News Feeds

Coal Plant Orders Cost Consumers Millions & Drive Utility Bills Higher

• Each time a coal plant is ordered to stay open – utility bill rates increase.
• Forcing coal plants to stay open after closure drives up electricity costs because coal power is more expensive to produce.
• In September 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) also announced that $625 million in taxpayer dollars would be given to corporate coal plant owners.
• Private energy markets have already decided that coal power is too expensive. According to a 2025 analysis by the financial advisory firm Lazard, electricity from coal-fired power plants costs an average of $122 per megawatt-hour. That same power can be produced for $78 from natural gas plants, $61 from onshore wind & $58 from utility-scale solar. See Lazard LLC’s Levelized Cost of Energy at page 10.
• Forcing coal plants to operate requires consumers to pay higher costs (see below).

Chart from E360 Digest, Yale Univ. Jan. 5, 2026 – A Year of Clean Energy Milestones. Today, wind & solar are cheaper than coal & natural gas. Increasingly, they are boosted by ever more affordable batteries, which have gotten 90% cheaper over the last decade.

 

Independent National Report on Coal Plant Orders & Consumer Costs

In an unprecedented use of federal authority, President Donald Trump’s administration has invoked emergency powers to force a series of retiring coal plants to stay open. Utilities, states and grid operators have said the aging plants are expensive, in bad repair, and no longer needed to meet regional energy needs. But Trump’s coal plant orders have forced plant operators to continue investing in the facilities – a move that consumer advocates fear could mean billions of dollars in added costs for customers in dozens of states. Trump is forcing coal plants to stay open. It could cost customers billions by Alex Brown – Stateline – March 19, 2026

 

Coal Plant Orders May Cost Ratepayers $3 Billion to $6 Billion Nationwide

• Energy analysts say Trump’s efforts to keep fossil fuel-powered plants open could become very costly to ratepayers. A recent Report published by Grid Strategies LLC found that as many as 90 aging plants could be subject to similar emergency orders during the remainder of Trump’s term. The Report found that keeping those plants open could cost ratepayers anywhere from $3 billion to $6 billion a year.
• “What the DOE is doing is picking losers, the uneconomical plants that the utilities, the regulators, everybody agreed need to retire & be replaced with something cheaper and more efficient,” said Michael Goggin, who authored the report.

The Report estimated that Pennsylvania consumers alone could pay $138 million in higher utility bills. See, The Cost of Federal Mandates at page 8.

 

Trump’s Eddystone Power Plant Order Will Cost PA Consumers Millions

A recent Sierra Club Report estimated that the gross cost to operate two Eddystone Power Plant units in Chester County, Pennsylvania to be approximately $34,336 per day. This Report was completed in March 2026 before the Iran War increased the costs of fossil fuels – so this estimate is almost certainly low. The Trump administration invoked section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to force the Eddystone plant to stay open. See Aging Pennsylvania power plant to keep running after Trump order on eve of shutdown by: Jon Hurdle, Inside Climate News – June 9, 2025 – DOE says the plant will help avert an energy “emergency.” Environmentalists say there’s no such crisis.

 

Eddystone Power Plant’s Owners Will Be Allowed to Charge the Costs of Keeping the Power Plant Operating to PA Consumers.

According to a presentation by Pennsylvania’s Electricity Grid operator, PJM – Constellation Energy will be permitted to charge PA consumers with the additional costs of keeping the Eddystone Power Plant open and is also allowed to charge a 110% profit on those costs. See Education on Federal Power Authority Section 202(c) and DACC Cost Allocation by Thomas DeVita, PJM Legal & Lisa Morelli, PJM Settlements – Meeting of June 10, 2025.

This is because DOE’s May 30, 2025 Order found that an emergency existed in portions of the PJM footprint “due to a shortage of facilities for the generation of electric energy, resource adequacy concerns, and other causes,” & directed  that PJM and Constellation Energy take “all measures necessary” to ensure that the Eddystone Units are available for continued operation. See Report Here. PJM explained:

• DOE’s Order directed PJM & Constellation to “file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission any tariff revisions or waivers necessary to effectuate this Order,” and further specified that “[r]ate recovery is available pursuant to [FPA section 202(c)].”
• Constellation has communicated its agreement to utilize the Deactivation Avoidable Cost Credit (“DACC”), as described in Part V of the PJM Tariff. PJM is willing to agree on the DACC Credit for the Eddystone Units. See Report at page 9.
• The applicable multiplier for the 1st year is 110% & escalates by 10% each year up to a 150% cap. 110% is the multiplier for Eddystone in 2026. See Report at page 9.

 According to Grid Strategies, “Forcing utilities to continue to operate unneeded and costly coal-fired power plants past their planned retirement increases the electric bills paid by homeowners and businesses. It also undermines the competitiveness of U.S. businesses such as manufacturing by raising electric rates.” See Grid Strategies Report.

The same is true for Constellation Energy, the owner of the Eddystone Plant. Constellation made the economic/business decision to shut Eddystone down. DOE’s Order forced it open again. PA consumers will foot the bill for the extra costs created by DOE’s Order. Sierra Club is keeping a running tab of consumer costs for six of DOE’s power plant Orders (including Eddystone).

 

Case Study on Forced Coal Plant Orders: J.H. Campbell Power Plant

The costs to consumers of forced coal plant reopenings are processed through time consuming and complicated state utility reviews and processes. These cost increases move slowly, but the DOE Orders will allow utilities to charge consumers and ratepayers for the costs of reopening old coal plants. Many of these cost increases are still in process.

However, a May 23, 2026 DOE Order forcing Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant in West Olive, Michigan to continue operating offers a good case study on the actual costs to consumers. See Keeping Michigan coal plant open under Trump orders cost $615K a day by Lucas Smolcic Larson, MLive.com, Oct. 31, 2025. This is because Consumers Energy, the plant owner, has claimed in legal filings that in just over four months, the utility ran up $80 million in net costs to keep the J.H. Campbell power plant on life support. See Trump’s Order to Keep Michigan Coal Plant Running Has Cost $80 Million So Far by Marianne Lavelle – Inside Climate News – October 31, 2025.

Consumers Energy said in its 3rd Quarter earnings report that it would pursue the process laid out in the DOE Order for collecting the J.H. Campbell plant costs. It will seek payment from ratepayers across the Midwest. Even though the peak summer electricity demand season had passed, Consumers Energy said they expect the coal plant Orders “to continue for the long-term.” CEO Garrick Rochow said in a conference call for investors. “And we’re prepared to continue to operate the plant and comply with those Orders.”

Consumers Energy said the costs – $615,385 per day – should be shared among ratepayers (an estimated 42 million to 45 million electricity customers) in the nine states served by the regional electric grid operator, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO). Consumers Energy had projected that the retirement of the Campbell plant would save its customers $600 million over the next 20 years, or $30 million per year. Instead, running the plant for the past five months has cost close to three times that annual amount.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, Sierra Club, NRDC, EDF and Earthjustice have filed lawsuits to stop the DOE Order to keep the JH Campbell coal plant from reopening and incurring these forced costs on consumers. See AG Dana Nessel challenges Trump Administration’s order to keep Michigan coal plant open by Steven Bohner – ABC News – December 19, 2025. See Public Advocacy Groups Take Trump Administration to Court for Illegal Coal Plant Extension– Earthjustice – July 24, 2025.

A recent filing suggests the JH Campbell coal plant’s costs may balloon far higher than these original estimates. See Midwestern families on the hook for $180 million to keep Michigan coal plant open under Trump administration’s mandates. 

 

More Background on Trump/DOE Coal Plant Orders and Consumer Costs

13 DOE emergency orders have cost Americans $235M, Sierra Club says – by Robert Walton Senior Editor – Utility Dive – March 18, 2026. DOE’s Orders to keep six retiring fossil-fueled power plants online and are adding millions to customer utility bills, according to the Sierra Club.

Trump Administration Orders to Keep Fossil-Fired Power Plant Running Will Increase Michigan Electricity Costs – NRDC – August 21, 2025. DOE’s August 20, 2026 Order required the J.H. Campbell coal plant to remain operational, despite plans to close the facility by May 31, 2025. An independent report found that keeping fossil-fired power plants, like J. H. Campbell, running could cost consumers $3 to $6 billion a year.

 

Who Will Pay for the Keystone Generating Station in Armstrong and Indiana counties, and Conemaugh Generating Station in Indiana County?

The April 21, 2026 announcement on the Keystone & Conemaugh Coal Plants Consent Decree does not address details on financing and plans for potential future electricity sales. Because it is not an Order to keep the plants running, the analysis on passing costs onto consumers described above does not apply. Press Releases and news coverage about the Consent Decree appear below. The answer to the question is not yet known.

 

Shapiro Administration Files Motion to Enter Consent Decree to Maintain Reliable, Affordable Power by Allowing Keystone and Conemaugh Plants to Continue Operating with Improved Environmental Controls and Upgrades – April 21, 2026 Press Release

See Consent Decree. & See DEP Press Release.

• Keeping the Keystone and Conemaugh Generating Stations in operation will allow the facilities to continue generating more than 3,400 megawatts of electricity for the regional grid. This approach allows PA to serve increased demand for energy generation and concerns about reliability, affordability, and economic impact.
• Allowing the plants to continue operating under enforceable environmental requirements will help avoid supply shortfalls that can drive up electricity prices for consumers across the region.
• Shapiro has made lowering costs for PA a central focus of his efforts around economic development and energy, consistently calling for a balanced approach that strengthens the grid, supports economic growth, and protects consumers from unnecessary rate increases.

 

Gov. Shapiro moves to keep 2 coal-fired power plants open in Western Pa., as energy demand from data centers grows – by Reid Frazier, Allegheny Front · Apr. 22, 2026. Gov. Josh Shapiro announced he was extending the lives of two W PA coal-fired power plants.

Pa.’s largest coal-fired power plants would stay open until 2032 in proposed DEP deal By Peter Hall – Pennsylvania Capital Star – April 22, 2026

DEP Files Final Consent Decree for the Keystone and Conemaugh Coal-Fired Power Plants to Allow for Continued Operation – by David Hess – PA Environment Digest Blog – April 22, 2026. – Provides background information & analysis on the Consent Decree.

 

Statements on the Consent Decree

Alex Bomstein, Executive Director of Clean Air Council – Here

Ted Kelly, Environmental Defense Fund Lead Counsel for U.S. Clean Energy – Here

Patrick McDonnell, president and CEO of PennFuture – Here

Molly Parzen, Executive Director of Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania – Here

Katie Blume of Conservation Voters of PA (Chair, Clean Power PA Coalition) issued the following statement:

Clean Power PA Statement on Decision by Trump and Shapiro Administrations to Extend Life of the Two Biggest Polluting Power Plants in Pennsylvania 

Statewide, PA – The Clean Power PA Coalition issued the following statement from its chair, Katie Blume of Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania, regarding an agreement announced by both President Trump and Governor Josh Shapiro to extend the life of two coal plants that had been scheduled to close in 2028:

We’re extremely disappointed in Governor Shapiro’s decision to allow the state’s two largest polluting power plants, the Keystone and Conemaugh coal-fired plants, to remain operating past their scheduled closing data of 2028.

This decision will not make electricity more affordable. Independent analysis shows that electricity from coal-fired power plants costs twice that of wind and solar. The cost of forcing aging coal plants to stay open is paid by electricity consumers: the cost of keeping open a major Maryland coal plant is estimated at $1.5 billion. That’s being passed on to consumers across the region, including Pennsylvanians (see Note below).

The deal to extend the plants’ operations was announced as part of the governor’s “all of the above” energy policy. Thus far, that “all of the above” strategy has meant blocking Pennsylvania’s participation in the successful Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a benefit to the coal and gas industries, and the extension of two expensive and dirty coal plants. But a true “all of the above” strategy must include “all” sources of energy, including renewable sources like solar and wind, and battery storage, all of which are cheaper and quicker to deploy than fossil fuels, as well as energy efficiency measures to reduce demand.

As energy prices continue to rise, in large part because of the state’s overreliance on costly gas and coal, Pennsylvanians still await action by the governor and the legislature to increase our energy supply by expanding cheaper clean energy, which currently provides only 3% of the state’s power. Until then, “all of the above” will be nothing more than an empty political slogan.

Note on Brandon Shores as ordered by PJM to stay open.

“In January 2025, PJM reported that Exelon had updated its cost estimates for the Brandon Shores deactivation projects, doubling the costs from $740 million to more than $1.5 billion.” The Brandon Shores deactivation projects include expanded transmission lines and additional facilities (such as static synchronous compensators or STATCOMs) for reactive services and other improvements to address the potential for voltage collapse.

The post Clean Power Digest: Coal Plant Orders appeared first on Ohio River Valley Institute.

This week on Talking Headways, we’re joined by Stephanie Dockery of Bloomberg Philanthropies to discuss the foundation’s third Public Art Challenge. Dockery considers how bus art gains cult followings, how artists use temporary installations to attract attention in their respective cities, and what happens after those projects disappear.

Listeners have three ways of following the conversation: The audio player embedded below; a full (albeit AI-generated) transcript; and further down the page, a partial, human-edited transcript.

Jeff Wood: Thinking about the Hawaii bus, one thing that was interesting to me is that a lot of agencies are having trouble with their funding, and a lot of times for the buses, they’ll try to do wraps, and the wraps are advertising.

And I find it really great that instead of just putting advertising on your bus, you could actually put an art installation on your bus. There’s some frustrations with covering the windows, which I know a lot of transit advocates have. But the Hawaii bus was actually done very tastefully in terms of not covering up all the windows.

Stephanie Dockery: Yes, we follow all parameters with bus shelters and buses on not covering the windows, not covering the sides of the glass panels in the case of our Houston project. With our project in Philadelphia, which is a poetry project that’s responding to gun violence, Healing Verse Germantown, they are working not only with the Department of Transportation, but with the advertising agency and putting art in the panel of the bus shelters where advertising typically goes.

So now we have murals in a space where there’s typically advertising. So to your point —yes, we should absolutely be using art, and it was so smart of the teams to identify that as an opportunity for them.

Wood: I just find it very refreshing just because everything seems to be commoditized these days. A lot of folks are trying to advertise, and, and for good reason, obviously. The transit agencies need money. But at the same time, maybe that’s why the buses have maybe a little bit more of a following — because it isn’t the typical bus covering that you usually see.

I’m wondering how much of the art we should expect people to understand right away versus how much should be explained. I’m curious about how people come to it or how they experience it when they see it.

Dockery: That’s a great question. People absolutely happen upon the work. People go to the work on purpose. We are doing so much work with all of the teams to help promote [the art], whether it’s on their website, on our guide. We have created maps for all of the cities so they can share those with their constituencies, so they can actually see all of the sites. We have signage at all of the sites that explicitly talks about what the project is, what the installation is.

We have to be really deliberate and not expect or assume that people know what the work is, and that’s kind of the great thing about public art, especially if it’s in a vacant lot in a place where you’re not expecting to see anything, let alone something beautiful. And people get arrested by the installations and question why they’re there and, you know, start questioning why we don’t have more, which is a great question.

Wood: Excellent question.

Dockery: We do a lot of communications both on the press side and the onsite marketing, and then with social media to help let people know that the work is there because it’s for a pretty finite period. Some work is a performance, so that’s quite fleeting. Some work is up for a year.

So we’re just really communicating those timelines, what the work is, who the artists are, and expressing that this is a collaborative team. People should know that this is great work that their cities have done for them. So the cities are behind us and have brought together these nonprofits and artists. We also have an app called Bloomberg Connects, which is a free digital guide available to cultural organizations.

And on our Public Art Challenge guide, we have all of the cities listed and have built out their projects, both images and descriptions. So that’s a place where the projects can live in posterity since they are temporary in nature.

If you can’t afford to live, what does democracy actually offer you?

It’s a question sitting just beneath the surface of many political debates right now. For people struggling to get by, the idea of protecting democracy can feel abstract at best, disconnected at worst. And even in more progressive spaces where democracy is treated as urgent, it’s often framed as a parallel concern — something to defend alongside economic issues, rather than through them. As Raj Patel puts it, people are increasingly being asked to accept a kind of tradeoff: focus on affordability now, and worry about democracy later. If the system hasn’t delivered for working people, it’s not hard to see why some might question whether it’s worth defending at all.

At the Bioneers Conference 2026, labor organizer Saru Jayaraman, policy expert Angela Glover Blackwell, and journalist Raj Patel took that tension head-on — and flipped it.

This Isn’t What Democracy Is Supposed to Do

For decades, Angela Glover Blackwell has worked across issues such as housing, transportation, and environmental justice, but over time, she came to see a deeper pattern behind them all. “It is the failure to understand, to lean into, and to make real the promise of democracy that has kept us from solving these problems.” For Blackwell, democracy is not just a process of voting or representation — it has a stronger purpose. “It is co-governance for human flourishing,” she says. “That’s all it is.”

That definition reframes the entire conversation. If democracy exists to support human flourishing, then it cannot be separated from the conditions in which people live. As she puts it, “You can’t have human flourishing if the people aren’t putting in their two cents…if they’re not telling you what they need.” And yet, the version most people experience falls far short. “The reason that democracy has been so feeble,” she argues, “is because it has always tried…to function for a few, not for the all.”

That gap — between what democracy promises and what it delivers — doesn’t just shape outcomes. It shapes expectations. As Patel observes, participation often becomes “an exercise in which we are being trained to expect less.”

What It Feels Like When Democracy Fails

While Blackwell frames the broader vision, Jayaraman grounds it in day-to-day realities. “We’ve been fighting on affordability for decades,” she says, “and the response we’ve gotten…from people with power is: That’s cute. That’s sweet. But we are here to save democracy.” In her work organizing restaurant workers, she has seen how economic pressure reshapes who gets to participate — and how. “Democracy doesn’t work when the majority of people are unable or terrified to come speak up, and then a minority of people are paid to come speak for their bosses.”

She describes a dynamic in which workers are often pressured by employers to attend meetings and oppose wage increases, and in some cases show up to testify in legislative hearings as well. Meanwhile, those who actually need higher wages often can’t risk being visible. “They’re working three jobs and terrified…of showing up with their name and their face.”

In that context, calls to “protect democracy” can feel hollow. Even within the Democratic Party—where support for wage increases is often assumed—Jayaraman argues that meaningful progress is frequently blocked or diluted. “My experience of democracy,” she says, “is Democrats blocking wage increases…because we have not created the consequences for those Democrats.”

The Mistake We Keep Making About Affordability

What the panel makes clear is that affordability and democracy are not separate issues; they are the same fight. Blackwell is direct: “The affordability problem is that we, as a nation, have not invested in human flourishing.” Focusing only on prices — on eggs, gas, rent — misses the deeper issue. “If we think we can separate the absence of a vibrant democracy from the suffering that is happening in this country,” she says, “we don’t understand what democracy was for.”

Jayaraman pushes the same point from another angle, noting that even progressive conversations about affordability often avoid the most obvious lever. “Why are none of even the most progressive people talking about…raising wages?” she asks. “Life will never be affordable unless people have enough money in their pockets.” And beyond economics, she emphasizes what low wages actually do: “When they are paid as little as $2 or $3 or even $15… it devalues who they are. Every worker has value and skill…And everybody…wants to feel like they are contributing to meaning.”

Across both perspectives, the argument converges: Affordability is not just about costs. It’s about dignity, participation, and whether people have the capacity to engage in public life at all. That raises a deeper question: What do we actually mean when we say something is “affordable”? As Patel points out, “There’s a difference between cheap and affordable.” Cheap, he argues, is often “a way of displacing one cost onto someone else…usually the working class and the rest of the web of life.”

What a Real Democracy Would Require

If current systems fall short, what would it actually look like to get this right? Jayaraman’s answer is simple and concrete: “In a real democracy, workers would be able to have one job instead of three. They could show up…They could overpower any lies…And they would be listened to.” That vision ties material conditions directly to political power. Without time, stability, and security, participation becomes limited to those who can afford it.

Blackwell echoes this, emphasizing that democracy must be judged by how it works for those most impacted. “Democracy only functions when it can function for those who have been most marginalized in society,” she says. “That is the mark of a great democracy.” She points to a familiar example: curb cuts in sidewalks, originally designed for people with disabilities but now used by everyone. “When we solve problems with nuance and specificity…thinking about those who have been rendered most vulnerable…the benefits cascade out to everybody.” Building a democracy that works for the most vulnerable, in other words, isn’t a niche goal. It’s the foundation of one that works at all.

Raising Expectations Is the Strategy

So what does it take to move from theory to action? For Jayaraman, it starts with refusing to accept the limits of what feels politically possible. “For so long our side has settled,” she says. “We negotiate against ourselves before we even get in the room. We need to say…what we actually need. Nobody wants less than what they need.”

That’s the logic behind the Living Wage for All campaign she describes, which pushes for significantly higher minimum wages across cities and states. But the strategy is not just about policy — it’s about participation. “If we can give people some hope…they will show up, they will participate,” she says. “Maybe it will get them to one job, and then they can engage on all the issues we want them to engage on.”

Blackwell points to a broader shift that has to happen alongside it. “What we need is transformative solidarity.” Not a transactional version — “you sign my petition, I’ll show up for your march” — but something deeper. “Your issue is my issue,” she says, “because I can’t have the world that I want to live in if all of these things are not addressed.”

Participation Depends on Capacity

Throughout the conversation, there is a clear push to expand what counts as democratic participation. “I get so tired of democracy being either vote or run for office,” Jayaraman says. She points to how, in many places throughout the world, democratic participation extends well beyond voting alone. Ballot initiatives, organizing, public debate — these are all part of democratic life. But they depend on something more fundamental: people having the capacity to engage.

And that brings the conversation full circle. “The glimpse of what happened during the pandemic is the answer,” Jayaraman says — not as a model to replicate, but as a moment that revealed what becomes possible when people have more time, stability, and leverage. During that period, even amid widespread disruption and loss, millions of workers left their jobs, wages rose in some sectors, and many people had more space to organize and engage. “It gives us a glimpse of what could happen if Americans could have one job.”

The post What’s Standing in the Way of Civic Participation — and How to Change It appeared first on Bioneers.

Medium- and heavy-duty fleet electrification in California and Georgia could reduce residential rates modestly, E3’s analysis found, but proactive, measured investments in grid upgrades are essential.

Invest In People Not War & Impeach Convict Remove.

War Is Not The Answer.

Healthcare Not Warfare

As Shell announces bumper Q1 profits of $6.9 billion, new analysis from Global Witness reveals that six of Europe’s leading oil majors – bp, Shell, TotalEnergies, Eni, Equinor and Repsol – have recorded the highest quarterly profits since 2022, when they reaped the benefits of the fallout from Russia’s war on Ukraine.

In the first quarter of 2026, the combined $21.7 billion* in quarterly profits recorded by bp, Repsol, TotalEnergies, Eni and Equinor was 43% higher than the same period last year, reflecting a significant windfall from volatile oil prices caused by the US-Israel war in Iran.

According to Global Witness’ analysis of quarterly filings, these six fossil fuel giants have not collectively generated this much money since Q4 2022. The three biggest European majors - Shell, BP and TotalEnergies - have earned $252 billion since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Global Witness head of news investigations Patrick Galey said: “As lives are destroyed through war and people everywhere fear rising bills, it’s galling to see oil giants like Shell raking in obscene amounts of money.

“Sadly, we all know this isn’t the first time oil giants have cashed in from war - when Russia invaded Ukraine 4 years ago, our energy bills spiralled as fossil fuel firms raked it in.

“And now we’re seeing the same pattern repeat itself: the combined profits of Europe’s six biggest oil firms were up by 43% compared to the same period last year. These are clearly the spoils of war.

“It’s time to break free from the fossil fuel doom loop – we need robust taxes on big polluters to insulate households from price shocks and to fund a cheaper, cleaner, more stable energy future for all.”

In April, analysis by Global Witness and the Guardian found that the world’s top 100 oil and gas producers banked more than $30m every hour in excess profit in the first month of the US-Israeli war on Iran, with the conflict pushing up oil prices above $100 (£74) a barrel in March.

Although US oil majors Chevron and ExxonMobil are yet to cash in on the windfall from higher prices thanks to stalled deliveries and supply disruptions in the region, European majors like bp and TotalEnergies are already enjoying a boon from higher prices thanks to their substantial trading operations, which allows them to monetize market volatility.

The shareholders in these companies stand to gain considerably from these profits. The three largest European supermajors – bp, Shell, and TotalEnergies, rewarded shareholders a combined $10 billion in Q1 2026 – since the war in Iran that sent oil prices spiralling began.

Chemicals play a critical, though often overlooked, role in modern society. They provide many of the key building blocks for the construction industry, support agriculture by increasing crop yields, and offer novel materials for a range of products from automobiles to new energy technologies. In fact, chemicals are everywhere, present in 96% of manufactured goods, including 75% of the energy technologies that will be needed to navigate the energy transition.

While chemicals are deeply embedded in modern society, it is equally important to acknowledge the challenges they pose. Among these are the need to reduce reliance on fossil inputs, develop better end-of-life management for chemical products, and lower emissions even as production is projected to grow up to 43% by 2050. More effort is needed across all these fronts, but addressing the 2 billion metric tons — or roughly 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions — from chemical production annually requires particularly urgent action given the long timelines to commercialize new production methods.

Despite these challenges, technologies are emerging to enable low-emissions chemicals production. While many of these technologies show technical promise, few have moved beyond the pilot or early demonstration phase. Scale-up of these technologies is often not held back by technical feasibility so much as by commercial barriers, including uncertainty about demand for low-emissions products and risk-aversion among participants spread across long and complex chemicals value chains.

Clear demand signals from companies that use chemicals in their products and novel mechanisms to bridge chemicals value chains are critical to overcoming these roadblocks and unlocking investment. The Center for Green Market Activation (GMA) and RMI are actively working to establish demand signals by aggregating buyers of low-emissions chemicals and by developing a book and claim system to enable chemical producers to transact directly with downstream companies that have committed to lowering supply chain emissions and are willing to pay a premium to do so.

The Challenge of Decarbonizing Chemicals Production

Scaling low-emission technologies in the chemicals sector is uniquely challenging. Chemical production assets are highly capital-intensive, with investment horizons that span decades. Existing plants, many of which are fully depreciated and can produce at a low marginal cost, leverage processes that have been optimized over many years and produce at enormous scale. The result is constant cost pressure that reinforces the competitiveness of conventional production methods. As a result, even when low-emission alternatives exist, buyers and suppliers alike often default to the legacy status quo.

The diversity of chemical products — and the resulting complexity of value chains required to produce them — results in an additional challenge. Unlike other industries with relatively standardized products, the chemical sector encompasses thousands of molecules, intermediates, and derivatives. This often results in long value chains with multiple layers of intermediaries separating a primary chemicals producer, generally responsible for the majority of emissions, from the better-known companies at the end of the value chain that have made net-zero commitments and are closer to consumer demand. In the middle are specialized producers of intermediate chemicals or products that often operate with thin margins and limited visibility.

In this environment, intermediate producers operating with thin margins have few incentives to source lower-emissions, higher-cost inputs unless they have certainty that their customers are willing to pay an equivalent price premium. The result is an enormous coordination challenge. Multiple parties within a value chain must simultaneously close both procurement and offtake contracts at a material premium to market prices. And all of this needs to occur at a volume that gives the primary chemical producers certainty that customers will pay a premium for most of their output over an extended time horizon. While this may be possible in rare cases where large buyers directly purchase from primary chemical producers, it will be all but impossible in most chemical value chains.

Leveraging Novel Mechanisms to Catalyze Investment

Breaking the deadlock requires both credible demand for low-emissions chemical products and mechanisms to bridge companies across long, complex value chains. GMA and RMI believe that two critical interventions, pursued in tandem, have the potential to address these challenges and unlock investment in low-emissions chemical production: demand aggregation and book and claim.

Demand aggregation is the first necessary intervention. As in many industrial sectors, low-emissions production will come at a price premium, particularly given that novel technologies often operate at small scale and with less historical process optimization than their fossil-intensive counterparts. While new technologies have the potential to decrease costs as they scale, the ability to achieve initial traction in highly price-sensitive markets is often a challenge for these production methods. The presence of buyers willing to purchase at a premium is a critical proof point for projects seeking capital to invest in low-emissions production.

But why is it necessary for multiple buyers to act together in order to provide this proof point? Because chemical assets operate at such a significant scale and because their lifetimes are so long, the purchasing volume required to unlock investment in a new facility can be enormous. By pooling demand, multiple buyers can provide the necessary volume to support an investment decision, thereby decreasing the cost and risk that any individual company would otherwise have to take on.

In cases where physical offtake of low-emission chemicals is constrained, Book and claim systems provide a mechanism to aggregate larger demand volumes through the use of Environmental Attribute Certificates (EACs). Under this chain of custody approach, chemical producers generate an EAC for each unit of low-emission product, such as a ton of ethylene, that reflects the reduced emissions intensity associated with production. This certificate is then sold separately from the physical product, which continues through the value chain as a traditional commodity with a baseline emissions intensity. This separation enables chemical producers to receive revenue from EAC sales to cover the premium associated with low-emission production, providing the financial certainty needed to finance capital-intensive projects. At the same time, buyers gain verifiable, traceable progress toward climate commitments through certificates that are independently verified and tracked through a registry system.

The result is three benefits that can dramatically alter the viability of low-emissions production:

1. Value Chain Bridging: Perhaps the most significant impact of book and claim systems is the ability for interested parties to transact efficiently. By enabling standardized transactions between downstream brands willing to pay for value chain decarbonization and upstream producers that most heavily influence emissions, the challenge of aligning multiple intermediaries around price and volume in complex value chains can be avoided.
2. Geographic Aggregation: Book and claim provides an additional benefit, particularly in the early innings of the net-zero transition when access to low-emissions products remain Creating an EAC distinct from the physical product means that a producer is no longer constrained to finding customers willing to pay a premium for a low-emissions product near its production plant. Instead, they can sell the physical product locally at commodity prices and cover the green premium by selling an EAC to any downstream user of the product, regardless of geography.
3. Product Aggregation: By focusing a book and claim system on high-value chemicals, a third benefit can be realized. A traditional demand aggregation approach would need to find buyers procuring identical products. However, book and claim enables demand aggregation across any product that contains a particular molecule. For example, demand for low-emissions ethylene can be aggregated across apparel companies using polyester for textiles, pharmaceutical companies sourcing polyethylene for syringes, and personal care companies using multiple types of plastic for everyday household goods. By focusing on a common and consistent upstream input, substantially more demand can be aggregated and transacted in a single procurement.

Given the immense challenges associated with decarbonizing chemical production, leveraging novel mechanisms to catalyze investment in low-emissions production will be essential. Combining demand aggregation with book and claim in the form of a buyers alliance for EACs offers a unique opportunity to reduce risk for both buyers and suppliers, while driving real investment decisions.

GMA and RMI’s Low-Emissions Chemicals Initiative

An emerging initiative from GMA and RMI to procure low-emissions high-value chemicals leverages these approaches to tackle emissions in the chemicals sector. Multiple downstream brands that use chemicals in their products have come together to procure environmental attributes for low-emissions ethylene, with plans to expand this approach to other molecules in the future. In the process, they will provide demand certainty for low-emissions projects while simultaneously finding a pathway to address upstream Scope 3 emissions that had previously been out of reach due to complex, multi-tiered value chains.

Prior efforts from GMA and RMI to pool advanced commitments for low-emissions products in heavy industry sectors have demonstrated how aggregated demand can generate confidence for suppliers and investors. Sectoral buyers alliances such as the Sustainable Aviation Buyers Alliance (SABA), managed by Environmental Defense Fund, GMA, and RMI, have shown how standardized frameworks and collective purchasing can accelerate the deployment of next-generation technologies. Launched in 2021, this effort has evolved from one-year advanced commitments to purchase bio-based sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) to a scaled marketplace and targeted 5+ year offtakes at scale for next generation fuels.

Without credible demand signals and effective mechanisms to translate that demand into firm offtake agreements, the transition will stall. GMA and RMI are working to bring these pieces together—aggregating demand and developing mechanisms to more efficiently enable offtake—to ensure that novel pathways to produce low-emission chemicals are developed. Together with active engagement from buyers and support from the broader ecosystem, these actions can provide the demand certainty needed to unlock investment and enable the chemical sector to accelerate its transition to a net-zero future.

If you are interested in learning more about the GMA-RMI low-emissions chemical procurement spotlighted in this article, please reach out to chemicals@rmi.org,

 

The post Harnessing Green Demand to Drive Sustainable Chemicals Production appeared first on RMI.

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, bringing the country one step closer to a new Farm Bill.

After fierce debates over issues including the year-round sale of E15—a fuel blend of 15 percent ethanol—and pesticide provisions, reports emerged that the vote on the legislation would be delayed. But lawmakers were able to reach a consensus and passed the Bill with a bipartisan vote of 224-200. 

Anti-hunger advocates had hoped the House would revisit changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) seen in the tax and spending bill last summer, but those have remained in place. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that one in eight participants will lose access to some food relief as a result. 

“People don’t understand how bad it’s going to be,” Kathleen Merrigan, Executive Director of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University, tells Food Tank. Across her home state of Arizona, food pantries are already seeing lines grow longer. But because the worst won’t be felt for months to come, it will likely take a while for the effects to sink in. “A lot of people who are going out to vote in November won’t realize that the safety net is pulled out from under them.”

Representatives did, however, remove a provision designed to shield pesticide manufacturers from health-related lawsuits tied to their products. 

“I don’t like a lot of what’s in this Farm Bill. It doesn’t excite me,” Merrigan tells Food Tank. “But I have to say that pesticide victory was sweet.” The Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement likely played a role in this win, she acknowledges.

“We’re seeing this pesticide issue being a tipping point right now in food and agriculture policy,” Merrigan says. “And a lot of this has really bubbled up through the MAHA movement.”

From here, the Senate will take up the Farm Bill, with a markup expected in late May or early June. If they succeed in passing the legislative package, it will be the first Farm Bill since 2018. “They typically are on an every five year timeline,” Merrigan explains. “We’re very much overdue at this point.”

But Merrigan believes that a new Farm Bill isn’t something to celebrate if it’s compromised, and she hopes that lawmakers will act to protect farmers and eaters. “I would say the costs of having success in the Farm Bill—if the Farm Bill looks like what just passed in the House—is not worth it. We need to stand tall.”

Listen to the full conversation with Kathleen Merrigan on Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg to hear more about what else may change with this legislation, the impending impacts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s reorganization plans, and what lies at the heart of a successful Farm Bill. 

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of James Baltz, Unsplash

The post What the House Farm Bill Means for SNAP, Pesticides, and U.S. Food Policy appeared first on Food Tank.

During the month of April, La Via Campesina once again strongly raised the memory, resistance, and hope of peasants within the framework of the International Day of Peasant Struggles, commemorated every April 17. This year, we marked 30 years since the Eldorado do Carajás Massacre.

The post 2026 | April News Wrap: Updates from LVC members worldwide appeared first on La Via Campesina - EN.

The UK has avoided the need for gas imports worth £1.7bn since the start of the Iran war, as a result of record electricity generation from wind and solar, reveals Carbon Brief analysis.

The surge in wind and solar output is cutting the need for gas-fired generation, which has been nearly a third lower than last year and fell to record lows in both March and April 2026.

The figure below shows that wind and solar have generated a record 21 terawatt hours (TWh) on the island of Great Britain since the end of February 2026, when the US and Israel first attacked Iran.

Monthly generation from wind and solar in terawatt hours on the island of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), which has a separate electricity system from the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland. Source: National Energy System Operator (NESO) and Carbon Brief analysis.

Amid another fossil-fuel price crisis, the record wind and solar output since the start of the Iran war avoided the need to import 41TWh of gas – roughly 34 tankers of liquified natural gas (LNG).

Importing those 34 tankers of LNG would have cost around £1.7bn, given the high gas prices triggered by the conflict.

At the same time, record wind and solar helped to cut electricity generation from gas by around a third year-on-year to the lowest levels ever recorded for the months of March and April, as shown in the figure below.

Monthly generation from gas in terawatt hours on the island of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), which has a separate electricity system from the island of Ireland, includingNorthern Ireland. Source: National Energy System Operator (NESO) and Carbon Brief analysis.

Together, wind and solar have generated more than twice as much electricity as fossil fuels over the period since the Iran war began. The country’s electricity mix has now flipped: a decade ago, fossil fuels were generating more than four times as much electricity as wind and solar.

Indeed, wind and solar have generated more electricity than fossil fuels for a record 15 months in a row. As shown in the figure below, this included a full winter season for the first time in 2025-26.

Monthly generation from fossil fuels (red) vs wind and solar (blue) in terawatt hours on the island of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), which has a separate electricity system from the island of Ireland, includingNorthern Ireland. Source: National Energy System Operator (NESO) and Carbon Brief analysis.

This meant that gas was setting the price of electricity roughly 25% less often in both March 2026 and April 2026 than in the same month in 2022, when fossil-fuel prices spiked after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

April 2026 also marked a series of other records for the GB electricity system.

For half an hour between 15.30 and 16:00 on 22 April, a record 98.8% of the electricity feeding into the country’s main “transmission” grid came from zero-carbon sources, according to the National Energy System Operator (NESO).

In addition, solar generation hit a series of new record-highs, ultimately reaching 15.4 gigawatts (GW) on the afternoon of 23 April. Wind set a new record of 23.9GW on 25 March.

Q&A: How the UK government aims to ‘break link between gas and electricity prices’

Renewables

|

21.04.26

Clean energy pushes fossil-fuel power into reverse for ‘first time ever’

Renewables

|

21.04.26

Analysis: Record wind and solar saved UK from gas imports worth £1bn in March 2026

Renewables

|

02.04.26

Analysis: How ‘plug-in solar’ can save UK homes £1,100 on energy bills

Renewables

|

02.04.26

jQuery(document).ready(function() { jQuery('.block-related-articles-slider-block_138d1da831ec165efc1f6aea3711d732 .mh').matchHeight({ byRow: false }); });

The post Analysis: Wind and solar have saved UK from gas imports worth £1.7bn since Iran war began appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Every year, the forestry and timber industries produce vast quantities of tree bark as a byproduct. Most of this material is burned, discarded, or left to decompose. At the same time, there is an urgent need to develop scalable and affordable technologies to capture carbon dioxide.

“Our research brings these two issues together through a simple but impactful idea, transforming waste into a resource,” says Suresh Bhargava, director of the Centre for Advanced Materials and Industrial Chemistry at RMIT University.

Bhargava and his colleagues have converted the bark of the eucalyptus tree into a porous carbon material that can help clean water, filter air and capture carbon dioxide. They reported their simple two-step method in a paper published in the journal Biomass and Bioenergy.

Porous carbon materials, which contain a sophisticated network of pores, are already used in filtration and gas treatment systems. Their pores capture contaminants or targeted molecules as water or air pass through. But, says Bhargava, “conventional methods for producing porous carbon materials are often energy-intensive, requiring high temperatures and multiple processing steps, which limits scalability.”

The RMIT team developed a simple and scalable synthesis approach to make their carbon filter from eucalyptus bark. They first make a carbon-rich material called a hydrochar by heating wet bark at low temperature under pressure. Then they physically mixed the hydrochar with zinc chloride.

 

.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:Chemists have made the best carbon capture material yet

 

This results in a highly porous carbon material with a surface area of approximately 2,210 square meters per gram of the material. The porous material captures around 7 millimoles per gram of CO₂, placing it among competitive carbon capture materials, Bhargava says.

“The choice of eucalyptus bark is both practical and scientifically grounded,” he adds. Eucalyptus bark is a widely available, low-cost resource. Australia is home to more than 900 species of eucalyptus and related trees, and eucalyptus is also cultivated widely around the world.

The bark contains lignin and cellulose that lead to the formation of stable carbon frameworks with well-developed porosity. Compared to other biomass sources, it produces materials with higher surface area and better CO₂ adsorption performance.

The abundance of the raw materials and the simplicity of the synthesis process makes this approach inherently scalable. The researchers are now trying to evaluate long-term durability, regeneration, and performance under real operating conditions. And they are seeking industry collaborations to explore commercialization opportunities.

“While further work is needed to evaluate long-term durability and large-scale deployment,” says Bhargava, “this study provides a clear pathway toward more sustainable and economically viable carbon capture technologies.”

Source: Pallavi Saini et al. Sustainable valorisation of eucalyptus bark waste into microporous carbon materials for efficient CO2 capture. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2026.

Photo by David Clode on Unsplash

Headline News:

• “AI Data Centers Need Big Batteries But Lithium Isn’t Fit-For-Purpose” • As AI-driven data centers scale, the grid challenge is no longer simply how much electricity they consume. Their demand is unpredictable, coming in bursts. They need a system with enough buffering for sudden power surges and dips. They are hard on lithium-ion batteries. [CleanTechnica]

Google data center in Oregon (Tony Webster, CC BY-SA 2.0)

• “German Parliament Rejects Return To Nuclear Power” • The Bundestag rejected returning to nuclear energy as an alternative to overcome fuel-related crises, most notably the war with Iran and tensions in the Middle East. The Committee on Economic Affairs and Energy said that the proposal to return to peaceful nuclear reactors was rejected. [Gulf Times]
• “How Do Solar Batteries Work And Are They Worth The Investment?” • With the war on Iran, home-grown renewables help cushion European households from fossil fuel shocks. The UK is the latest European country to greenlight the commercial sale of plug-in solar panels. Interest in batteries has grown apace. Battery costs have fallen 90% since 2010. [Euronews]
• “Sierra Club Endorses Tom Steyer For California Governor” • The Sierra Club has announced its endorsement of Tom Steyer for Governor of California. Doing so, it is backing a candidate with a long record of investing in climate solutions, taking on Big Oil, and helping build the coalitions needed to win significant environmental fights. [CleanTechnica]
• “IEEFA Warns Germany Over Hydrogen Costs” • Germany risks overbuilding its hydrogen network and wasting tens of billions of euros by relying on overoptimistic hydrogen demand projections, research from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis shows. It says German hydrogen demand is likely to fall short of official projections. [reNews]
• “700 MW Power Link Celtic Between France and Ireland Progressing” • Construction of the planned Celtic Interconnector power link between France and Ireland continues to advance on both sides. With the start of key infrastructure works in Brittany, the 700 MW large-scale project is entering a new phase in its implementation. [Renewable Energy Industry]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

Scientists are increasingly worried that a vast system of ocean circulation, which delivers warmth to northern Europe and impacts climate globally, is at risk of collapse. Mounting evidence suggests it may be nearing a tipping point, though the research is far from certain.

Read more on E360 →

As global oil prices rocket due to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, traditional jet fuel has become hard to come by and has nearly doubled in price, leading airlines across much of the world to raise ticket prices or cancel flights.

While greener fuels produced from plants or green hydrogen remain more expensive, the cost gap has narrowed and experts told Climate Home News that this could boost demand in the struggling sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) industry.

Matt Ridley, sustainability and innovation director at the OneWorld airline alliance told Climate Home News that “higher jet fuel prices narrow the green premium, reinforcing the role of SAF in cutting lifecycle emissions while reducing exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets.”

Marie Owens Thomsen, chief economist and sustainability lead at the International Air Transport Association (IATA), a trade group for airlines, said the world is currently seeing “the highest jet fuel prices that we’ve ever had in the history of jet travel”.

• Jun 18, 2025 What is Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF)? Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is seen as the main way to decarbonise air travel – but is it as green as its backers claim? Read more
• Jun 18, 2025 Aviation’s Green Dream Is the world’s big idea for greener air travel a flight of fancy? Suspicions of fraud, ‘ridiculous’ data and a dearth of supplies – our investigation exposes the flaws in the airline industry’s big green hope: sustainable aviation fuel Read more
• Jun 18, 2025 Aviation’s Green Dream Air travel’s ‘holy grail’: Jet fuel made from CO2 and water prepares for take-off Synthetic jet fuel companies think they have the answer to tackling aviation emissions despite concerns about the cost of producing energy-hungry e-SAF Read more

The problem predates the war but has been worsened by it, she said, adding that as demand for oil-based products like diesel has declined because of the electrification of road transport, many of the oil refineries that produce jet fuel were struggling to make a profit.

The crisis could “wake people up” to the problem of depending on “oil monopolies in the Middle East”, she said, adding that ramping up SAF production is critical for energy security.

“Khaki is the new green”

Some in the military sector seem to be taking note. Rheinmetall, a long-term supplier of the German air force, has partnered with a company called Ineratec which is developing technology to produce e-SAF based on hydrogen. And during the Biden administration, the US Department of Defense invested $65 million in an American e-SAF startup called Air Company.

Summing up the changing reasons for interest in SAF, Marcella Franchi from SAF producer Haffner Energy told the SAF Investor Summit in February that “khaki is the new green”. Speaking before the US bombed Iran, she gave the example of Canada, which she said is pursuing SAF production to avoid reliance on oil-based jet fuel from its “very unsettling neighbours”.

Since conflict has flared in the Middle East, Susan van Dyk, a former academic turned SAF consultant, told Climate Home News that a temporary narrowing of the cost gap is not, by itself, enough to make SAF take off. But the energy crisis may push governments to support SAF, she said.

The European Union and the UK have both mandated that, from January 2025, fuel suppliers at their airports must blend at least 2% SAF with oil-based kerosene. The blending requirement will gradually increase to reach 32% in the EU and 22% in the UK by 2040.

But, at least before the latest oil crisis, the EU and UK faced pressure from some airline and fossil fuel executives to water down these rules. The uncertainty these calls have created is damaging investment in production, SAF producers have said.

Book and claim

Speaking at the SAF Investor Conference in February, African airline executives and SAF producers said the design of the EU and UK mandates hinders non-European producers from contributing.

Under current rules, the SAF has to be physically delivered to planes at EU and UK airports to count towards the mandate, which favours SAF produced in or close to European airports – even though the raw materials to make it, such as waste oil, are often imported from regions like Southeast Asia.

Wakina Mutembei, Kenya Airways’ sustainability and innovations lead, told the conference that the EU and UK should adopt what is known as a book-and-claim system, where SAF supplied to planes outside of Europe can count towards a fuel supplier’s compliance with the EU and UK’s mandates.

Wakina Mutembei speaks at the SAF Investor conference in London (Photo: SAF Investor)

This would be a “business opportunity”, she told the London audience, to use abundant Kenyan crops and used cooking oil and lower production costs “to produce SAF that is cheaper for the European market and the UK market”.

“If we are all complaining that the cost of SAF is higher, why not go to a market where it’s cheaper to produce it?” she asked, noting that this would create jobs in Africa and earn foreign currency.

Francis Mwangi, senior engineer at Kenya’s Civil Aviation Authority, told Climate Home News in an interview that if SAF is produced in Africa “you might find that, even relatively, the price might not be as far from the normal Jet A1 [oil-based jet fuel]”.

IATA’s Thomsen also called for a book-and-claim system, saying it “is definitely a way of making this teeny-tiny, bespoke, private-deal kind of market grow into a global market” by removing geographical constraints.

Shipping SAF long distances to be pumped into planes is inefficient, she said, adding that “without book and claim, this market will not scale”.

The post Oil crisis could boost struggling sustainable aviation fuel industry appeared first on Climate Home News.

Regulator says surge in home battery and rooftop PV installations puts the 82 pct renewables target back in reach because it reduces the burden on large scale projects.

The post “Blows your mind:” Regulator says boom in home batteries and PV puts 82 pct renewables within reach appeared first on Renew Economy.

Frontline leaders from across the country are calling on The Home Depot to lead the industry away from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic, highlighted in a new “photo quilt” unveiled by Toxic-Free Future and partners nationwide. 

The post Groups call on The Home Depot to phase out PVC plastics ahead of shareholder meeting appeared first on Toxic-Free Future.

The post The Geothermal Supply Chain Is America’s to Gain — or Lose appeared first on RMI.

Flooding across northern Michigan last month pushed rivers to record levels, testing the limits of the state’s aging dams so severely that officials in one city nearly ordered evacuations as water threatened to spill over the top of a key barrier — a close call that highlights the growing risk that intensifying storms pose to similar infrastructure around the country.

Nationwide, the average dam is 64 years old and most were built for rainfall patterns that no longer reflect today’s changing climate. Thousands are classified as high hazard, meaning their failure could result in the loss of life. Dam safety experts say inspections are uneven and improvements often underfunded.

More than half of Michigan’s dams are beyond their 50-year design life, and the risks became clear as snowmelt and weeks of heavy rain swelled rivers. Rising water came within 5 inches of flowing over Cheboygan Dam in Cheboygan, a city of about 4,700 people, on April 16. In Bellaire, officials deployed about 1,000 sandbags to shore up a century-old dam.

“This needs to be considered not the worst we can experience. This needs to be considered as typical of the future,” said Richard Rood, a professor emeritus at the University of Michigan who studies climate change.

There are about 92,000 dams in the United States. About 18 percent are considered high-hazard. The Association of State Dam Safety Officials estimates repairing all of these aging structures will cost more than $165.2 billion. In Michigan, that estimate is $1 billion.

Communities facing these risks are left with difficult choices. Given the cost of repairing and upgrading dams to withstand stronger storms, removing them is often cheaper. That can reduce long-term risk and restore rivers to a more natural state. But it often faces resistance from property owners and communities with economies built around the reservoirs those dams created.

As floodwaters recede across Michigan, local leaders, dam safety advocates, and experts are renewing calls to bolster safety regulations and deal with aging dams.

Bellaire Dam in Bellaire, Michigan, on April 13, 2026.
Austin Rowlader / IPR News

Bob Stuber, executive director of the Michigan Hydro Relicensing Commission, considers the April flooding a wake-up call and believes the solution is clear: upgrades where feasible and removal where it makes sense. 

“I think every opportunity we have to remove an aging dam, we should take advantage of it because it’s not going to get better,” he said. “It’s just going to get worse.”

Officials in Traverse City came to that conclusion in 2024 and removed the Union Street Dam along the Boardman-Ottaway River as part of a decades-long restoration project that includes FishPass, which will allow key species to pass while blocking harmful invaders like sea lamprey. Engineers said that removal and upgrade most likely reduced flooding impacts when waters surged to near-record levels last month, falling just short of a 500-year flood.

“Upstream would have been under 2 more feet of water, which would have been quite devastating,” said Daniel Zielinski, a principal engineer for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission. “We actually had a really great stress test of the system. It functioned really well.” 

Removals are increasing across the country, according to data from American Rivers. Since 2000, more dams have come down than gone up, and that pace is accelerating as aging infrastructure, safety concerns, and environmental benefits reshape how communities weigh their value. 

In northern Michigan, conservation groups like Huron Pines help dam owners make that decision. It has managed nine removals in the last 13 years and has seen growing interest after the recent flooding, said Josh Leisen, a senior project manager for the organization. Removal reconnects river ecosystems and eliminates the need for expensive upkeep of aging structures, he said.

“There are costs associated with repair and there are risks associated with having a dam,” Leisen said. “Even if it seems to be in good condition, you get extreme weather events like we just had.”

Removing dams is not always straightforward. Beyond the technical challenges, many communities are reluctant to give up the lakes and waterfronts those structures create.

“There’s this emotional attachment to that impoundment,” said Daniel Brown, a climate resilience strategist at the Michigan-based Huron River Watershed Council.

In other cases, dismantling isn’t practical. Some dams provide electricity or drinking water, linking them to local economies and infrastructure. “[Removal] is not really something that’s on the table because they are connected in this very practical way,” Brown said.

Still, Brown said, there are limits to how much aging structures can be adapted to a warming world. “[A dam] is this very long-term, huge, expensive infrastructure that you’ve put on the landscape that’s going to stay there. And that is not how climate change or nature or rivers behave,” Brown said.

Dismantling dams, like upgrading them, can come with steep costs. The Boardman-Ottaway River project — which removed three dams in the largest removal effort in state history — cost $25 million. Huron Pines is managing the removal of Sanback Dam in Rose City next month, at an estimated cost of $4 million.

Half of the expense is funded through a grant program from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy, or EGLE, launched in response to the 2020 Edenville Dam failure which overwhelmed the downstream Sanford Dam. The twin catastrophes forced the evacuation of more than 10,000 residents, destroyed thousands of homes, and flooded ecosystems in a disaster that investigators later found was avoidable. The $44 million state program funded several dam removals, upgrades, and engineering studies before it ended last year. 

Neil Hawk and his wife Dawn take a rowboat out to a residential part of Sanford, Michigan, to inspect the damage to their neighborhood following extreme flooding throughout central Michigan in May 2020.
Matthew Hatcher / Getty Images

Federal funding is available through programs administered by agencies such as FEMA or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But those resources fall short of the estimated $165.2 billion needed to address the issue, and some are at risk of elimination.

State governments regulate roughly 70 percent of the dams in the United States, with the federal government regulating hydropower dams and providing funding and guidance. This means inspection standards, regulations, enforcement, and resources can vary widely.

In Michigan, about 1,000 dams fall under state oversight, while 99 hydroelectric dams are overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The remaining 1,500 are smaller barriers that don’t fit the criteria for state regulation, according to the Michigan Dam Inventory.

Now, state officials are renewing calls for more money and stronger regulations. “Dam safety may be an issue that isn’t partisan,” said Phil Roos, director of EGLE.

Proposed state legislation would bolster inspection rules, address private ownership, update design standards, and create more funding opportunities for upgrades or removals. “It’s so important to our state that we can come together, and whether it’s passing the legislation that was proposed, or improving procedures, or ultimately funding,” Roos said.

Michigan state Senator John Damoose has expressed concern about private dam ownership since the close call at Cheboygan Dam, which is under both state and private control. About 75 percent of the dams Michigan regulates are privately owned.

“Somebody made a point, ‘Well, we can’t have private companies owning these things.’ I tend to believe in private ownership but they might be right,” Damooose said during a Traverse City roundtable discussion on dam safety.

It’s not just a Michigan issue. Most dams in the United States are privately owned, meaning responsibility for maintenance, upkeep, and potential failure falls on individuals, not governmental agencies, according to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. 

Climate change is expected to bring more frequent and intense storms. As the world warms, the atmosphere holds more moisture, fueling more intense precipitation, according to Rood at the University of Michigan.

Recent flooding “has shown an incredible vulnerability,” he said. “[Dams] are either going to have to be removed or reengineered. Or they’re going to become a set of slowly unfolding failures.”

Luke Trumble, chief of dam safety for Michigan, said the state is already dealing with conditions that many dams were never designed to withstand.

“It’s a little bit of a misconception that if we fix the dam issue, there’ll be no more flooding,” Trumble said. “There’s still going to be flooding on rivers whenever we get rain like this, or rain on snow.

“What we can do with dam safety legislation is help ensure that flooding is not made worse by a dam failure,” he said.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Close calls at Michigan’s dams are a climate warning to America on May 7, 2026.