy affordability, but it’s critical to deploy them in an effective way. In our Electricity Affordability Toolkit, we identify affordability policies across four key focus areas: safeguards for vulnerable customers, cost control, cost distribution, and customer agency.

• Safeguards ensure that households facing the most severe forms of energy insecurity have access to energy and can afford their bills. Safeguards can be embedded into cost control, cost distribution, or customer agency policies by targeting vulnerable communities in policy design. State example: In Maryland, Governor Moore issued an executive order creating the Maryland Energy Advisory Council and directing them to identify recommendations to strengthen the state’s energy assistance programs. The Council will identify potential changes to these programs to improve affordability, bill stability, and energy access for vulnerable households.
• Cost control policies manage the overall size of the pie. They help ensure that utilities prioritize efficient investments and deliver energy in a cost-effective manner. State example: In New York, Governor Hochul’s Ratepayer Protection Plan includes a suite of cost control policies like modernizing rate case procedures to allow regulators to better evaluate rate utility proposals, requiring utilities to submit budget-constrained proposals in rate cases, and investigating utility bills to ensure prudent utility spending.
• Cost distribution policies help distribute costs to different groups (e.g., customer classes, income groups, utilities, private industry, etc.) in a way that promotes affordability for all. State example: In Alaska, Governor Dunleavy championed legislation to create the Alaska Energy Independence Fund, a green bank intended to leverage public financing to support sustainable energy investments and energy upgrades for households and businesses.
• Customer agency policies improve customers’ ability to control and manage their energy bills. State example: In Colorado, Governor Polis launched the Colorado Energy Savings Navigator, an easy-to-use online platform for households to identify their eligibility for over 18 energy assistance programs and 600 utility, state, and federal incentives for energy tech upgrades.

We identified the primary focus area of each governor-led action in our research, and you can see the results in the chart below. Across the country, we found that governors addressed each of these types of policies, but cost control policies are the most popular. Governors in 33 states took cost control actions while only 16 governors enacted policies promoting customer agency. One reason for the popularity of cost control actions is that they target the perverse incentives created by the traditional utility regulatory structure, which create high spending and contribute to growing costs for everyone.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

However, it’s critical for governors to advance balanced packages that address each of these focus areas and provide holistic relief. For example, focusing on cost control actions can manage upstream spending but does little to improve energy affordability for vulnerable populations or give households and businesses more options for managing their energy bills and vice versa. We found that most governors prioritized actions in at least two areas, but governors in 14 of 37 states only acted in a single area. Governors in 9 states targeted every category to deliver holistic relief. For example, New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill’s executive orders include each category:

• Safeguards – directs the Board of Public Utilities (BPU) to identify opportunities to increase investment in low-income energy efficiency programs.
• Cost control – directs the BPU to complete a study on modernizing the utility business model through tools like performance-based regulation, multi-year rate plans, and review of supplemental transmission projects.
• Cost distribution – directs the BPU to review components of the societal benefits charge on ratepayer bills without compromising funding for energy assistance programs.
• Customer agency – directs the BPU to create a virtual power plant program administered by electric distribution utilities.

Give customers near-term relief and champion long-term system reforms

In addition to prioritizing holistic actions, states are balancing the need to provide near-term relief and address long-term system challenges. Governors face a tough but achievable task. It’s not possible to solve the problems driving energy costs overnight, but households are feeling the crunch right now.

As mentioned above, electricity bills are growing quickly in many states, and even before recent growth, one in three households reported sacrificing necessities like food or medicine just to pay their energy bills. As a result, governors are tasked with providing the near-term relief needed by so many while also promoting the reforms necessary to provide long-term affordability. As governors wrestle with this challenge and design affordability packages, they can consider the timing and persistence of relief provided by different affordability policies.

Near-term policies like bill rebates, energy efficiency programs, and disconnection protections can be implemented within 1–2 years (or even quicker, if expanding adoption of an existing program or rate) and start benefitting customers. Long-term policies like utility regulation and rate reform (e.g., performance-based regulation, fuel cost sharing, etc.) and siting and permitting reform can take a few years (or longer) to implement and deliver savings to all ratepayers. The chart below shows the most common governor-led affordability policies we found in our research by impact time horizon.

window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}});

Overall, we found that governors balanced near- and long-term actions, as long-term actions account for about 65% of all actions while near-term actions account for 35%. Governors focusing on near-term actions often did so by bolstering discount rates or energy assistance programs and issuing one-time bill credits. Common long-term actions included those focused on reforming utility business models, deploying new energy resources, and improved transmission planning. Some notable examples of governors balancing near- and long-term priorities include:

• In Connecticut, Governor Lamont played a key role in passing legislation that includes a suite of energy affordability provisions. Near-term policies include public financing of energy assistance programs and a requirement for utilities to consider grid-enhancing technologies when evaluating transmission projects, among others. Long-term reforms include leveraging ratepayer-backed securitization for recovery of storm-related costs. The legislation is estimated to immediately save households approximately $100 per year off their electricity bills and deliver even greater savings to business customers while paving the way for long-term cost reductions.
• In Virginia, Governor Spanberger’s Affordable Virginia Agenda includes six bills to provide near- and long-term energy affordability. Near-term policies include expanding low-income energy efficiency programs and enabling balcony solar. Long-term reforms include optimizing grid planning and expanding energy storage capacity to reduce the need for costly generation during periods of peak demand.

In addition to pursuing both near- and long-term actions, it is important for governors to consider how the affordability benefits of actions persist over time. Affordability policies will have different impact time horizons, and their benefits will also vary in size and persistence based on policy design. For example, some near-term actions may only provide temporary relief while other actions can be implemented quickly and provide more sustained relief. Here are a few examples of different policies and how their affordability benefits can vary over time:

• Bill rebates can be implemented in the near term and be structured to provide one-time relief or more persistent relief if tied to a recurring revenue source like a cap-and-invest program.
• Ratepayer public advocates can be stood up in the near-term and provide long-lasting affordability benefits through intervention in rate cases and other regulatory proceedings.
• Virtual power plants can be implemented in the near- to medium-term and their benefits can grow over time as they become more advanced and are integrated into distribution system planning.
• Utility business model reforms like performance-based regulation will take years to implement and start delivering savings to ratepayers, but they provide highly persistent benefits by shaping utility spending for years to come.

Governors can apply these concepts as they seek to balance the dual objectives of providing immediate relief to households and businesses while also delivering long-term system reforms. It is critical to address near- and long-term affordability challenges, but the exact mix of near- and long-term policies will vary based on a state’s specific needs. For example, states with surging bills might initially prioritize providing immediate relief through bill rebates and safeguards like disconnection protections and low-income discount rates. States facing high load growth in the next 10 years might initially focus more on long-term policies like siting and permitting reform and ratepayer protections from large loads.

Governors have the tools they need to promote holistic, long-term energy affordability

Energy bills are rising quickly across the country while the energy system is strained by factors like high natural gas prices, extreme weather, and load growth. Fortunately, governors have many tools at their disposal to promote energy affordability, and they can have an outsized impact due to their unique position relative to legislatures, state agencies, utility regulators, and grid operators. Looking ahead, governors can promote near- and long-term affordability through a coordinated set of actions to safeguard vulnerable customers, control system costs, distribute costs efficiently, and improve customer agency.

[1] Based on state average electricity bills in July of each year calculated from Form EIA-861M data. Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The post The Governor Affordability Agenda appeared first on RMI.

Kim Booker never thought much about lead during her roughly 27 years living in Trenton, New Jersey. Born and raised in the once-industrial powerhouse, she first heard about the heavy metal at community meetings organized by the East Trenton Collaborative, a local nonprofit that works on environmental health and safety issues. There, she learned that the prevalence of lead-laden pipes and paint, a legacy of the city’s industrial past, could have contaminated the drinking water in her home and the soil around her property. 

She knew that her three-bedroom home was old, making it likely it had lead pipes. Booker noticed the paint on the walls chipping off. And she realized, too, that her late grandmother and sister were both diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, which researchers have tied to lead exposure. She wanted to know if she was being poisoned by the lead in her environment. 

With few free, comprehensive testing resources available to her, Booker turned to Shereyl Snider, one of the leaders of the collaborative, who in turn connected her with Sean Stratton, a doctoral student in public health at Rutgers University in late 2023. At the time, he was taking samples of lead to get a clear picture of how lead had contaminated Trenton homes for his dissertation work. Once Booker agreed, Stratton was soon at her home, testing for lead in her paint, yard, and water.  

Stratton visits Amber DeLoney-Stewart’s home in October to provide a full inspection with Shereyl Snider, a community member with East Trenton Collaborative. Anna Mattson

When the results came back, Booker learned that her home was — as she’d suspected — contaminated with lead and that she had low but detectable levels of lead in her bloodstream. Stratton’s testing revealed that lead levels in her yard were more than 450 parts per million, above the Environmental Protection Agency’s hazard level. If not for Stratton, she would not have known. 

“The city shouldn’t rely on a student to do this work,” Stratton said.

Comprehensive lead testing of the kind that Stratton provided costs upwards of $1,000. Over the past two years, Stratton has tested the soil, water, or paint in more than 140 Trenton homes and has been assembling the clearest, most cohesive picture yet of a crisis that permeates the state. Last July, the EPA added the entire neighborhood of East Trenton to the Superfund National Priorities List after testing found widespread soil contamination in residential yards, schools, and parks. Despite the designation, there has been no comprehensive door-to-door testing effort, leaving residents like Booker to rely on Stratton.

But Stratton’s project is coming to a close. He defended his dissertation in February and will graduate in May, leaving uncertain who — if anyone — will continue the work. Community groups like East Trenton Collaborative worry the neighborhood could lose its only accessible source of household testing.

“We don’t want to stop working together,” Snider said. “I don’t see it ending, but I don’t know how we can continue unless we have big supporters to help support our future endeavors together.”

Stay safe from lead exposure

There is no safe level of lead exposure. Children under 6 and pregnant people are particularly vulnerable to health risks.

You’re more likely to have a lead service line providing your water if your home was built before 1986, when lead pipes were banned nationwide.

Filtering your water can greatly reduce your risk of exposure through tap water. Look for the NSF/ANSI Standard 53 mark, which means a filter meets EPA standards. Boiling water does not remove lead.
Run water for several minutes — at least 5, if not longer — before using for cooking or drinking.

Other common sources of lead exposure include paint in older homes and playgrounds, which can be ingested as chips or dust, and soil contaminated by industrial pollution or leaded gas exhaust (lead can linger in soils for hundreds of years).

Look for your city or state’s resources for testing water, household, and soil contamination, as well as blood testing to assess exposure. Some cities offer clean soil for covering lead-contaminated dirt, free filters if testing reveals lead in water, or even service line replacement.

Source: Lead pipes are everywhere. Here’s how to protect yourself. (Grist)

1 of 1

New Jersey has some of the highest legacy lead burdens in the country. The state has an estimated 350,000 lead service lines — placing it among the top 10 states, behind Illinois and Texas. It has received more than $100 million in federal funds for lead pipe replacements, but it doesn’t address legacy soil contamination, interior lead paint, or proactive household-level screening.

Despite the patchwork of testing options available — blood lead screening through the health department, water sampling through Trenton Water Works, and occasional environmental assessments from state or federal agencies — Stratton said the system rarely functions as a coherent whole. 

The state health department conducts home paint surface inspections, but only after a child has been poisoned, which is often first detected by mandatory lead testing. In New Jersey, children are required to test for lead at 1 and 2 years of age. Testing is free from local health departments for kids who are underinsured or uninsured. But older children and adults have to pay their own way.

Trenton Water Works provides lead water test kits for homes built before 1986, but residents must coordinate testing with a private lab and pay for the cost of the analysis, which can run from $20 to $100. No agency reliably tests for lead in soil unless the EPA steps in to investigate. 

Each test only addresses a narrow slice of the problem, leaving families with fragmented or incomplete information. Results can take weeks to arrive, if they arrive at all. One resident, Amber DeLoney-Stewart, said she never received her home inspection results from the city, even after blood tests revealed her child was lead-burdened. 

Stratton takes his vials of samples back to his lab at Rutgers University for processing. Anna Mattson

Without coordination, door-to-door outreach, or a mandate for proactive household-level screening, the burden falls on residents to navigate a maze of programs — and too often, Stratton said, people who need the information most don’t receive it. 

“It just doesn’t ever seem to be enough,” Stratton said. “It’s very siloed.”

Stratton’s work reflects a broader pattern in environmental health research across the United States. In some communities concerned about pollution, residents turn to university researchers for help testing soil or water when government monitoring is limited. In Atlanta, for example, a soil-testing project launched by a graduate student at Emory University and community partners uncovered elevated lead levels in residential yards, prompting a federal investigation. And last year, the University of California, Los Angeles, offered free soil testing to residents affected by wildfires. Efforts like these often depend on temporary research projects, meaning they can end when students graduate or grant funding runs out. 

Read Next Ghosts of Polluters Past Yvette Cabrera

Stratton’s research in East Trenton has been supported by two grants — one from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and another directly from the federal government. As the Trump administration cuts billions of dollars of grant money, Rutgers’ Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute saw some grants rescinded entirely. Other projects remain in limbo. But Stratton’s grants somehow made the cut, even with “environmental justice” in their titles. Brian Buckley, the institute’s executive director, said further budget cuts mean far fewer opportunities to continue future research.

“We’ve been playing dodge the bullet,” he said. 

Stratton didn’t originally set out to investigate lead contamination. After graduating from Rutgers University with a bachelor’s degree in environmental science in 2015, he worked in environmental consulting in New Jersey, sampling soil, air, and water and designing remediation strategies for contaminated sites. Around that time, Flint, Michigan, switched its water supply from Detroit to the Flint River, and triggered a public health crisis when corrosive water from the river caused pipes to leach lead, exposing more than 140,000 people to dangerous levels of the metal.

A friend who was concerned about the events asked Stratton to sample water at his New Jersey home and send it to a lab to test for lead. The results came back extremely high: more than 78 parts per billion of lead — more than five times the EPA’s action level. 

Confused, Stratton began digging through public records, water reports, and federal regulations. He noticed that his own town of East Brunswick was not testing the correct location type. Federal rules require that cities test homes that are most likely to have lead service lines, but Stratton said the agency was largely testing homes less likely to have them. Alarmed at the discrepancy, he began filing public records requests with water utilities across the state to see whether similar gaps existed elsewhere. 

“I started arguing with the DEP,” Stratton said, referencing the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. “And then I decided I needed to go back to school, because I felt like I needed to get more credibility.” 

A spokesperson for the state agency said in a statement that East Brunswick’s lead testing plan follows federal rules that require water systems to prioritize homes most likely to have lead service lines. It added that when there are not enough of these higher-risk homes available or willing to participate, utilities can test lower-risk homes to meet the required sample sizes. 

Spurred by what he’d learned about the prevalence of lead contamination, Stratton ran for State Assembly as the Green Party candidate for East Brunswick in 2017. His candidate profile says that he will “continue to fight to ensure that our water is suitable to drink.” Stratton lost the race, but he returned to Rutgers three years later to earn a master’s degree in public health and then continued into a doctoral program.

Stratton has sampled more than 100 New Jersey homes for traces of lead in pipes, soil, and paint. Anna Mattson

Stratton’s doctoral project had three main objectives: verify whether Trenton residents are exposed to lead, determine where the exposure was coming from, and uncover how residents can reduce exposure. In his testing, Stratton used an X-ray fluorescence gun to scan every wall in a willing volunteer’s home to see how much lead was in the paint. He dropped off water vials for residents to fill in the morning from the kitchen sink — first thing in the morning, before using any water. Out in the yard, he took a small vial and filled it with soil.

Then he packed up his bag, put it all in the trunk of his car, and made the drive back to the cluttered Rutgers lab, where he would run tests. Afterward, Stratton provided residents with full results, information on what to do next, medical information about where to get blood lead checked, and his phone number, along with his supervisor’s at Rutgers, to call if they had questions. 

In late February this year, Stratton presented his findings to a team of Rutgers professors during his official dissertation defense. His findings were stark. Most homes he tested had lead, whether it be in the dust, paint, or pipes. All homes measured for floor dust had detectable levels of lead, with 86 percent of them exceeding the EPA’s action level. 

He also found that homes without lead-based paint in Trenton are still at risk of elevated levels because of the legacy lead dust outside. That outside dust in Trenton comes from a myriad of sources, including gasoline, atmospheric aerosols, and coal and soil contamination from its history of lead-based ceramics manufacturing.

He also found that running the tap for five minutes before using the water — a common recommendation from public health experts — was still not an adequate amount of time to flush traces of lead. He suggested, in his results, that lead safety guidelines should expand to include reduction strategies, like using a water filter. 

A week later, he welcomed more than 30 people into a Rutgers classroom for a presentation of his findings. He wanted collaborators and community members to celebrate with him. As gifts, he handed out little square 3D printed urban maps of East Trenton, with streets and raised buildings, to those he’d worked with over the years. Among those in attendance were partners who helped connect Stratton with residents, including Snider of East Trenton Collaborative and Anthony Diaz of the Newark Water Coalition. 

In early March, more than 30 friends, family, and colleagues gathered in a Rutgers conference room to celebrate Stratton’s work on lead contamination in New Jersey. Anna Mattson

The EPA’s decision this summer to list East Trenton as a Superfund site means a cleanup is coming — but slowly, and only for the soil, not the pipes or the paint. The designation triggers more sampling, long-term soil removal plans, and years of federal oversight. Still, none of that has started yet. A remediation plan hasn’t been developed. And in a state dotted with Superfund sites that have languished for decades, residents know what a long wait can look like. 

For now, Stratton’s research has offered immediate answers for concerned residents. Since learning about the lead in her home, Booker has tried to reduce her exposure. 

“I use a vacuum to clean my floors and carpets instead of stirring up dirt and dust particles by sweeping,” Booker said. “When my nieces come over and want to run around in the yard, I make sure they remove their shoes when they come inside and wash their hands.”

She said Snider, Stratton, and the East Trenton Collaborative have sounded the alarm on the lead issue in Trenton. Now, she hopes that the community will continue to fight so that the city can be a place where children and families can be healthy and thrive.

“Knowledge is only powerful and beneficial if its effects change,” Booker said. “We can know there is a problem, but without action, the problem simply remains.”

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline He’s the only lead tester in this contaminated neighborhood. He graduates next month. on Apr 28, 2026.