Back
The highest court of the UN has issued a landmark “advisory opinion” stating that nations can be held legally accountable for their greenhouse-gas emissions.
Recognising the “urgent and existential threat” facing the world, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concluded that those harmed by human-caused climate change may be entitled to “reparations”.
Their opinion largely rests on the application of existing international law, clarifying that climate “harms” can be clearly linked to major emitters and fossil-fuel producers.
The case, which was triggered by a group of Pacific island students and championed by the government of Vanuatu, saw unprecedented levels of input from nations.
In a unanimous decision issued on 23 July, the 15 judges on the ICJ concluded that the production and consumption of fossil fuels “may constitute an internationally wrongful act attributable to that state”.
The opinion also says that limiting global warming to 1.5C should be considered the “primary temperature goal” for nations and, to achieve it, they are obliged to make “adequate contributions”.
While the ICJ opinion is not binding for governments, it could have significant influence as vulnerable groups and nations push for stronger climate action or seek compensation in court.
Below, Carbon Brief explains the most important aspects of the ICJ’s 133-page advisory opinion and speaks to legal experts about its implications.
The case stems from a campaign led by 27 students from the University of the South Pacific in Fiji.
In 2019, they established a youth-led grassroots organisation – dubbed the Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change (PISFCC) – and began efforts to persuade the leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum to take the issue of climate change to the world’s top court.
PISFCC joined forces with other youth organisations from around the world in 2020, lobbying state representatives to take action.
In 2021, the government of Vanuatu announced that it would lead efforts to gain an “advisory opinion” from the ICJ. It worked to engage with the Pacific island community first, to build a “coalition of like-minded vulnerable countries”, reported Climate Home News.
Following on from this work, Vanuatu received a unanimous endorsement for its efforts from the 18 members of the Pacific Island Forum. It continued to work diplomatically, engaging in discussions across Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America to encourage other countries to join the effort.
After three rounds of consultations with other states, the resolution was put before the UN general assembly with the backing of 105 sponsor countries.
Finally, on 29 March 2023, the assembly unanimously adopted the resolution formally requesting an “advisory opinion” from the ICJ.
The resolution posed two questions for the ICJ. In answering these questions, it asked the court to have “particular regard” to a range of laws and principles, including the UN climate regime and the universal declaration on human rights.
First, the resolution asked what are the legal obligations of states under international law to “ensure the protection of the climate system”.
Second, it asked what are the legal consequences flowing from these obligations if states, by their “acts or omissions”, have caused “significant harm to the climate”.
The resolution asked for the court to consider, in particular, states that are “specially affected” or are “particularly vulnerable” to the impacts of climate change.
It also pointed to “peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change”.
Therefore, the advisory opinion issued this week by the ICJ, in response to these questions, is the culmination of a years-long process.
Although the opinion is not binding on states, it is binding on UN bodies and is likely to have far-reaching legal and political consequences at a national level.
The ICJ was tasked with interpreting international law and arriving at an advisory opinion. While its legal advice will, therefore, not be binding for nations, it will be binding for other UN bodies.
This two-year process involved the judges defining the scope and meaning of the broad questions put to them by the UN general assembly. (See: How did the case come about?)
They then considered which international laws and principles were relevant for these questions.
Among the relevant laws identified were the three UN climate change treaties – the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
They also considered various other treaties covering biodiversity, ozone depletion, desertification and the oceans, as well as legal principles such as the principle of “prevention of significant harm to the environment”.
The ICJ’s process has also seen nations and international groups, such as the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec), offer their views on the case.
These groups had the opportunity to feed into the judges’ deliberations over several stages, including two sets of written submissions, followed by oral statements to the court.
In total, the court received 91 written statements, a further 107 oral statements – delivered at the Hague in December 2024 – and 65 responses to follow-up questions by the judges.
This is the “highest level of participation in a proceeding” in the court’s history, according to the ICJ. Some nations, including island states such as Barbados and Micronesia, appeared before the court for the first time ever.
These contributions demonstrated broad agreement among nations that climate change is a threat and that emissions should be cut in order to meet the objectives of the Paris Agreement.
But there were major divergences on the breadth and nature of obligations under international law to act to limit global warming, as well as on the consequences of any breaches, as specifically being addressed by the ICJ.
Overall, the main divisions were between high-emitting nations trying to limit their climate obligations and low-emitting, climate-vulnerable nations, who were pushing for broader legal obligations and stricter accountability for any breaches.
Specifically, “emerging” economies such as China and Saudi Arabia, along with historical high-emitters such as the UK and EU, argued that climate obligations under international law should be defined solely by reference to the UN climate regime.
In contrast, vulnerable nations said that wider international law should also apply, bringing additional obligations to act – and the potential for legal consequences, including reparations.
This is a departure from UN climate talks, where the main divide tends to be between “developed” and “developing” countries – with the latter encompassing both high- and low-emitting nations.
In an unusual move, the ICJ judges also organised a private meeting in November 2024 with scientists representing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Among those present were IPCC chair Prof Jim Skea and eight other climate scientists from various countries and with different areas of expertise.
A statement issued by the ICJ said this was an effort to “enhance the court’s understanding of the key scientific findings which the IPCC has delivered”.
On 23 July 2025, after some seven months of deliberation, the ICJ issued a unanimous opinion in response to the UN general assembly’s request.
This is only the fifth time the court has delivered a unanimous result, according to the ICJ, after nearly 88 years in operation and 29 opinions.
(In addition to the unanimous opinion of the full court, several of the ICJ judges also issued their own declarations and opinions, individually or in small groups.)
When considering the “context” for the issuing of the advisory opinion on climate change, the court provides information on the “relevant scientific background”.
This was drawn from reports by the IPCC, which the court says “constitute the best available science on the causes, nature and consequences of climate change”.
It comes after ICJ judges held a private meeting with IPCC scientists in 2024. (See: How has the case been decided?)
The advisory opinion states that it is “scientifically established that the climate system has undergone widespread and rapid changes”, continuing:
“While certain greenhouse gases [GHGs] occur naturally, it is scientifically established that the increase in concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere is primarily due to human activities, whether as a result of GHG emissions, including by the burning of fossil fuels, or as a result of the weakening or destruction of carbon reservoirs and sinks, such as forests and the ocean, which store or remove GHGs from the atmosphere.”
It continues that the “consequences of climate change are severe and far-reaching”, listing impacts including the “melting of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to sea level rise”, “more frequent and intense” extreme weather events and the “irreversible loss of biodiversity”. The document adds:
“These consequences underscore the urgent and existential threat posed by climate change.”
The advisory opinion further adds that the “IPCC notes that adaptation measures are still insufficient” and that “limits to adaptation have been reached in some ecosystems and regions”.
On the need to address rising emissions, the document quotes the IPCC directly, saying:
“According to the panel, climate change is a threat to ‘human well-being and planetary health’ and there is a ‘rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all’ (very high confidence). It adds that the choices and actions implemented between 2020 and 2030 ‘will have impacts now and for thousands of years’.”
It adds that the “IPCC has also concluded with ‘very high confidence’ that risks and projected adverse impacts and related loss and damage from climate change will escalate with every increment of global warming”.
In regards to how states should consider climate science when implementing climate policies and measures, the court says that countries should exercise the “precautionary principle”, adding:
“The court observes that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
In response to the first question on legal obligations, the ICJ says that countries have “binding obligations to ensure protection of the climate system” under the UN climate treaties.
However, the court’s unanimous opinion flatly rejects the argument, put forward by high emitters, such as the US, UK and China, that these treaties are the end of the matter.
These nations had argued that the climate treaties formed a “lex specialis”, a specific area of law that precludes the application of broader general international law principles.
On the contrary, the ICJ says countries do have legal obligations under general international law, including a duty to prevent “significant harm to the environment”, with further obligations arising under human rights law and from other treaties.
As such, the court, “essentially sided with the global south and small island developing states”, says Prof Jorge Viñuales, Harold Samuel professor of law and environmental policy at the University of Cambridge.
Moreover, the court finds that countries’ obligations extend not only to greenhouse gas emissions, but also to fossil-fuel production and subsidies, says Viñuales, who acted for Vanuatu in the case.
Speaking to Carbon Brief in a personal capacity, he says: “That is important because major producers are not necessarily major emitters and vice-versa.”
In terms of the UN climate treaties, such as the Paris Agreement, the court affirms that these give countries binding obligations including adopting measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
Developed countries – parties listed under Annex I of the UNFCCC – have “additional obligations to take the lead in combating climate change”, the ICJ notes.
States also have a “duty” to cooperate with each other in order to achieve the objectives of the UNFCCC, acting in “good faith” to prevent harm, it adds.
Beyond the climate treaties, it says that “states have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment”. Therefore, they must act with “due diligence” and use “all means at their disposal” to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing “significant harm” to the climate system.
The court sets out the “appropriate measures” that would demonstrate due diligence, including “regulatory mechanisms…designed to achieve deep, rapid and sustained reductions” in emissions. This repeats language from the IPCC, but attaches it to countries’ legal obligations.
As with action under the climate treaties, countries’ obligations under broader international law should be taken in accordance with the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” it adds, a point reaffirmed throughout the advisory opinion.
Furthermore, countries have obligations to act on climate under a raft of other international agreements, covering the ozone layer, biological diversity, desertification and the UN convention on the law of the sea, the ICJ notes.
The court affirms that states that are not party to UN climate treaties must still meet their equivalent obligations under customary international law. This “addresses the unique situation of the US, but without naming it”, notes Sébastien Duyck, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, on Bluesky.
Following his re-election last year, US president Donald Trump signed an order to pull the country out of the Paris Agreement again. As such, there is a question around how the ICJ’s opinion might apply to the US – the country that has contributed more to human-caused climate change than any other nation.
Additionally, states have obligations under international human rights law to “respect and ensure the effective enjoyment of human rights by taking necessary measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment”, according to the ICJ.
This follows a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2024 that found that the Swiss government’s climate policies violated human rights, as governments are obliged to protect citizens from the “serious adverse effects” of climate change.
Announcing the opinion to the Hague, judge Iwasawa Yuji, president of the court, said:
“The human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.”
The second part of the advisory opinion deals with the “legal consequences” of countries causing “significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment”.
This refers to nations breaching their “obligations”, as defined in the first part of the opinion. (See: What does the ICJ say about countries’ climate obligations?)
Crucially, the court says that countries can, in principle, face liability for climate harms, opening the door to potential “reparations” for loss and damage. Prof Viñuales tells Carbon Brief:
“Perhaps the main take away from the opinion is that the court recognised the principle of liability for climate harm, as actionable under the existing rules.”
Prof Viñuales notes that the court says “climate justice is governed by the general international law of state responsibility, which provides solutions for the recurrent arguments levelled to escape liability for climate harm”.
Essentially, the ICJ rejects the notion that it is too difficult to hold countries accountable for climate damages.
Examples of breached obligations given by the court include failing to set out or implement climate pledges – known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs) – under the Paris Agreement, or to sufficiently “regulate emissions of greenhouse gases”.
The ICJ stresses that it is not responsible for pointing fingers at particular countries, only for issuing a “general legal framework” that countries can follow.
As part of this process, it lays out a justification for why states can be held responsible for climate change.
During the ICJ process, some countries argued that greenhouse gas emissions are not like other environmental damage, such as localised chemical pollution. They said that emissions arise from all sorts of regular activities and it is difficult to tie climate damage to specific sources.
Others argued that it is perfectly possible to attribute such damage to states that, for example, have laws to “promote fossil-fuel production and consumption”.
This is important, as the ICJ points out that attribution is necessary if an activity is to be defined as an “internationally wrongful act”. Ultimately, the court agrees that it is feasible to attribute climate damage to specific states, on a “case-by-case” basis.
The court also finds that it is possible, at least in principle, to link climate disasters to countries’ emissions, though it notes that the causal links may be “more tenuous” than for localised pollution. It cites IPCC findings that climate change has amplified heatwaves, flooding and drought, stating:
“While the causal link between the wrongful actions or omissions of a state and the harm arising from climate change is more tenuous than in the case of local sources of pollution, this does not mean that the identification of a causal link is impossible.”
With this established, the court sets out what the consequences could be for countries that are deemed to have carried out “wrongful acts”.
First, the ICJ stresses that nations must meet their existing climate obligations. This means that if, for example, a government publishes an “inadequate” NDC, a “competent court or tribunal” could order it to supply one that is consistent with its obligations under the Paris Agreement.
Second, it also says that if a state is found responsible for climate damage, it must stop and ensure that it does not happen again.
States may be required to “employ all means at their disposal” to carry out this duty, according to the ICJ. In practice, the court says that this could mean governments revoking administrative or legislative acts in order to cut emissions.
In theory, this could lead to more stringent climate policies. For example, Dr Maria Antonia Tigre, director of global climate change litigation at the Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law, tells Carbon Brief:
“The ICJ made clear that the standard of due diligence is stringent and that each state must do its utmost to submit NDCs reflecting its highest possible ambition. That may strengthen pressure – political, legal and public – on states to raise their climate targets, especially before the next global stocktake.”
Finally, the ICJ opens the door for countries to seek “reparations” for climate harms from other countries.
It says these reparations could be expressed in different ways – including paying compensation or issuing formal apologies for wrongdoing.
This outcome was widely celebrated by climate justice activists and vulnerable nations, who see it as ushering in a “new era” in the fight to obtain financial compensation for climate disasters.
Harj Narulla, a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers and legal counsel for the Solomon Islands, tells Carbon Brief:
“The ICJ’s ruling has provided a legal pathway for developing states to seek climate reparations from developed States…States can bring claims for compensation or restitution for all climate-related damage. This includes claims for loss and damage, but importantly extends to any harm suffered as a result of climate change.”
One of the most significant parts of the ICJ opinion is the assertion that nations and “injured individuals” can seek “reparations” for climate damage.
This ties in with a long and contentious history of climate-vulnerable nations in the global south seeking compensation from high-emitting nations.
The notion of “climate reparations” has often been linked to developing countries pushing for so-called “loss and damage” finance in UN climate negotiations, including the – ultimately successful – fight for a “loss-and-damage fund”.
However, the US and other big historical emitters have ensured that any progress on loss-and-damage funding has not left them legally accountable for their past emissions.
The Paris Agreement states explicitly that its inclusion of loss and damage “does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation”.
Crucially, the ICJ opinion makes it clear that such language does not override international law and states’ responsibilities to provide “restitution”, “compensation” and “satisfaction” to those harmed by climate change.
Danilo Garrido Alves, a legal counsel for Greenpeace International, tells Carbon Brief that this means loss-and-damage finance is not a replacement for reparations:
“If a state contributes to the loss and damage fund and at the same time breaches obligations…that does not mean they are off the hook.”
Legal experts, including Prof Viñuales, tell Carbon Brief that this outcome is not surprising, given its grounding in international law. He says:
“It is the correct understanding of international law, but, in law, progress often takes the form of moving from the implicit to the explicit and that’s what the court did.”
Nevertheless, the outcome could have major implications for climate politics and lead to a wave of new climate litigation. Dr Tigre, at the Sabin Centre for Climate Change Law, tells Carbon Brief:
“[It] could shift the conversation from voluntary climate finance to legal obligations to repair harm, particularly for vulnerable communities and states already suffering loss and damage.”
Notably, the court says that while some states are “particularly vulnerable” to climate change, international law “does not differ” depending on such status. This means that, in principle, all nations are “entitled to the same remedies”.
As for individuals or groups taking legal action for both “present and future generations”, the ICJ notes that their ability to do so does not depend on rules around “state responsibility”. Instead, they would depend on obligations being breached under “specific treaties and other legal instruments”.
The ICJ says that reparations would be determined on a case-by-case basis, noting that the “appropriate nature and quantum of reparations…depends on the circumstances”. It also notes that:
“In the climate change context, reparations in the form of compensation may be difficult to calculate, as there is usually a degree of uncertainty.”
The question of precisely which nations will be liable for paying climate reparations is also predictably complex. Much of this discussion centres around responsibility for emissions, both currently and in the past.
Under the Paris Agreement, “developed” countries – a handful of nations in the global north – are obliged to provide climate finance to “developing” countries, which includes major emitters such as China.
In ICJ submissions, major emitters and fossil-fuel producers categorised as “developing” under the UN system stressed their low historical emissions. Some developing countries blamed climate change on a small group of “developed states of the global north”.
For their part, some countries with high historical emissions argued that it is difficult to assign responsibility for climate change.
However, the ICJ concludes that this is not the case. It says it is “scientifically possible” to determine each state’s contribution, accounting for “both historical and current emissions”.
Therefore, while the court explicitly avoids identifying the countries responsible for paying reparations, it makes clear that historical responsibility should be accounted for when considering whether states have met their climate obligations.
Finally, the court also says that “the status of a state as developed or developing is not static” and that it depends on the “current circumstances of the state concerned”.
This is notable, given that the current definitions of these terms – which determine who gives and receives climate finance – are based on definitions from the early 1990s.
The advisory opinion offers clear guidance on the Paris Agreement and its aim to limit global temperature rise to “well-below” 2C by 2100, with an aspiration to keep warming below 1.5C.
It says that limiting temperature increase to 1.5C should be considered countries’ “primary temperature goal”, based on the court’s interpretation of the Paris Agreement.
The court adds that this interpretation is consistent with the Paris Agreement’s stipulation that efforts to tackle climate change should be based on the “best available science”.
(In 2018, four years after the Paris Agreement, a special report from the IPCC spelled out how limiting global warming to 1.5C rather than 2C could, among other things, save coral reefs from total devastation, stem rapid glacier loss and keep an extra 420 million people from being exposed to extreme heatwaves.)
Following this, the advisory opinion also makes it clear that countries are not just encouraged – but “obliged” – to put forward climate plans that “reflect the[ir] highest possible ambition” to make an “adequate contribution” to limiting global warming to 1.5C.
(The climate plans that countries submit to the UN under the Paris Agreement are known as “nationally determined contributions” or “NDCs”.)
Moreover, contrary to the arguments of some countries, the advisory opinion states:
“The court considers that the discretion of parties in the preparation of their NDCs is limited.
“As such, in the exercise of their discretion, parties are obliged to exercise due diligence and ensure that their NDCs fulfil their obligations under the Paris Agreement and, thus, when taken together, are capable of achieving the temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C.”
Dr Bill Hare, a veteran climate scientist and CEO of research group Climate Analytics, noted that the court’s stipulations on the 1.5C and NDCs represent a “fundamental set of findings”. In a statement, he said:
“The ICJ finds that the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C limit is the primary goal because of the urgent and existential threat of climate change and that this requires all countries to work together towards the highest possible ambition to limit warming to this level.
“All countries have an obligation to put forward the highest possible ambition in their NDCs that represent a progression over previous NDCs; it is not acceptable to put forward a weak NDC that does not align with 1.5C.
“The ICJ points to potential for serious legal consequences under customary international law if countries do not put forward targets aligned to 1.5C.”
The court also notes that the concept of equity is essential to the Paris Agreement and other climate legal frameworks, commonly referred to by text noting that countries have “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.
Significantly, it adds that the Paris Agreement differs from other climate frameworks by also stating that these responsibilities and capabilities should be considered “in the light of different national circumstances”.
The advisory opinion continues:
“In the view of the court, the additional phrase does not change the core of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities; rather, it adds nuance to the principle by recognising that the status of a state as developed or developing is not static. It depends on an assessment of the current circumstances of the state concerned.”
The verdict comes after debate – considered highly controversial by many – about whether “emerging” economies, such as China and India, should be considered “developing countries” at climate summits.
One of the most eye-catching paragraphs of the advisory opinion relates to its verdict on fossil fuels.
In a section labelled “determination of state responsibility in the climate change context”, the court specifically addresses countries’ obligations when it comes to producing, using and economically supporting fossil fuels. (See below).
The court says that fossil-fuel production, consumption, the granting of exploration licences or the provision of subsidies “may constitute an internationally wrongful act” attributable to the state or states involved.
It comes after multiple analyses have concluded that any new oil and gas projects globally would be “incompatible” with limiting global warming to 1.5C.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, climate law expert Prof Jorge Viñuales notes that the clear mention of fossil fuels comes despite not being featured in the questions posed to the court:
“The request characterised the conduct to be assessed by reference to emissions, so the court could have stayed there. Yet, the relevant conduct was expanded to production and consumption of fossil fuels, including subsidies.”
Though the advisory opinion is not legally binding on countries, it could influence domestic decision-making around granting permissions to new fossil fuel projects going forward, adds Joy Reyes, a policy officer at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. She tells Carbon Brief:
“Litigants can cite the advisory opinion in future climate litigation, which includes the language around fossil fuels. While not legally binding, the advisory opinion carries moral weight and authority, and can influence domestic decision-making around new fossil-fuel projects. If states and corporations fail to transition away from fossil fuels, their risk for liability increases.”
The ICJ’s advisory opinion concludes that nations’ existing maritime zones or statehood would “not necessarily” be compromised by sea-level rise resulting from climate change.
This has long been an important issue for island nations, including the Pacific states that pushed for the court’s advisory opinion (See: How did this case come about?).
Some of these nations are very low-lying and are already making preparations for a time when much of their territory is underwater.
They have been seeking assurances that they will retain territorial rights as the impacts of climate change worsen.
In its assessment of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the ICJ says that nations are “under no obligation to update charts or lists of geographical co-ordinates” due to sea-level rise.
This means the legal rights of states over their maritime zones – including any resources, such as minerals and fish, that are present there – would be protected.
The ICJ also states that, in its view:
“Once a state is established, the disappearance of one of its constituent elements would not necessarily entail the loss of its statehood.”
Prof Viñuales, who acted for the island nation of Vanuatu in the case, tells Carbon Brief this outcome is a “key aspect” of the opinion, adding that it is “remarkable”.
Following the landmark advisory opinion, one of the biggest questions moving forward is what it could mean for other climate lawsuits, both domestic and international.
Advisory opinions from the ICJ are not legally binding, but the court’s summarisation of existing law carries “moral weight and authority”, according to Joy Reyes, a policy officer at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
This is particularly relevant for states that “accept the persuasive authority of international law”, explains Dr Joana Setzer, an environmental lawyer and an associate professorial research fellow at the London School of Economics and Political Science’s Grantham Institute.
Courts in some states, such as the UK, Australia and Canada, will consult international law when interpreting domestic laws or dealing with international treaties.
Setzer explains to Carbon Brief:
“The ICJ confirms that failures to act – such as maintaining inadequate national targets, licensing new fossil fuel projects or failing to support adaptation in vulnerable countries – can engage state responsibility under international law. The court also dismissed a common defence – that a state’s emissions are ‘too small to matter’. Even small contributors can be held responsible for their share of the harm.
“Domestic climate litigation may seek to use this argument and the court’s opinion to establish greater obligation on states to address climate change at the domestic level. Courts in jurisdictions that accept the persuasive authority of international law, such as the Netherlands, could now cite this ruling in support of decisions compelling stronger climate action from governments or corporations.”
She adds that the court’s conclusion that “states are not only responsible for reducing their own emissions”, but “also have a due diligence duty to regulate private actors under their jurisdiction” could have implications. Stezer continues:
“That includes fossil-fuel companies. This has far-reaching implications: it signals that states could be in breach if they fail to control emissions from companies they license, subsidise or oversee. This will place greater pressure on states to halt any new fossil fuel projects and introduce stricter regulations on the sector.”
Climate law expert Prof Jorge Viñuales says that the opinion makes it clear that the Paris Agreement is a “serious legal instrument imposing genuine and justiciable obligations”, which is likely to have an impact on domestic lawsuits. He tells Carbon Brief:
“We can expect that to be widely litigated around the world.”
In addition, he says that the court’s opinion that countries’ legal obligations extend beyond the UN climate treaties creates a “much wider chessboard for climate litigation”. He adds:
“Last, but absolutely not least, it was important, from a climate justice perspective, to hear from the court that one cannot simply game the climate change regime without legal consequences. Those consequences may take time to materialise, but they very likely will.”
The ICJ’s advisory opinion was welcomed by many governments, NGOs and legal experts as a “groundbreaking” legal milestone and a “moral reckoning”.
However, the European Commission and France were among those responding to the court’s opinion more cautiously, while opposition politicians in the UK were hostile to the ICJ’s findings.
A Chinese government spokesperson, meanwhile, said the opinion was in line with China’s views, while the White House said the US would put itself and its interests first.
One particularly positive response came from Ralph Regenvanu, minister of climate change adaptation, meteorology and geo-hazards, energy, environment and disaster management for the Republic of Vanuatu, who commended the opinion. In a statement, he said:
“The ICJ ruling marks an important milestone in the fight for climate justice. We now have a common foundation based on the rule of law, releasing us from the limitations of individual nations’ political interests that have dominated climate action. This moment will drive stronger action and accountability to protect our planet and peoples.
Vishal Prashad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, welcomed the ICJ’s statements on what he said was the need to “urgently phase out fossil fuels…because they are no longer tenable”. He continued:
“For small island states, communities in the Pacific, young people and future generations, this opinion is a lifeline and an opportunity to protect what we hold dear and love. I am convinced now that there is hope and that we can return to our communities saying the same. Today is historic for climate justice and we are one step closer to realising this.”
The reaction from developed countries was more muted, with France stating that the “landmark opinion will be studied very closely”. It reaffirmed its “unwavering commitment to the ICJ”.
A spokesperson for the European Commission, Anna-Kaisa Itkonen, told the media that the opinion “confirms the magnitude of the challenge we face and the importance of climate action”. She added that the commission would examine what the opinion “precisely implies” and noted that the EU’s emissions are behind those of China, the US and India.
A spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry said in a regular press conference that the ICJ opinion was “of positive significance to maintaining and advancing international climate cooperation”.
They added that, in their view, the court reinforced the “long-standing stance” of China, whereby developed countries should “take the lead” in tackling climate change:
“We noted that the ICJ’s advisory opinion pointed out that the UNFCCC system is the principal legal instruments regulating the international response to the global problem of climate change and confirmed that the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, the principle of sustainable development and the principle of equity are applicable as guiding principles for the interpretation and application of relevant international law.”
In response to the opinion, a spokesperson for the White House told Reuters:
“As always, President Trump and the entire administration is committed to putting America first and prioritising the interests of everyday Americans.”
Many within the wider international community also welcomed the advisory opinion. For example, Mary Robinson, a member of the Elders and the first woman president of Ireland and former UN high commissioner for human rights, called the opinion a “powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis – and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused”.
António Guterres, secretary-general of the UN said in a statement that the ICJ had issued a “historic” opinion. He added:
“They made clear that all States are obligated under international law to protect the global climate system. This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice and for the power of young people to make a difference. Young Pacific Islanders initiated this call for humanity to the world. And the world must respond.”
Charities such as Amnesty International, Earthjustice and Greenpeace hailed the “landmark moment for climate justice and accountability”.
Tasneem Essop, executive director of Climate Action Network International, said that “the era of impunity is over”, adding that the ruling “could not have come at a better time” ahead of the upcoming COP30 summit.
Within the media, a lot of coverage focused on the potential that nations might have to pay reparations for breaching their climate obligations.
In the Guardian, Harj Narulla, barrister and leading global expert on climate litigation at Doughty Street Chambers and the University of Oxford, discusses what the ICJ’s advisory opinion could mean for Australia and other major polluters in a “new era of climate reparations”.
In its news coverage, the Daily Telegraph says that the UN “has opened the door to Britain being sued over its historic contribution to climate change”. It adds that the opposition Conservative and Reform parties “both rejected the ruling”.
ENFIELD, N.C. — When history buffs reenacted a Revolutionary War general’s visit to this tiny, rural North Carolina town in February, its top elected official was notably absent.
General Marquis de Lafayette may have helped liberate America from England, but over 240 years later his story has little relevance to Mayor Mondale Robinson.
“I find it extremely hard to be celebrating the Revolutionary War when people in Enfield — households of four people — are living on $24,000 a year,” said Robinson, sitting in his windowless office, sparsely decorated with small, framed photos of Black leaders. “I don’t know what freedom looks like, because you can’t tell me people in Enfield are free to live the way they want to.”
Robinson, who was elected in 2022, envisions a day when Black people in his community are able to live a life of pride, freedom, and economic stability. He believes clean energy will play a central role.
Alongside other community leaders and clean energy advocates, Robinson is planning a new solar farm that could meet most of Enfield’s electricity needs. He wants a modern substation to replace the town’s dilapidated one. And he aims to create a “storefront” for energy efficiency that could help residents reduce energy waste and their electric bills.
“We’re trying to be energy independent,” Robinson said. “Besides green energy being good for the environment, it’s also going to help our people … live a life with dignity. That includes the housing, the grid, figuring out how to do renewable energy in a way that is not just sustainable but also job-creating.”
Some formidable barriers stand in the way, from the Trump administration’s antipathy to clean energy and communities of color, to pockets of local opposition to the large solar farms that have become common across the region. But with money still flowing for now from Biden-era climate laws — which were intended to fund progress in historically disadvantaged communities like Enfield — Robinson and his fellow visionaries say their aspirations are within reach.
“[It’s] a place that has more than 260 sunny days per year on average,” said Robinson. “I’m super excited about what’s possible.”
In many ways, Enfield typifies eastern North Carolina and the rural South. Once a trading post for peanuts, tobacco, and other crops, the town’s commercial district, five miles east of Interstate 95, now stands nearly empty. Like much of the state, the town faces increasingly frequent natural disasters, like hurricanes. It’s devastatingly poor and overwhelmingly Black, home to many descendants of those who remained enslaved long after Lafayette’s victory tour.
Robinson grew up in Black Bottom, Enfield’s historically Black section. The neighborhood still has no sidewalks, and he says indoor plumbing wasn’t a given here until the 1990s. On a walk through town, he pointed out the shotgun home he lived in for a time as a child with his parents and some of his 12 siblings.
“I’m 45 years old,” he said. “I should not know what an outhouse is.”
When Robinson looks back on his childhood, he sees clearly how the lack of infrastructure and the quality of the environment impacted the health of those around him. Many of his schoolmates had ringworm, a result, he thinks, of poor sewer systems, water contamination upstream, or a combination of the two. Severe asthma, which can be triggered by air pollution, kept one brother in the hospital for most of 4th grade.
Dumpster diving for glass bottles and other recyclables as a teenager, Robinson found a copy of W.E.B. Du Bois’ “The Souls of Black Folk.” He must have read it four times cover to cover. The seminal essay collection helped Robinson draw the line between systemic racism and Black public health.
“My people suffer the most,” Robinson said. When America sneezes, he said, “Black people get a flu.”
In 1997, Robinson left “the bleak reality of Enfield” for a stint in the Marine Corps, then Livingstone College, a historically Black university in Salisbury, North Carolina. After graduating, he ran dozens of progressive political campaigns around the country and the world, from Illinois to the Congo.
In the lead-up to the 2020 elections, Robinson founded the Black Male Voter Project — aimed at communicating year-round, on- and off-season, with a demographic often taken for granted by the Democratic establishment.
“I wanted to do something for the brothers,” he said. “Maslow would say they would be on the bottom rung,” referencing the late American psychologist who conceptualized a hierarchy of needs to explain what motivates human behavior. “They don’t have their basic needs met.”
A constellation of political projects still occupies him. But he returned to North Carolina to run for mayor because he felt like a “fraud” for not organizing his people back home.
One of his first official acts: livestreaming the removal of a prominent Confederate monument in town. Any headwinds he’s facing over his clean energy vision are akin to the blowback he’s still experiencing over that day in 2022, Robinson said.
“I’m getting pushback because I’m loud, and I’m a Black man, and I should know my place.”
About 30 miles south of the Virginia border, in Halifax County, Enfield is in a part of the state largely untouched by Duke Energy’s grid and its monopoly. The town owns its electric utility, a holdover from when private electric providers couldn’t foresee profiting from serving far-flung hamlets of 2,000 people. Much of the area connects to a regional transmission organization called PJM Interconnection, in which wholesale electricity has long been bought and sold on a competitive market. That means independent power producers can enlist customers besides Duke, and they’ve already built scores of solar farms in the area, demonstrating the economic viability of the resource.
Those factors drew William Munn, regional director of the Carolinas for advocacy group Vote Solar, to Enfield.
“In late 2023, we were looking for communities to share the great news around the Inflation Reduction Act,” Munn said, referring to the 2022 climate spending law that includes incentives for historically disadvantaged towns.
The fact that the town owned its own utility was especially enticing. “If you have the political will,” Munn said, “you can do whatever you want, and that’s rare in this regulatory environment.”
The town’s atrocious energy burden is generating a lot of that will. Despite having small homes and even smaller incomes, Enfield households have average winter electric bills of $650 a month, according to the town finance director. That’s in part because much of the housing stock is old, poorly insulated, and inefficient.
“These are [800- to 1,200-square-foot] homes that have bills this high. These aren’t big homes,” said Reggie Bynum, Southeast community outreach director at the nonprofit Center for Energy Education, based up the road in Roanoke Rapids. “It’s old wiring; it’s old insulation. Weatherization needs are definitely there. These aren’t modern homes.”
Higher-than-average rates compound the problem. The town buys electricity from Halifax Electric Membership Corp., which in turn buys from the statewide association of electric cooperatives. The association owns some generating facilities but also buys wholesale power through PJM and from investor-owned utilities like Duke. In Raleigh, one of the wealthiest areas in the state, Duke charges 12 cents per kilowatt-hour. In Enfield, one of the poorest, the rate approaches 14 cents.
“We’re selling our residents electricity that’s third-time bought and sold,” Robinson said.
A three- to five-megawatt solar farm on about 20 acres of land, backed up by a battery with a duration of four hours or more, could supply all of the town’s 1,200 electric meters, most of them residential. The move would likely cut rates, especially if government grants covered all or part of the approximately $10 million solar array and backup battery. All told, experts believe the generation system could pay for itself in about 15 years.
The town would remain connected to the surrounding grid during emergencies, Munn said, “but the most important part is that for 95% of the time, they are going to be drawing on their own battery bank and solar generation, and that’s going to stabilize the cost for the long term.”
Replacing the town’s dilapidated substation, which requires frequent repairs, is also a priority. Its wooden poles were erected in the middle of the last century, and its power lines have limited capacity — not enough to receive and transfer power from a five-megawatt solar farm, advocates say.
Six of the substation’s seven lines are at 2,400 volts, said Nick Jimenez, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “It’s so low that they don’t make equipment to fix that anymore.”
“It’s like having an antique car,” Robinson said. “Waiting on parts.”
Replacing the substation’s wooden frame with a metal one and swapping out the 2,400-volt feeder lines for 7,200-volt versions would bring Enfield into the 21st century for a price tag of about $5 million.
Across the train tracks from the rundown substation are the town fairgrounds, a playing field, a basketball court, and a small windowless building labeled “Enfield Parks and Recreation.” Here, the next piece of the clean energy vision is beginning to take shape.
“The town had for a long time been considering building a community center,” Munn said. “We came to them and said, ‘How about you make that community center a resilience center? Let’s dream big.’”
Called the Enfield Energy Center, the structure would replace the concrete parks building and a few others on the site. It would be powered by rooftop solar panels and battery storage, serving as a gathering place during emergencies. A commercial kitchen would help incubate food businesses and supply healthy meals during disasters. And an on-site community garden would provide food and educational opportunities.
“When people see, feel, and touch solar and renewable energy, and see that it works,” Munn said, “see it constructed in a beautiful space, then it gets demystified.”
Around the corner from the future resilience center, on the town’s main commercial strip, sits a boarded-up, three-bedroom home. Built in 1925, the house is advertised on Zillow as a “classic fixer-upper.” Robinson, who earns a pittance as mayor but has other income from his political consulting work, bought it earlier this year for $32,500, per Zillow.
The plan is to transform the nearly 1,800-square-foot home into a Weatherization Hub. Like the Enfield Energy Center, the building would be topped with solar panels backed up with battery storage. There, staff could hold do-it-yourself weatherization workshops and help residents apply for free energy-efficiency improvements, potentially including from Energy Saver NC, the state’s recently launched rebate program for new appliances, weather stripping, and other upgrades.
“It may take a while for that concept house to be built,” said Bynum, who’s spearheading the weatherization project. “Energy Saver is good if it’s still around, but I think there’s life in that house after that to do other things. We will be able to have weatherization training there. We’d be able to have weatherization supplies for people.”
Since last fall, Robinson, together with advocates and organizers like Munn, Jimenez, and Bynum, has been holding town meetings to lay out their vision and get feedback and buy-in. “I always like to overshare with my people,” Robinson said.
Dozens of residents attend the monthly gathering, and most have been supportive. “It’s quirky to them,” Robinson admitted. “But once they understand that with solar, we can lock in our rates for 30, 40 years — that, to them, is rewarding, and it brings them into the conversation.”
He recognizes that clean energy is not top of mind for most of Enfield’s residents. “I don’t get upset when my people are talking trash about me [for] talking so much about green energy, because I know that they’re literally just surviving,” he said.
For Munn of Vote Solar, energy independence is a key part of survival. “Once you’re able to control your own destiny, you essentially control your own quality of life,” he said, “and that’s something that has been elusive in communities of color throughout the Black Belt.”
The concept of personal control over private property helped solar advocates notch a win earlier this year. Halifax County had placed a temporary pause on new solar farms in October after pushback from some residents. As the expiration date for the moratorium neared, officials were weighing a new ordinance that would require a mile between each new project.
The result would be an economic “dead zone” where panels might have otherwise gone, said Enfield Commissioner Kenneth Ward and others at a public hearing in February. The buffer would dash the town’s plans for self-generation.
“Responsible solar development can bring jobs, lower energy costs, and strengthen our local economy without harming local agriculture at all,” Ward said, responding at the hearing to misinformation about the impact of renewables on farming.
The one-mile limitation would also harm private landowners who rely on lease income from solar developers, several speakers at the hearing said.
“I think that really carried the day,” said Munn. “It showed folk [that] Enfield had a vision, had intention, and had allies.”
In the end, county commissioners voted four to one to reject the one-mile buffer and allow the moratorium to expire.
Money remains the biggest barrier to carrying out these ambitious plans. One of the poorest towns in the nation, with an annual budget of around $6 million, Enfield and its residents can’t float the up-front cost of its clean energy projects, even though they may ultimately pay for themselves in the form of lower utility bills.
That’s part of why town leaders decided to formally retain the Southern Environmental Law Center to help access government grants intended for communities exactly like theirs. Despite blows from the Trump administration’s funding freeze and continued mass layoffs at the agencies responsible for distributing funds, three big pots of money created during the Biden administration still appear available.
First, there’s the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, set up and administered by the U.S. Department of Energy as required by the 2021 infrastructure law. Last October, officials announced a funding opportunity of $400 million for “energy improvements in rural or remote areas.” A not-yet-scrubbed government webpage explains that the program “gives communities with 10,000 or fewer people the tools and resources they need to improve the resilience, reliability, and affordability of their local energy systems.”
Another outgrowth of the infrastructure law is a federally funded state program for grid resilience and improvement that is distributing $9.2 million annually over five years.
Both programs, Enfield advocates say, appear custom-made to enable the town’s clean energy blueprint.
“We’re very, very confident that we are going to be able to convince folks to give us money and get this built,” Munn said. “I don’t know that there’s any community in the Black Belt who is trying to get this done. If you can do it in the Black Belt in North Carolina, in the South, I think it shows [it can be done] anywhere.”
The large solar farm could be built with help from the Solar for All initiative, created by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. While the resulting $156 million state program is largely intended to help low-income households purchase rooftop panels, it can also be tapped to support “community solar pilot programs, many with municipal utilities and electric co-ops, which will lower energy costs for participating households,” according to the program’s website.
Though early Trump edicts froze Solar for All funds, they began flowing again early last month.
However, the White House has made clear its animus to clean energy and to any effort to right a history of systemic wrongs against Black Americans. Press reports say the Trump administration is moving to eliminate the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations entirely. So, while these funding sources appear safe for now, nothing is guaranteed.
“Elections have consequences,” Munn said. “We recognize that. Big fossil-fuel interests helped Donald Trump get elected, and now we are at the crossroads of where we want to be as a society.”
If these federal and state funds don’t pan out, there are “B and C” plans afoot, Jimenez said, mostly in the form of enlisting private donations. “The plan is to keep forging ahead regardless,” he said.
Robinson, for his part, will also keep forging. The mayoral job takes an emotional toll, he said, and he had waffled about whether to run for another term this fall. He ultimately decided to go for it. “I’m determined to do this work. I’m passionate about it,” he said. “I am convinced I have more work to do with my town.”
He used an urban-planning metaphor to explain how he sees his role. “They talk about skylarks and moles,” he said. “Skylarks are the people with the vision. But the moles are the ones that get it done. At this moment, I feel like I’m a sky-mole.”
“Hopefully it won’t be that long until people say, ‘Here, we got this, step aside.’ That’s what I’m excited about.”
A clarification was made on April 15, 2025: The caption for the first image in this story originally implied that the building behind Robinson is Enfield’s town hall. The caption has been changed to better reflect his location in the image.
Ohio consumer and environmental advocates are calling on state regulators to address disparities within FirstEnergy’s grid after a recent report found disadvantaged communities are more likely to rely on older, more outage-prone equipment.
Areas defined as disadvantaged under the Biden administration’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool were twice as likely to have low-voltage circuits compared to other parts of FirstEnergy’s Ohio territory, according to the study by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. Equipment was also generally older and had less capacity for normal and overload situations.
The results reflect historical patterns of underinvestment in disadvantaged communities, the report says, but the full scope of the problem — including across Ohio’s other utilities — is unclear due to the lack of information from utilities and regulators.
“The public availability of any utility data is very, very limited in Ohio,” said report author Shay Banton, a regulatory program engineer and energy justice policy advocate for the Interstate Renewable Energy Council.
The Ohio Environmental Council submitted the report as part of FirstEnergy’s pending rate case before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and is asking regulators to address the topic in an evidentiary hearing set for May 5.
The state of the local grid matters when it comes to the reliability of customers’ electric service, their ability to add distributed renewable energy resources like rooftop solar, and a community’s potential to attract business investments that could improve its economic conditions.
Regulated electric utilities file reliability reports each spring that focus on two commonly used metrics. The system average interruption frequency index, or SAIFI, shows how many outages occurred per customer. The customer average interruption duration index, or CAIDI, measures the average length of time for restoring service to customers who lose power.
The annual reports also list factors involved in outages, with breakouts for transmission-related service problems and major events. Major events such as severe weather are considered statistical outliers that don’t count for calculating whether utilities meet their company-specific standards for CAIDI and SAIFI.
While weather accounted for the majority of time Ohioans went without power last year, equipment failures also triggered thousands of outages. For the ninth year in a row, at least one Ohio utility company failed to meet reliability standards, reports filed this month show. Both AEP Ohio and FirstEnergy’s Toledo Edison missed their marks for the average time before power is restored for customers who experience outages.
The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio also collects data on the worst-performing circuits. Individual circuits serve anywhere from a few hundred to several thousand customers. However, the state doesn’t post these reports online or disclose the circuit’s exact locations, which could be used to show whether they are concentrated in disadvantaged communities.
The SAIFI and CAIDI metrics used by state regulators did not show significant disparities between disadvantaged neighborhoods and other areas in FirstEnergy’s territory. But Banton said those reliability metrics rely on averages for large groups, which can obscure disparities. They said that utilities should also be required to publicly report the number of customers experiencing frequent service interruptions and the number of customers who faced long outages.
Utilities in Ohio tend to be reactive in dealing with circuit problems, Banton said. Communities can face longer outages if utilities wait for equipment to fail before replacing it. Instead, Banton wants utilities’ capital investments to address current disparities and then prevent them from recurring in the future.
“The bottom line is that consumers should get reliable service, and utilities are obligated to provide reliable service,” said Merrilee Embs, a spokesperson for the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, which did not work on the report. The group is concerned about whether utilities’ capital improvement spending directly benefits customers — an issue that relates to grid disparities.
“FirstEnergy’s (and other Ohio utilities’) failure to implement grid modernization plans in a way that benefits residential consumers likely contributes to grid disparities such as those described in the [study],” Embs wrote via email after reviewing the report.
FirstEnergy has challenged the Ohio Environmental Council’s objections about grid disparities in its rate case. Meanwhile, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio is due to consider revisions to the annual reliability reporting requirements by Sept. 30, 2026. The commission will likely start accepting comments on the rules later this year, said spokesperson Matt Schilling.
The quality of a neighborhood’s grid influences more than whether residents’ lights stay on.
“These inequities can have serious consequences for customer access to distributed energy resources, which can save money,” said Karin Nordstrom, a lawyer for the Ohio Environmental Council.
Rooftop solar or other distributed clean energy can add to traffic on local grid circuits, posing a challenge for equipment that’s older or has lower voltages or capacity. Those circuits generally can handle less grid traffic, Banton said. In contrast, newer, high-voltage circuits tend to have “less bumps and less potholes [along with] better on-ramps.”
The grid’s quality and capacity also impact an area’s economic development. Historically, utilities have focused capital investment on places where people are moving or where they expect new industrial demand. That approach exacerbates inequity, Banton said. Even if businesses otherwise wanted to move to disadvantaged areas, poor electrical infrastructure may lead them to go elsewhere to avoid huge costs for upgrading the local grid, they said.
“The energy transition is in full effect, but many of the communities that suffer first and worst from climate change are not able to make the transition due to underinvestment in infrastructure,” said Tony Reames, a professor of environmental justice at the University of Michigan School for Environment and Sustainability, who did not work on the new report. He served at the U.S. Department of Energy as deputy director for energy justice and principal deputy director for state and community energy programs during the Biden administration.
Because utilities have failed to invest in and maintain the grid evenly throughout their service territories, an equity-based approach to infrastructure modernization should make sure resources now go to areas that were left behind, Reames said.
He supports the report’s call for more granular data, including details on customers with repeated or prolonged outages. The report also calls on utilities to publish maps showing grid capacity, and information about which census tracts are served by each circuit and substation transformers.
“I often say, ‘The data you don’t have is the problem you don’t see,’” Reames noted. “Difficulties accessing data or the lack of certain data availability are sometimes a result of entities not wanting to confirm issues that are anecdotally known.”
A coalition of environmental justice advocates is pushing Illinois to become the first Midwest state to adopt California’s Advanced Clean Trucks standards designed to spur a transition to zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles over the next decade.
“Air pollution is an equity issue,” Griselda Chavez, an environmental justice organizer with Warehouse Workers for Justice, said at a recent press conference. The group represents workers and residents in communities heavily impacted by warehouses, including the Chicago-area town of Joliet, a major logistics hub.
“Black, brown, and low-income communities in and around Joliet are disproportionately affected by diesel pollution, large amounts of truck traffic, and increasing growth of the warehouse industry,” Chavez said. “Those workers also go home to their families and go to schools that are surrounded by large amounts of truck traffic and poor air quality.”
The Illinois Pollution Control Board is considering adopting not only California’s clean truck standards but also the Golden State’s Advanced Clean Cars II program, which would phase out the sale of most non-electric passenger vehicles by 2035, and its stricter nitrogen oxide limits on heavy-duty vehicles. The deliberations are happening as the Trump administration seeks to block California’s unique authority to set vehicle emission standards that exceed federal rules.
Illinois advocates have focused mostly on the clean trucks program because of the health and environmental justice implications of diesel-powered trucks throughout the state. They are especially concerned about places like Joliet and Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood, a largely immigrant community where warehouses have also proliferated.
In 2023, the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization worked with the Center for Neighborhood Technology on a truck-counting study that showed on one June day, an average of 1.5 heavy-duty trucks per minute drove along a residential street in the heart of the community.
Sally Burgess, downstate lead organizing representative for Sierra Club’s Illinois chapter, told the Pollution Control Board during a March 10 hearing that she counted more than 300 diesel-burning semi-trucks during the 65-mile drive between her home in central Illinois and the state’s capitol.
“All along our route, on both sides of the highway, farm fields, rustic barns, cows and other farm animals, some homes,” said Burgess. “Some would refer to it as a bucolic rural setting — clogged with diesel trucks.”
The Advanced Clean Trucks program would require manufacturers selling in Illinois to ensure that between 40% and 75% of their heavy-duty vehicle sales are zero-emissions by 2035, with the percentage depending on type of vehicle. They would have to sell higher percentages of electric medium-sized non-tractor trucks than pickup trucks and vans as well as larger tractor-trailers.
Manufacturers could also comply by purchasing credits from other companies that go beyond those targets, or by shifting credits from types of vehicles where they exceed the mandates.
“If, for example, a truck-maker sells a lot of zero-emission delivery vans but doesn’t offer a zero-emission version of their box trucks, they can convert their extra [pickup and van] credits into [midsize truck] credits and still maintain compliance,” said Trisha DelloIacono, head of policy for Calstart, a national nonprofit focused on clean transportation policy and market development, by email.
DelloIacono said demand for zero-emissions heavy-duty vehicles is so high that manufacturers should not have trouble meeting the sales targets if they make the inventory available. After a certain number of years, those that don’t comply either through electric vehicle sales or credit purchases could be fined.
Advocates say that the state mandates benefit people nationwide since they motivate manufacturers to increase their EV offerings.
Manufacturers including Daimler Truck’s Freightliner, Volvo, Navistar, GM, and Ford have introduced or increased sales of electric trucks since California adopted its clean trucks program, according to Calstart, and companies have also rolled out charging infrastructure and heavy-duty “charging-as-a-service” offerings that include installation, maintenance, and management.
“If Illinois adopts [the Advanced Clean Trucks program], we could expect to see new truck charging stations pop up at rest stops along major freight corridors like I-57, I-80, and I-70,” said DelloIacono. “This in turn would make it easier for fleet operators in nearby states to start adopting zero-emission trucks for regional-haul and long-haul routes.”
Ann Schreifels, who testified before the Pollution Control Board, said she saw firsthand how regulations drive industry innovation when she worked at the machinery manufacturing firm Caterpillar in Peoria, Illinois. Schreifels, who retired about five years ago, said she does not speak for the company but recalled how industry opposition to new federal emissions regulations gave way to progress once they took effect.
“The entire industry was against the regulations,” she told Canary Media. “Change is hard. It took the fuel manufacturers, suppliers, designers, software engineers all working together to solve the problem. But the end result was the company made the best engine they’d ever made — more fuel efficient, more reliable, more durable, it saved customers money. Despite the fact that industry is going to complain and lobby against regulations, that’s when innovation actually happens.”
A national association of small businesses told regulators they oppose the program and that it could drive businesses out of Illinois. But other companies have expressed support, including Kansas-based electric truck manufacturer Orange EV and Rivian, the electric pickup truck manufacturer with a factory in Normal, Illinois.
Tom Van Heeke, environmental and legal senior policy advisor at Rivian, said in an email, “The standards would set Illinois apart as the Midwest’s undisputed priority market for EVs, giving adjacent industries — from EV suppliers to charging providers — investment certainty while delivering EV choice and cleaner air to businesses and communities across the state.”
The federal Clean Air Act governs vehicle emissions but grants California the right to receive waivers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allowing the state to impose stricter standards. A 1990 Clean Air Act amendment also lets other states adopt California’s standards.
President Donald Trump has long denounced California’s vehicle emissions programs and during his first term revoked the state’s waivers.
The Biden administration’s EPA granted California’s Advanced Clean Trucks waiver in 2023 and in December 2024 granted the state’s Advanced Clean Cars II waiver, letting it ban sales of new gas-powered cars by 2035.
On Jan. 13, ahead of Trump’s inauguration, California preemptively withdrew its request for a waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Fleets program that would have ordered all commercial trucking fleets to transition to zero-emissions between 2035 and 2042.
The EPA can revoke waivers through a lengthy process, as it did during the previous Trump administration, but Republicans have more recently proposed overturning waivers through the Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress power to invalidate rules within 60 days after they are passed. On March 6, the U.S. Government Accountability Office opined that California’s vehicle emissions waivers are not rules and hence immune from that law, affirming its similar 2023 finding.
Nonetheless, Chicago attorney Timothy French advised the Illinois Pollution Control Board during a March 11 hearing that these federal efforts make it more challenging for Illinois to adopt the Advanced Clean Trucks program.
“You have to factor all this in if you’re considering what proponents are asking you to do,” said French, who has represented trade organizations in regulatory proceedings and litigated before the U.S. Supreme Court and federal and state courts.
It is easy to overlook the low-rise, cream-colored building on Chicago’s Motor Row, a historic district that was a hub for auto dealers in the early 1900s.
Yet the newly purchased headquarters for Bronzeville Community Development Partnership at 2416 S. Michigan Ave. plays both a symbolic and substantive role in fulfilling the organization’s mission of promoting clean energy and community-driven development in this predominantly Black, environmental-justice neighborhood on Chicago’s South Side.
“We want to be able to tell the story of the Great Migration and how we are replicating that age of innovation here in the 21st century, with the transition away from fossil fuels to beneficial electrification,” said Billy Davis, general manager for JitneyEV + EVCharge, one of the partnership’s initiatives. “Not just in commerce and transportation but culturally in the arts as well.”
Since its foundation in 1989 as the Abraham Lincoln Center Business Council, BCDP has strived to promote sustainable economic development in Bronzeville.
The Bronzeville Microgrid, which the organization developed in collaboration with utility ComEd, is one of BCDP’s main clean energy initiatives. As Chicago’s first neighborhood-scale system of its kind, the microgrid services more than 1,000 buildings with solar panels, batteries, and fossil gas–fired generators.
Another major initiative, through the JitneyEV + EVCharge program, is to expand EV adoption among Black and Brown drivers to reduce carbon emissions and other pollution, which have been disproportionately concentrated in environmental justice communities.
BCDP also advocates for the construction of public charging stations throughout the city’s South and West sides, where many communities lack access to such infrastructure.
This work, in addition to sustainability-focused development and cultural tourism projects, reflects a holistic approach to mitigating the adverse effects of disinvestment and climate change in environmental justice communities.
“What happens when a community transforms infrastructure, heritage, and innovation from vision to reality? In Bronzeville, 2024 was the year we proved that sustainable development isn’t just a concept—it’s a lived experience,” wrote Paula Robinson, president of BCDP and managing member of Bronzeville Partners LLC, in a January social media post. “This year, we didn’t just talk about change. We powered it—literally and metaphorically.”
BCDP moved into its current headquarters in June 2024 after purchasing the building with a grant from the state of Illinois, which included funding for a solar array and EV charging infrastructure. The organization also received a City of Chicago Climate Infrastructure Fund grant for energy-efficiency improvements to the building. JitneyEV + EVCharge was awarded a grant from that fund for purchasing EVs and installing charging infrastructure, according to Davis.
The complex, which is still being fitted out, includes a garage for JitneyEV; a visitor center and community meeting space; and spaces for the Urban Innovation Center, Innovation Metropolis, Bronzeville Studio, and the Bronzeville-Black Metropolis National Heritage Area, all of which are affiliates of the larger BCDP collective.
Owning the building allows BCDP to bring the various aspects of its work under a single umbrella and eliminates vulnerability to the whims of a landlord. At the same time, the building serves as a tangible symbol of the organization’s focus on self-sufficiency and self-determination, which is especially relevant in the present political environment.
In Motor Row’s heyday in the early 20th century, Chicago was home to multiple electric vehicle companies. And modern app-based rideshare services operate much like jitneys — taxi-like services that flourished in African American communities that conventional taxicabs often refused to serve. BCDP has married the two histories in its JitneyEV + EVCharge program, which aims to provide the community with an all-electric rideshare service and expand access to public EV charging stations.
BCDP recently purchased its first electric vehicle for the rideshare service and plans to purchase an electric passenger van in the future. BCDP also intends to install a public DC fast charging station on the outside of its new headquarters and a Level 2 charger inside the building’s garage for its own vehicles, according to Davis.
“The building that we are in, the building that we own, was once home to electric automobile manufacturing companies at the turn of the 20th century,” Davis said, adding that it housed showrooms for Detroit Electric, Chalmers Motor Co., and Cadillac.
“So, it just resonates somewhat, that we are returning home, so to speak,” Davis said.
Once it is fully operational, JitneyEV’s rideshare service will be especially useful in helping to fill in gaps in public transit in Bronzeville, which like much of the city’s South and West sides, is underserved by public transportation.
BCDP is also adding its input into initiatives like the Chicago Transit Authority Better Streets for Buses plan, which aims to expand clean transportation options and develop safer streets in communities of color.
”If you’re gonna electrify your bus fleet, why would you launch the 20 or 30 new electric buses anywhere other than in a Justice40 community where the air quality is poorest, where the need for a clean energy transportation solution is greatest?” Davis said, referring to the Biden administration program that aimed to ensure that Black, Brown, and Indigenous communities would receive a substantial proportion of allotted federal funds and other resources.
In 2024, BCDP participated in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s Clean Energy to Communities program, which supports community-led projects. BCDP also collaborated with NREL, Argonne National Laboratory, and local universities to launch the EV Institute, according to Davis.
The EV Institute, still under development, has been tasked with empowering the community to implement mobility and transportation equity. For example, there are plans to provide in-person and online education about the benefits of electric vehicles, according to Davis.
This holistic view reflects BCDP’s forward-thinking approach to electrifying transportation, said Julia Hage, manager of the transportation team at the Center for Neighborhood Technology in Chicago, which works with BCDP on its clean energy and community development initiatives.
Like many environmental justice community organizations, BCDP is taking the lead on its own initiatives around economic development, resiliency, and climate mitigation, Hage said.
While welcoming technical assistance and financial resources from outside organizations, environmental justice–based community organizations are nonetheless taking a more assertive approach toward self-determination. The Center for Neighborhood Technology has embraced its supporting role in empowering environmental justice communities to take their rightful seats at the clean energy transition table, Hage said.
“Oftentimes with these different progressions of technology and transportation, the communities are left behind because they’re not included in these conversations,” Hage said. “A lot of harm has been done to communities because of top-down planning decisions.”
Beyond collaborating with BCDP on transportation electrification, Hage said her organization is pulling the group into transportation equity work, too.
This approach was evident in a recent “EV 101” information session that the Center for Neighborhood Technology conducted to educate community-based organizations on how to promote electric vehicle adoption, in which BCDP acted as both a participant and a subject-matter expert.
“[BCDP was] able to also provide information to other CBOs, which I thought was a really cool benefit of having a cohort of community-based orgs,” Hage said. “No matter where they were in their journey of electrification or clean transportation, they could share with each other things that they knew from their experience.”
While the Center for Neighborhood Technology and BCDP have multiple sources of funding outside the federal government, the sudden inability to rely on federal funding has made it harder for them to carry out their mission.
“That’s part of our story now, too. We’re going to continue this decarbonization even in the face of all these cutbacks,” Davis said. “We have community engagement programs that are now on hold that we were relying on for this year and the summer. That won’t happen, at least not in a timely manner, but we’re going to do this anyway because we’re using mostly city and state funds.”
The federal government’s abrupt cancellation of promised funds has had a profound impact on the broader environmental justice community that the Center for Neighborhood Technology and BCDP are a part of. In the resulting atmosphere of uncertainty, many of these organizations are questioning any future reliance on the federal government, Hage said.
“The really alarming thing is, we’re seeing these full-on pauses and stop-work orders; resources that have been already allocated are being told to stop,” Hage said. “Some speculate like, ‘Oh, it’s just to confuse us. It’s just to make us scramble. They’ll have to go back on this. There’s no way.’ And there’s other folks who are kind of like, ‘We can’t even trust this money anymore.’ We’re still just kind of on edge, like, ‘Hey, is this going to happen?’”
One potential strategy is to advocate for state and local clean energy regulations and carbon-free transportation initiatives, along with increased emphasis and reliance on state-level organizations, such as the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Hage said.
“I am sure organizations right now don’t want to find themselves in this situation,” Hage said. “And I’m sure that they will want to redirect their focus on ‘What are grants that won’t be suddenly paused or suddenly taken away from us?’ And that’s why I think the focus on state and local resources is in conversation. Though, a lot of state money comes from the federal government. So, it’s kind of about ‘How do we best utilize this money while we have it?’”
The federal government’s purge of environmental justice data makes it harder to direct resources to where they are most needed. Nonetheless, BCDP and other environmental justice–focused organizations are determined to continue moving forward while acknowledging the significance of the challenges ahead.
“The freezing of federal grants and loans previously appropriated by Congress has been disruptive and is being challenged in court as unlawful overreach. The ultimate impact, therefore, is not yet fully known,” Davis said in an email.
“However, we remain undaunted in our work advancing renewable energy and clean transportation as economic and workforce development opportunities that make our communities healthier, safer, more livable and sustainable.”
This story was originally published by Capital B, a nonprofit newsroom that centers Black voices and experiences. To read more of Adam Mahoney’s work, visit Capital B.
Ninety years ago, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and South Carolina Gov. Ibra Blackwood worked together to bring electricity to rural South Carolina. But to build the power plant that would make it happen, they destroyed the homes of 900 Black sharecropping families. With them, 6,000 graves — including those of formerly enslaved people — were removed or desecrated.
Today, as South Carolina races to power its digital future, history seems to be repeating itself, with Black communities once again paying the price for progress.
Last year, the parent companies of Facebook and Google pledged more than $4 billion for new data centers in South Carolina. Every email you send, question you ask ChatGPT, or Instagram post you share relies on these centers. However, on this new digital frontier, the health and safety of Black communities are at risk.
While state officials work to craft legislation to attract these new projects, residents and community advocates say this will ramp up environmental hazards, increase utility bills, and exacerbate health disparities. Meanwhile, experts say, the economic promise of AI remains a mirage for Black communities, widening wealth gaps and displacing workers.
“Most Black households, especially rural ones in the South, are not using AI or as much computing power, but they are having to pay for that demand in both money and dirty air,” said Shelby Green, a researcher at the Energy and Policy Institute.
South Carolina is joining other states, like Texas and Illinois, with proposals to reopen at least two power plants in rural Black communities to run these new projects. Rural communities have begun to attract tech companies for data centers due to their low population densities, ample open space, and relatively lower energy and land costs.
Energy experts argue that the growing electricity demands from data centers are prolonging America’s dependence on dirty energy sources. Nationwide, at least 17 fossil fuel generators scheduled for closure are now delayed or at risk of delay, and about 20 new fossil fuel projects are being planned to meet data centers’ soaring energy demands. By 2040, South Carolina projects the need for four new fossil fuel power plants.
At a protest last year, Audrey Henderson, a resident of one of the towns facing the prospect of a polluting power plant, said she fears the impacts on her and her neighbors’ properties.
“My forefathers worked hard to get that property; that we have land. I have children in New York to get land when I pass away. Grandchildren and so forth and so on,” she said. The fact “they could just come in here, give us a couple of dollars, and take our land and put pipelines into it. Then we also have well water, just stuff going into the wells is very disheartening, and I’m really concerned.”
Across the country, low-income Black communities face the harshest pollution exposure from these plants, while Black workers are disproportionately in roles most vulnerable to AI and automation. A McKinsey & Co. analysis warns that if AI growth continues at its current pace, the wealth gap between Black and white households could widen by $43 billion annually within the next two decades because of disparities in who it serves.
Compounding these issues, data centers are expected to use 12% of the nation’s energy by 2028, a 550% increase from last year. An artificial intelligence search using ChatGPT, for example, uses anywhere from 10 to 30 times more energy than a regular internet search.
“The energy demand, data centers, and where the energy sector is going should not come at the expense of low-income and Black communities,” said Xavier Boatwright, an activist who has worked on environmental issues in rural South Carolina for years.
In South Carolina, officials predict data centers will drive 70% of the state’s increased energy use, with subsidies already raising utility bills for consumers. Through his canvassing across the state, Boatwright said he now regularly sees rural mobile home communities where people are paying more for their utility bills than mortgages because of this increase.
“It’s kind of like if you go out and your employer is paying for your dinner, and you order the fanciest stuff on the menu,” explained Green, who researches how rising utility bills are pushing Southern Black communities into poverty. “You don’t really have to worry about how expensive it is because it’s not coming out of your pocket. That’s how these companies are operating; they’re not holding the risk associated with increasing electricity costs and these new power plants — you are.”
In majority-Black, poor rural Fairfield County, the state is proposing to reopen a stalled nuclear plant that has long been a symbol of broken promises and financial strain for residents. Advocates warn that restarting this decades-long gamble could further burden a population already facing systemic neglect. Billions of taxpayer dollars and rising energy costs are at stake, yet the benefits of the project seem unlikely to reach those facing the worst consequences.
In South Carolina, and across the country, statistically, Black people use the least amount of electricity, yet experience the highest energy burden — meaning a larger share of their income goes toward energy bills.
In the other case, a Black stronghold in Colleton County celebrated the monumental victory of closing a coal-fired power plant in their neighborhood, which was connected to poor health outcomes for residents. Now, the state proposes to convert that very site into a gas-fired power plant to meet the energy demands of data centers. Every year, the pollution from natural gas plants is responsible for approximately 4,500-12,000 early deaths in the U.S., studies show.
“If you mapped all of the existing power plants in South Carolina, they’d follow the old path of one of the foundational pillars of the American economy through South Carolina: plantations and enslaved labor,” Boatwright said. “We’ve seen the repeated pattern of these threats in our community.”
With this boom, tech companies like Google are making huge profits by securing special deals with utility companies.
Google’s head of data center energy, Amanda Peterson Corio, said Google’s energy supply contracts undergo “rigorous review” by utility regulators and are crafted “to ensure that Google covers the utility’s cost to serve us.”
Yet, last year, the company inked a deal in South Carolina to pay less than half the rate that households pay for electricity.
These low rates, combined with tax breaks and state-approved subsidies, are used to lure big tech companies. However, these deals force local families and households to cover the cost of building extra power plants, meaning everyday customers end up footing the bill.
A data center is a combination of massive warehouses packed with rows of servers and high-tech gear that stretch longer than football fields, all humming away to store and manage the digital data we use every day. They’re so massive, for example, that Google’s first South Carolina data center, which opened in Berkeley County in 2009, uses the equivalent electricity of roughly 300,000 homes and the amount of water of at least 9,000 homes. As of 2021, it was also powered by more fossil fuel based energy sources than any of Google’s two dozen other data centers nationwide.
This uneven situation leads to a growing gap between corporate savings and community expenses, with everyday people shouldering the extra burden. Black communities, in particular, tend to face higher utility costs and, as a result, are more likely to have their power shut off for missed payments. Along the East Coast, monthly utility bills are expected to increase as much as $40 to $50, mainly due to data centers.
South Carolina legislators — Democrats and Republicans — have implored the state’s regulators to rethink discounts and other subsidies, but the push has not made waves so far.
“Current residential ratepayers are going to pay a lot, lot more because of data centers that bring almost no employees,” Chip Campsen, a Republican South Carolina state senator, said at a legislative hearing last September. Tech companies must “participate in paying the capital costs for building the generating capacity for these massive users of energy.”
This issue ties into broader government policies aimed at boosting American technological growth and making the United States a leader in artificial intelligence. The Trump administration, for example, has signaled that it might bypass some environmental regulations to speed up projects like data centers and power plants. The new leader of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Zeldin, has said making “the United States the Artificial Intelligence capital of the world” will be one of his five guiding pillars, along with making it easier for tech and manufacturing companies to invest in the American economy.
Near Jenkinsville, South Carolina, half-built nuclear reactors — remnants of the long-stalled V.C. Summer project — tower over a Black community where three out of four live in poverty. They stand as a stark reminder of a $9 billion investment that never produced power. Despite customers still footing the bill for this abandoned venture to the tune of multiple utility bill increases, the state-owned utility company Santee Cooper is now inviting proposals to complete one or both units. Supporters argue that reviving the project would add 2,200 megawatts to the grid — enough to power hundreds of thousands of homes — and help meet surging energy demands driven by tech giants. Recent inspections by the state’s Nuclear Advisory Council have deemed the site in excellent condition, bolstering growing legislative support.
Researchers say it would be the first and only nuclear project to restart after being halfway built. Critics caution that history warns against overly ambitious nuclear bets that can lead to decades of delays, spiraling costs, and additional burdens on customers. They contend that immediate, incremental investments in solar power and battery storage could offer a safer, more adaptable path forward rather than reinvesting in a risky long-term gamble. Currently, nuclear energy is about four times more expensive to produce than solar energy.
Last year, the state was granted over $130 million from the Biden administration for solar projects, but the funding is now in limbo under the Trump administration.
The Black-led South Carolina Energy Justice Coalition has spent years advocating for solar and wind energy in rural Black communities. “Every citizen is worthy of that type of energy by virtue of just being a human being,” Shayne Kinloch, the group’s director, said last year.
Along the banks of the Edisto River in the heart of South Carolina, a former coal-fired power plant — closed in 2013 — is poised for a dramatic transformation. Dominion Energy and Santee Cooper plan to convert the site into one of the nation’s largest gas-fired power stations, a move approved by the state’s Public Service Commission. Designed to produce up to four times the energy of the old plant, this project is a central part of efforts to retire remaining coal facilities by 2030 and transition toward a future of “reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean energy,” the companies said.
However, environmental advocates and legal experts warn that this expansion of gas infrastructure may echo a troubling legacy where vulnerable communities bear the brunt of environmental and economic risks. Shifting from coal to gas plants isn’t environmentally or cost-effective, opponents say, because while gas produces slightly less pollution than coal, it still contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. It also comes with high infrastructure and maintenance costs.
This month, the state’s House of Representatives approved legislative changes that would weaken oversight of gas power plants. Joining Republicans, South Carolina’s Legislative Black Caucus Chairwoman Annie McDaniel, a Democrat representing the county home to the nuclear plant, voiced support for the legislation.
McDaniel did not respond to Capital B’s request for comment.
The changes, if passed by the state’s Senate, would allow the groups to bypass rigorous environmental reviews when proposing projects. Supporters claim these measures are necessary to meet rising energy demands from tech-driven growth. Critics argue this could sideline investments in renewable alternatives like solar and battery storage and raise the risk of rising costs, delays, and potential noncompliance with federal pollution standards.
“Instead of investing in more risky energy generation and infrastructure, they should be investing in energy solutions like solar and storage,” Boatwright said, “but utilities are choosing the most expensive and environmentally risky.”
NUCLEAR: The Navajo Nation agrees to allow Energy Fuels to transport uranium ore across tribal land from the company’s Grand Canyon-area mine to its Utah mill. (AZ Mirror)
ALSO: Wyoming lawmakers kill legislation that would have encouraged the federal government to establish an interim nuclear waste repository in the state, citing concerns it would end up being permanent. (WyoFile)
UTILITIES:
COAL:
SOLAR:
CLEAN ENERGY: Hawaii Gov. Josh Green signs an order aimed at accelerating clean energy targets and setting a goal of 50,000 distributed solar and battery installations by 2030. (Maui Now)
STORAGE: A Utah utility and a firm look to develop 70 MW of demand response capacity using flywheel energy storage systems. (news release)OIL & GAS: The U.S. EPA reports seven methane super-emission events over one week near oil fields and refineries in a southern California county. (KBAK, news release)
BIOFUELS:
CARBON CAPTURE: Northwestern New Mexico officials hope a direct air carbon capture hub proposed for the area will replace declining coal industry jobs. (New Mexico Political Report)
COMMENTARY: Colorado labor advocates say a new pro-clean energy union coalition aims to tackle the climate crisis while ensuring green jobs also prioritize workers. (Colorado Newsline)
CLIMATE: Montana’s Supreme Court upholds a landmark climate ruling saying the state’s fossil fuel-friendly permitting policies violate residents’ constitutional right to a clean environment. (Associated Press)
ALSO: Portland, Oregon’s city council votes to spend $300 million from its clean energy fund to install solar on low-income homes, build 230 net-zero energy housing units, decarbonize city vehicles and other climate projects. (OPB)
OVERSIGHT: The U.S. EPA greenlights California rules banning new gasoline-powered car sales by 2035 and establishing cleaner engine standards for heavy-duty trucks, drawing advocates’ praise and industry criticism. (Los Angeles Times)
OIL & GAS:
HYDROGEN: The U.S. Energy Department unveils plans to conduct environmental reviews for proposed hydrogen hubs in California and the Northwest. (E&E News, subscription; Oregon Capital Chronicle)
SOLAR:
TRANSPORTATION: The U.S. Transportation Department awards $49.7 million to the proposed Cascade high-speed rail project that would link Portland to Seattle and other Northwest cities. (KOIN)
COAL: A family files a lawsuit accusing a New Mexico coal mine of negligence that contributed to the 2022 death of a contract welder at the facility. (Cibola Citizen)
HYDROPOWER:
NUCLEAR: California startup Oklo signs on to provide a data center developer with up to 1,200 MW of power from its advanced nuclear reactors currently in development. (Utility Dive)
PUBLIC LANDS: An advocacy group files a lawsuit accusing Utah’s governor and attorney general of violating the state constitution with a legal bid to seize control of 18 million acres of “unappropriated” federal lands within its boundaries. (news release)
SOLAR: A Kentucky nonprofit is building net-zero homes with energy efficient construction and rooftop solar panels to lower energy costs for low-income residents, including in a housing development for survivors of the state’s 2022 floods. (Kentucky Lantern)
ELECTRIC VEHICLES:
OIL & GAS:
WIND: An emerging Texas wind company cites “fast-growing demand” for renewable energy from oil and gas producers in the Permian Basin as they move to decarbonize and upgrade power to their growing operations. (CleanTechnica)
STORAGE: Dominion Energy proposes a liquified natural gas storage facility in southern Virginia, while another company is leasing 85 acres in an industrial park for a lithium-ion battery storage facility. (Virginia Business)
EMISSIONS: Two Georgia military bases are at the forefront of the armed forces’ push to reduce emissions and counter climate change, including one that’s been described as the Defense Department’s “first net-zero energy base.” (Columbus Ledger-Enquirer)
BIOGAS:
NUCLEAR: Amazon signs an agreement with Dominion Energy to research the use of small modular nuclear reactors at an existing Virginia nuclear power plant. (Virginia Business)
CLIMATE:
GRID: Georgia officials schedule an open house to discuss a company’s plans to build a new transmission line. (WSAV)
UTILITIES: Southern Company is partnering with the Atlantic magazine’s marketing research team to discuss the energy transition in what an expert calls “nothing more than a propaganda effort.” (DeSmog)
POLITICS: West Virginia U.S. Sens. Joe Manchin and Shelley Moore Capito say the energy industry is headed in the right direction as it moves toward renewables and new technology while also producing more fossil fuels. (WV Metro News)
COMMENTARY: South Carolina-owned utility Santee Cooper should modulate its proposed rate increase with carve-outs that incentivize energy efficiency and renewables, writes a climate advocate. (Post and Courier)
ELECTRIC VEHICLES: As Indiana starts to deploy $100 million in federal funding for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, an alliance wants to make sure state officials are including chargers in Black and disadvantaged communities. (Indianapolis Star)
ALSO:
UTILITIES:
COAL: Cancer rates related to air pollution are 12% higher near plants that use coal to make steel compared to national rates, and 26% higher for residents living near coke plants, a new study found. (Inside Climate News)
PIPELINES:
WIND: An Iowa county board expands a moratorium on wind turbines to include various other items such as towers and wind-measuring equipment. (Clinton Herald)
SOLAR: An installer completes construction on a 2.8 MW solar parking canopy project at the Cincinnati Zoo in Ohio. (Solar Power World)
OVERSIGHT: A Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa citizen is running for a seat on the North Dakota Public Service Commission opposing plans for a carbon pipeline, while the incumbent Republican wants renewable developers to pay “their share” of grid infrastructure costs. (North Dakota Monitor)
GRID: Power plant owners support PJM’s proposal to delay an upcoming capacity auction by six months to craft new capacity market rules, but warn that longer delays could erode investor confidence. (Utility Dive)
BIOFUELS: Backers say extending a federal biofuel tax credit by 10 years would provide farmers economic certainty and help jumpstart the sustainable aviation fuel industry. (Michigan Farm News)
COMMENTARY: Xcel Energy’s proposal to build 800 MW of distributed solar and storage comes as the utility stifles attempts by customers to deploy distributed projects, a clean energy advocate writes. (Canary Media)
.svg)
