Back
New York just took a big leap toward zero-emissions buildings.
On July 25, the State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council approved an all-electric building standard, making New York the first state in the nation to prohibit gas and other fossil fuels in most new buildings. Legislators and climate advocates celebrated the move, which had been mandated under the pathbreaking 2023 All-Electric Buildings Act.
“I’m excited that we are finally tackling, statewide, our largest source of fossil-fuel emissions,” said state Assemblymember Emily Gallagher, who sponsored the 2023 legislation. Buildings account for 31% of the Empire State’s planet-warming pollution.
New York is forging ahead on building decarbonization at the same time the federal government is backtracking, yanking support for renewable power and home energy efficiency and providing the fossil-fuel industry with new subsidies.
The state’s rules will apply to new structures up to seven stories tall and, for commercial and industrial buildings, up to 100,000 square feet beginning Dec. 31, 2025. Buildings bigger than that will need to be built all-electric starting in 2029. The new code will spur installations of heat pumps and heat-pump water heaters — ultra-efficient electric appliances that are good for the planet and, typically, pocketbooks.
The council left room for exceptions, though, including new laboratories, crematoriums, restaurants, and large buildings whose owners can prove the grid isn’t ready to accommodate their sizable all-electric heating needs. Michael Hernandez, a policy director at electrification advocacy nonprofit Rewiring America, said he doesn’t think the exemptions will eat away at the code’s efficacy, however.
With the rules finalized, “I’m relieved,” Gallagher told Canary Media. Fossil-fuel interests — such as the utility front group, New Yorkers for Affordable Energy — “really worked overtime to try to stop this,” she said.
The new regulations come on the heels of a recent legal victory: On July 23, a federal district court in New York upheld the state’s ability to implement the All-Electric Buildings Act.
The groups challenging the law in court — including the New York State Builders Association, National Association of Home Builders, National Propane Gas Association, and a few local union chapters for plumbers and electricians — alleged that it’s preempted by the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the same justification used to overturn Berkeley, California’s pioneering ban on gas hookups in new construction. The New York judge was unconvinced by this argument, noting that the Berkeley decision relied on “deficient interpretations” of terms like “energy use,” and is “simply not persuasive.”
Opponents of the standard haven’t quit, though. An industry coalition that includes many of the organizations that brought the lawsuit sent a letter on June 26 to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi requesting that the Department of Justice move to block the code from taking effect. Michael Fazio, lead author of the letter and the executive director of the New York State Builders Association, declined to comment on the request’s status to Canary Media.
The state’s new energy code is expected to raise the cost of residential construction but also lower energy bills substantially for homeowners and renters, making it cost-effective overall with a payback of 10 years or less, according to a report commissioned by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Over 30 years, households are expected to save an average of about $5,000 due to a 17% reduction in energy use.
Other research indicates all-electric construction is typically less expensive than that for buildings equipped to burn gas or fuel oil. Electric-only projects allow developers to forgo installing costly fossil-fuel infrastructure alongside the electrical systems requisite in modern buildings. A 2022 analysis by the decarbonization nonprofit New Buildings Institute, for example, found that building an all-electric single-family home in New York costs about $8,000 less.
The all-electric code will improve air quality by reducing reliance on fossil-fuel-fired boilers, furnaces, water heaters, and stoves. These conventional appliances spew harmful byproducts such as carbon monoxide, particulate matter, benzene, nitrogen oxides, and more, which can cause respiratory and cardiovascular issues — to lethal effect. In 2017, fossil-fuel use from New York buildings caused $21.7 billion in health impacts and nearly 2,000 premature deaths, more than in any other state.
Gas stoves, typically the largest sources of exposure to indoor air pollutants, are linked to nearly one in five asthma cases in children in New York, according to a 2022 study. “Places like the Bronx have the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country,” said Jumaane Williams, public advocate of New York City, in a call with reporters on Friday. “We know this is a life-and-death situation.”
“Numerous studies … show that both air pollution and climate change disproportionately impact low-income communities and communities of color,” said Lonnie Portis, director of policy and legislative affairs at the community-based nonprofit WE ACT for Environmental Justice. The state’s all-electric building standard “is a significant step forward for environmental and climate justice.”
The new rules will not only get heat pumps into new construction but help boost adoption in existing homes, according to Jay Best, CEO of home energy-efficiency company Green Team Long Island.
“We’re always telling people about heat pumps … solutions that are going to save them money and make their homes more comfortable,” Best told Canary Media. “But people are apprehensive because it’s something they’re not used to,” despite heat pump units outselling gas furnaces nationally.
“The code … sets a bar; this is the minimum that the state says is legal to build,” Best said. That “changes people’s view of the technology.”
Alex Beauchamp, Northeast region director at Food & Water Watch, underscored that passing the All-Electric Buildings Act and getting it into the state code was a victory of David-and-Goliath proportions, with “fossil-fuel companies, plus the gas utilities, plus big real estate” rallied in opposition, he said.
“When New Yorkers come together … we can win even in the face of opponents with an almost-limitless budget,” he said. “That is how we won this bill. It’s also how we are going to continue the fight to get fossil fuels out of all the existing buildings in the state.”
Kamloops, British Columbia, is a radiant place, receiving over 3,100 hours of sunshine a year. So it’s no wonder that in 2016, Thompson Rivers University (TRU) decided to harness all that luminescence and convert it to electricity.
If the university’s solar array had been installed on a roof or mounted above ground in a corner of a soccer field, that probably would have been the end of the story. Instead, TRU didn’t follow trends — it set one: It became the first place in Canada to embed solar panels into the ground. By 2017, a 12-meter walkway with 16 solar modules near the campus daycare, together with a compass (sunburst) design of 62 modules in front of the arts and education building, were producing power. By its second summer of operation, the compass produced enough electricity to power an entire classroom of computers at TRU’s arts and education building for the day.
For Amie Schellenberg, an electrical instructor at TRU and part of the team that spearheaded the sidewalks, ground-mounted solar arrays just make sense.
“Why wouldn’t we use the space we already have?” she asks. “We don’t need to create new space, or repurpose anything. We don’t need to plow fields or redo rooftops — the ground is there.” Historically, solar panels have been mounted above ground, typically on roofs or in gigantic solar parks. But wide-open spaces and sunlit rooftops aren’t always an option in cities.
“It’s hard to integrate traditional rooftop solar into urban centers,” says Gilbert Michaud, chair of the American Solar Energy Society’s policy division. “Buildings shade each other and condo buildings may have restricted HOA policies. It makes it really hard for people in urban environments to install solar, even though population centers have a demand for cool energy and want to see it.”
This is where in-ground solar shines. In 2021, the city of Barcelona installed Spain’s first photovoltaic (PV) pavement as part of the city’s goal to become climate neutral by 2030. In the Netherlands, an embedded 400-meter solar sidewalk in front of Groningen Town Hall is powering the building as part of that city’s ambition of becoming CO2 neutral by 2035. The project is part of the European Union’s Making City project, which aims to develop positive energy districts (PEDs) that demonstrate innovative solutions to tackle climate-neutral goals. The 400-square-meter installation is projected to offset approximately 18 tons of CO2 annually. “It is an example of how to use space in the city in a smart and sustainable way,” Philip Broeksma, councilor of energy from the Municipality of Groningen said when the sidewalks were revealed in 2023.
With places around the world looking to produce more solar energy, the question is: Can in-ground solar be scaled to meet demand?
Most solar installs are fixed tilts at a 45-degree angle, Michaud explains. “Larger installations [such as solar farms] move with the sun to capture as much light as possible. A horizontal sidewalk is much less efficient,” he says.
Not everyone agrees. Pavegen, a U.K.-based company, has combined the concept of in-ground solar tiles with the kinetic energy generated by people’s footsteps. When someone walks across the tile, a mechanism underneath it triggers an electric current that generates power.
“An example of kinetic [foot power] alone in Yosemite National Park has exceeded 35 million joules of energy. That’s equivalent to around 9,000 kilometers on an e-bike, or 10,000 hours of talk-time on a standard smartphone,” says Paul Price, head of marketing and communications for Pavegen. “When the tiles capture solar energy, they generate 30 times more.”
Pavegen’s Solar+ system, which uses the combined power of solar energy and kinetic energy, is poised for large-scale distribution this fall. Suited for integration into school campuses and city promenades, it will be able to power everything from LED streetlights to digital devices.
But how durable is the surface of a solar panel? The solar paths at TRU were covered with an epoxy and finished with a gritty, anti-slip surface that felt spongy to walk on, but this still wasn’t enough to protect the array from a Canadian winter.
“We do get snow every winter,” Schellenberg says. “And to be honest, every year, something new happened, whether it was a piece of rail that lifted off, or a couple of fasteners, or there was some water seepage underneath.”
Since the installation of TRU’s sidewalks, technology has advanced, and according to Price, companies such as Pavegen now design installations with integrated drainage channels beneath the sub-frame, ensuring water flows away efficiently and doesn’t compromise performance or safety. But despite this, installing inground solar tiles is no easy feat.
At TRU, troughs had to be cut into the concrete for wires that connect the array to the university’s electrical grid. Solar panels generate DC (direct current) electricity, so an inverter cabinet, to convert the current to usable AC (alternating current), was installed inside the arts and education building. These infrastructure changes aren’t cheap. A sustainability grant of $35,000 Canadian from the university covered the cost, not including the panels, which were donated. Schellenberg says the power generated from the sidewalks has offset this cost and it all has broken even financially. Still, she and Michaud concur that, as things stand now, in-ground solar in North America can be expensive and may lack electrical efficiency. The good news is that they both see change on the horizon.
“As the technology gets better, costs go down, and as policies are adopted, including tax credits, it becomes much more feasible,” Michaud says. Schellenberg imagines unlimited possibilities for the technology, both big and small. “An unused corner of a Walmart parking lot could become a solar-generating hub,” she muses.
In fact, this is an idea that has already reaped dividends in Moult, France. The Lidl supermarket has installed 50 square meters of in-ground solar panels in a back corner of its parking lot to reduce its energy bill. In one year, the panels produced the equivalent of 7,000 hours of use for five cash registers.
As fossil fuel-powered vehicles become antiquated and EVs increase in popularity, Schellenberg sees wireless in-ground solar EV charging stations becoming commonplace. “This could be the boost that those EVs need to make it the next 100 kilometers,” she notes.
In Amsterdam and Paris, this is already proving successful. Select bus stops and terminals are embedded with solar panels that collect energy and store it in batteries below the surface. As an electric bus pulls into the stop to pick up passengers, it’s able to draw power from the embedded system and top up its charge without needing to return to the central depot. A single charging point can produce 15 to 20 kilowatt-hours per day, enough to power a bus for several kilometers. At TRU, the in-ground solar arrays were a prototype and never meant to produce a lot of power. In the six years they were operational (2016 to 2022), they generated just enough electricity to power a single home for half a year. To put this into perspective, Topaz Solar Farm in San Luis Obispo County, California, is the largest in the U.S., spanning 4,700 acres. Over nine million above-ground mounted solar panels supply power to approximately 180,000 homes.
By 2023, the sidewalks had stopped producing power and couldn’t be maintained, but they weren’t removed. Schellenberg hopes that when people see them, they are inspired to think outside the box. She’s proud of the project and doesn’t measure its success in kilowatt hours but rather in what’s possible when it comes to renewable energy solutions. “It is another extension of finding ways to solve problems,” she says.
Five years ago, B2U Storage Solutions proved that old EV batteries could hook up to the grid to store clean energy, safely and cheaply. Now the company is taking the concept to Texas.
B2U just broke ground on a second-life grid battery project in Bexar County, near San Antonio, the company told Canary Media. In the next 12 months, B2U will complete four projects in the region, totalling 100 megawatt-hours of storage, CEO Freeman Hall said. The move marks a major expansion for the scrappy innovator, at a time of increased interest in the value of used EV batteries.
On paper, it makes perfect sense: Putting old EV batteries to work on the grid tackles the waste stream created by the growing adoption of EVs while expanding clean energy storage at a discount compared to brand-new lithium-ion batteries. But delivering on the concept efficiently and safely is much harder in practice, and after years of trying, the industry has only installed a handful of utility-scale grid batteries.
B2U stores up to 28 MWh at its first project, in Lancaster, California, and also developed two other smaller facilities in that state. Another company, Element Energy, built a record 53-MWh second-life storage plant in Texas last year. Earlier this summer, lithium-ion recycling startup Redwood Materials beat that record: It unveiled a second-life battery business that includes a 63-MWh storage plant to serve an on-site data center in the Nevada desert.
B2U’s new portfolio won’t set any individual records, but it could prove out the repeatability of the second-life model. In developing for the Texas market, B2U focused on areas near population centers that face transmission constraints. It designed the projects as 10-MW systems with a little over two hours of discharge at full capacity, allowing them to qualify for a fast-track permitting program in the grid managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or ERCOT.
Once built, the batteries can arbitrage from cheap hours when the state’s massive solar fleet is cranking to peak-demand hours when electricity prices shoot up. Batteries, with their ability to instantly inject or absorb power, can also compete to provide various other forms of grid-stabilizing services in the ERCOT markets.
“Texas has been a very strong market with ever more volatility,” Hall said. “And that’s what storage does well, is take advantage of volatile conditions.”
The expansion draws on the company’s five-year track record of operating second-life batteries on the grid, and making money at it.
One lingering question for the sector has been how long the previously worn-down packs would survive when used for daily charging and discharging. The Lancaster project was designed to eke out 2,000 cycles from its initial batch of early Nissan Leaf batteries, Hall said; those packs have now exceeded that target.
Crucially, the equipment has not required much upkeep: Of the 2,000 battery packs that B2U operates so far, technicians have only had to pull out a single-digit number of them for maintenance, Hall noted. That has given the company confidence to dispatch the batteries a bit more intensely.
“We’ve got all these guardrails and real-time monitoring of the batteries that ensure safety, but we’re not as concerned about degrading the batteries,” Hall said. “They’re turning out to be pretty strong workhorses that don’t degrade as people thought they might.”
B2U said its first project, built in 2020, cost about $200 per kilowatt-hour, which at the time offered a roughly one-third discount compared to new battery systems. Today, new lithium-ion enclosures have come down to $150 to $180 per kilowatt-hour, Hall said, and B2U can deliver at half that rate based on the savings from used batteries. Accounting for additional costs associated with permitting, interconnection, and installation, a finished project comes in 30% to 40% cheaper than a new lithium-ion facility would, he added.
B2U has gotten this far with just $20 million raised in an extended Series A funding round, and another $8 million from the founders and friends. Hall built his California projects on the company’s balance sheet to prove out the concept, which was quite risky for most investors at the time. Consequently, B2U has reaped all the profits from those early investments.
Now, though, B2U has far less cash to throw at its projects than newly minted second-life competitor Redwood Materials. That company was founded by former Tesla Chief Technology Officer JB Straubel, a certified celebrity of the battery engineering world who swiftly raised $2 billion to tackle battery recycling. But Hall found Redwood’s arrival onto the scene more encouraging than intimidating.
“For the North American recycler that has raised the most capital and has been hyping the recycling opportunity the most to now make a big splash and say that they believe that the repurposing market can grow faster and generate more revenue than their core business — that’s quite the validation point,” Hall said.
Going forward, B2U has raised a fund to own its operating projects with a mix of outside equity, debt, and tax equity. That means Hall can sell off the projects to the fund (although B2U will keep a stake in them), freeing up money for new business activities. This sets the company up for faster growth than if it continued to support all its projects with its own corporate balance sheet.
Still, B2U maintains a rare distinction in the cleantech-startup universe: For relatively minor funds raised, the company has built real things that generate profits. Cleantech venture capitalists have heaped far more cash on pre-revenue companies chasing far more dubious propositions.
Five years ago was like “the first at-bat of the first inning” for second-life storage, Hall said, meaning he had a lot to prove in the field to dispel investor concerns about the novel technology. He took it slow on fundraising while he tackled those proof points.
“We’ve been very disciplined in deploying capital. That tends to be viewed by investors as a good thing, but the opportunity is such a big one right now that we need to do what’s smart for shareholders — and staying small probably no longer is as smart,” he reflected. “It’s probably time for us to grow, to take advantage of the opportunity in front of us.”
The starting gun for the long-promised U.S. nuclear renaissance might have just gone off.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced late last week that it has granted several key approvals that Holtec International needs to restart Michigan’s 800-megawatt Palisades Nuclear Plant three years after the facility shut down. Although the project still needs to clear some federal hurdles, the NRC’s action signals its intention to give Holtec the full go-ahead.
If Holtec succeeds in bringing Palisades back online this year as promised, it would be the first nuclear plant in the U.S. to restart after being closed down. Remarkably, it would be just the second or third reactor to come back online in the global history of civilian nuclear power.
Holtec President Kelly Trice praised the NRC’s move in a statement, calling it “an unprecedented milestone in U.S. nuclear energy.” The company expects the plant to come back online before the end of the year — an extremely ambitious target given the uncharted regulatory territory of a reactor restart and the industry’s history of construction delays.
Located on Lake Michigan and a two-hour drive from Chicago, the Palisades plant started producing electricity on New Year’s Eve 1971 and was shuttered a half-century later in May 2022 by utility Entergy because of cost issues. It was America’s eighth-oldest nuclear plant at the time of its closing, with a troubled history of temporary shutdowns due to equipment failures. Although its performance improved in the later years of the plant’s operation, Palisades closed 11 days ahead of its scheduled shutdown because of a reliability issue.
Holtec — whose main lines of business are decommissioning reactors and managing nuclear waste — bought the plant in June 2022. But just weeks into the decommissioning process, it made the surprise revelation that it intended to revive the plant instead. Up until that point, Holtec had no experience in constructing, operating, or restarting a nuclear power plant.
Despite that lack of experience, the relatively speedy NRC approval means that Holtec can now reinstall uranium fuel in the reactor as soon as August and begin the work of restarting the complex nuclear facility. About 600 full-time workers are currently employed at the plant.
Palisades is not the only shuttered reactor that’s being considered for reopening as part of the U.S. strategy to jump-start its flatlined nuclear industry. Last year, Microsoft announced a multibillion-dollar plan with plant operator Constellation Energy to restart Three Mile Island Unit 1 in Pennsylvania by 2028; it had been decommissioned in 2019 because of poor economics. Power provider NextEra Energy is also weighing reanimating Iowa’s only nuclear plant, the 50-year-old reactor at the Duane Arnold Energy Center, which closed in 2020 because of storm damage and cost issues.
Nuclear power has newfound social license in the U.S. Citizen support has climbed in recent years. The U.S., along with more than 20 other countries, vowed to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050 during the COP28 global climate conference in 2023.
Nuclear is now viewed by many as crucial to meeting the soaring electricity demand that’s being driven by an AI-spurred data-center frenzy along with the electrification of transportation and industry. Tech giants in particular are hungry for the clean, firm, 24/7 power that nuclear plants can provide, as their data centers crave round-the-clock electricity.
Aside from renaming post offices, bolstering nuclear power is the rare type of policy that can gain bipartisan agreement — the Biden administration initiated this atomic energy rally, and the Trump admin is maintaining its momentum.
Trump’s recent set of executive orders on nuclear power sped up the licensing process and minimized regulatory burdens, all in the service of fostering American “energy dominance.”
So it’s a good time to be a nuclear plant operator. Notoriously expensive nuclear reactors can now claim a bundle of incentives and subsidies. Consider all the goodies Holtec will be able to take advantage of.
Not everyone is enthusiastic about the Palisades reactor restart.
Kevin Kamps of anti-nuclear organization Beyond Nuclear told Canary Media that the NRC is “under tremendous pressure” and “bowing to Holtec’s schedule” as it “pushes the envelope on risk.”
He wrote in a statement, “The zombie reactor restart scheme is unneeded, insanely expensive for the public, and extremely high risk for health, safety, security, and the environment.”
The advocacy organization claims that Holtec “neglected critical safety maintenance from 2022 to 2024.” Beyond Nuclear is particularly worried about the impact of corrosion on a massive, expensive, and critical part of the reactor: the steam generator.
There are thousands of steam generator tubes in a pressurized water reactor like Palisades. In instances of corrosion, they are routinely re-sleeved or plugged, but Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear engineer and whistleblower, has testified in NRC proceedings that “the failure of a single tube would result in a release of radioactivity to the environment” and “a cascading failure of tubes could cause a reactor core meltdown and catastrophic release of hazardous radioactivity.”
Beyond Nuclear intends to appeal the NRC’s green light for restart once it’s finalized.
Unfortunately, restarting a few vintage plants would contribute little toward the broader goal of building hundreds of gigawatts of low-cost nuclear power. There just aren’t enough eligible decommissioned nuclear plants to make much of a difference.
Nuclear enthusiasts rave about the prospects for small modular reactors and other advanced reactors, with their novel designs, coolants, and fuels. But while those technologies are engineering marvels, they won’t do anything to drive down costs in the next few years.
A more direct solution to growing the U.S. nuclear fleet (and keeping up with a surging China) would be to build tried and tested models of big, traditional nuclear plants over and over again. Venture capital-funded consortia such as The Nuclear Co. and other parties are planning to do just that: deploy fleets of full-scale, licensed, and standardized reactor designs on sites with existing construction and operating licenses. It’s a strategy to avoid the first-of-a-kind shock of building a newer generation of reactor like Georgia’s Vogtle 3, which was years late and billions over budget.
Meanwhile, the NRC’s forthcoming approval of the Palisades recommissioning is a morale booster for the U.S. nuclear industry, which has needed to put some wins and megawatts on the board.
A correction was made on July 30, 2025: This story originally misstated which federal tax credits the Palisades plant would be eligible for if it restarted. The plant would be eligible for the 45Y production tax credit for new nuclear, not the 45U production tax credit for existing nuclear.
The country’s biggest power market is caught in a trap of its own making — and the more than 65 million people from the mid-Atlantic coast to the Great Lakes who rely on it for electricity will pay the price.
Last week, PJM Interconnection announced a new record in its annual capacity auction, the means by which the grid operator secures the resources it needs to maintain a reliable transmission grid across 13 states and Washington, D.C. Prices increased to $16.1 billion, up from last year’s already record-setting $14.7 billion and an eightfold increase compared to $2.2 billion for the 2023 auction.
Prices would have spiked even further if not for a cap instituted as part of a settlement agreement with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) reached in April. Even so, PJM estimates that residential customers could see utility bills rise by up to 5% in the years to come, or more than $100 in annual household costs — rate hikes that will occur on top of bill increases just now starting to hit customers as the result of last year’s auction.
These spiraling costs have galvanized both Republican and Democratic governors of states served by PJM to demand immediate reforms. “With billions of ratepayer dollars and the stability of our grid at stake, it is critical that PJM take concerted, effective action to restore state and stakeholder confidence,” governors from Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia wrote in a July letter to the grid operator.
But it’s unclear whether PJM can quickly solve the problems that are driving up costs. That’s because the core issue — barely any new generation capacity has been able to connect to the grid — will take years to resolve.
“You have a massive technical problem, which is the challenge to fix this broken interconnection queue and bring new resources online in a time of global uncertainty with tariffs, inflation, and supply chain issues that are slowing the construction and development of new generation resources,” Jon Gordon, a director at clean-energy trade group Advanced Energy United, said in a webinar last week dissecting the grid operator’s current predicament.
PJM isn’t the only U.S. regional grid operator struggling to get new power plants, solar and wind farms, and grid-scale batteries connected. But it has one of the worst track records, with projects taking an average of more than five years to move through the steps required to plug into the grid. Advanced Energy United gave PJM a D- score for its interconnection processes in a 2024 survey, the lowest of any U.S. grid operator.
The consequence has been a paltry amount of new generation and battery storage. PJM reported last week that about 2.7 gigawatts of new generation and “uprates” — existing projects that have augmented their capacity — had been added to its available pool of resources since its last auction. That’s the first such increase in the past four auctions, and a fraction of PJM’s roughly 180 GW of generation capacity.
Nor is PJM winning high marks for its efforts to fix its interconnection backlog. Critics say the grid operator has stalled on reforms that others have undertaken, including changes mandated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Last week, FERC ordered PJM to rework “conceptual proposals” that it said fail to meet federally mandated deadlines for implementing interconnection reforms.
In 2022, PJM froze the process for new projects seeking interconnection to deal with a backlog stretching back to the late 2010s. That backlog won’t be cleared until the end of 2026, leaving hundreds of gigawatts of prospective new supply in limbo.
“The market can’t work until the interconnection queue delay is fixed,” Clara Summers, campaign manager for the Citizens Utility Board, an Illinois-based utility customer watchdog group, said during last week’s webinar. An April study from research firm Synapse Energy Economics found that comprehensive interconnection reforms at PJM could save customers an average of $505 per year in utility bills and cut commercial and industrial electricity costs by 23% through 2040.
PJM noted in last week’s press release that it has processed more than 60% of the backlog in its interconnection queue. It also highlighted that more than 46 GW of “already-approved resources have yet to be built,” with many projects “navigating challenges outside PJM’s scope, such as permitting timelines, supply chain constraints and evolving project economics.”
Gordon pointed out that PJM’s interconnection bottlenecks have put energy developers in a very tough position. Nearly 95% of the grid operator’s backlog consists of solar, wind, and battery projects, and “many of those projects came into the queue pre-COVID,” he said.
Since then, interest rates have gone up dramatically, equipment costs have risen, and the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have undone federal incentives and policies supporting clean energy growth. “Whatever those developers were thinking about those projects back then, the economics, everything has completely changed,” he said.
The forecasted demand for electricity on PJM’s grid has also increased enormously in the past four years. The AI bubble has driven up PJM’s projected load growth by 5.5 GW from last year’s auction, largely due to new plans for data centers in the region.
But PJM may not be applying the proper amount of skepticism to calculating future demand growth from data centers, said Abe Silverman, an attorney, energy consultant, and research scholar at Johns Hopkins University.
Many data center developers are seeking interconnection in multiple states for duplicative project proposals, he noted. Other U.S. grid operators are “doing a much better job trying to get a handle on the data center load growth,” including winnowing out speculative or duplicative requests, he said during last week’s webinar.
Without such safeguards, PJM runs the risk of overestimating the amount of new generation it will need to meet future demand, which will drive up prices, Silverman said. “If you believe the PJM load forecast, we need to add five nuclear units’ worth of generation to the market every year between now and 2030. And that’s just an enormous challenge, both financially and logistically.”
In the face of these issues, PJM has largely emphasized the need to keep fossil-fueled power plants online and has blamed state clean-energy policies for driving coal-fired power plants to close prematurely.
That argument has been echoed by Todd Snitchler, CEO and president of the Electric Power Supply Association, a trade group representing power plant operators with a preponderance of fossil-gas power plants in their portfolios.
“In recent years, a combination of state and federal policy shifts and poor market signals led to the premature retirement of essential generation,” Snitchler said in a statement after this month’s auction. “Now, as demand grows and supply tightens, we can’t ignore the consequences of past decisions, and we must accept that reliability comes at a cost.”
About 34 GW of coal capacity have retired across PJM since 2013, according to federal data. PJM’s independent market monitor forecast last year that as much as 58 gigawatts of generation will be retired by 2030.
But Citizens Utility Board has emphasized that those retirements are happening in both Republican-led states without clean-energy and climate mandates, including Ohio and West Virginia, as well as in Democrat-led states such as Maryland and New Jersey, indicating that state policies aren’t the chief driver. The main reason coal plants are closing is that they are increasingly unable to compete in energy markets against cheaper gas-fired power plants, renewable energy, and batteries.
Growing power demand is starting to slow the pace of closures. PJM noted last week that 1.1 GW of power plants have withdrawn their retirement plans since last year’s auction. PJM has also forced fossil-fueled power plants in Maryland that were set to close this year to remain open to maintain grid reliability.
The Trump administration may cite PJM’s growing capacity problems to justify using emergency federal powers to require aging fossil-fueled power plants to remain running. The Department of Energy has already used those powers to demand that a coal plant in Michigan stay open, as well as an oil- and gas-fired power plant in Pennsylvania — a move that PJM has publicly supported and that climate and consumer advocates are challenging.
At the same time, PJM has yet to advance near-term options for bringing power online quickly, Summers said. PJM’s proposal to reuse the grid connections left open at retiring plants for new resources, such as batteries, is still awaiting FERC approval, she said.
In February, FERC approved PJM’s plans to revamp another process known as “surplus interconnection service,” which allows existing projects to add new technologies to boost their grid value — for example, adding batteries to wind and solar farms. But the changes have not yet led to new capacity being brought into the market, Summers said.
Meanwhile, PJM’s attempt to fast-track new gas-fired generation won’t help in the near term, Summers said. In May, the grid operator announced 51 new projects selected through its Reliability Resource Initiative, which allows projects not already in the interconnection queue to propose additional resources to meet capacity needs. But most of the 9.4 GW of capacity secured through that process — and all of the newly built gas-fired power plant capacity — isn’t scheduled to be online until 2030 or later.
That’s not surprising. Major manufacturers have reported multiyear backlogs for gas turbines, restricting developers’ ability to add more capacity beyond what’s already in the works. These bottlenecks are likely to hamper similar fast-track efforts being undertaken by grid operators Midcontinent Independent System Operator and Southwest Power Pool.
Accelerating resources that can actually be built in the next two years — like solar and batteries — would be a better strategy to reduce costs, Silverman said.
“Prices are increasing right now because we don’t have enough supply,” he said. “We really have choked off that next generation of projects that should be coming in and taking those positions in the market.”
The rooftop solar industry is facing an unprecedented crisis. Utilities are cutting incentives. Major residential solar installers and financiers have gone bankrupt. And sweeping legislation just passed by Republicans in Congress will soon cut off federal tax credits that have supported the sector for 20 years.
But the fact remains that solar panels — and the lithium-ion batteries that increasingly accompany them — remain the cheapest and most easily deployable technologies available to serve the ever-hungry U.S. power grid.
Sachu Constantine, executive director of nonprofit advocacy group Vote Solar, thinks that the rooftop solar and battery industries can survive and even thrive if they focus their efforts on becoming “virtual power plants.”
Hundreds of thousands of battery-equipped, solar-clad homes across the country are already storing their renewable energy when it’s cheap and abundant and then returning it to the grid when electricity demand peaks and utilities face grid strains and high costs — in essence, acting as “peaker” power plants.
In places like Puerto Rico and New England, these VPPs have demonstrated their worth in recent months, preventing blackouts and lowering costs for consumers, and the approach could be scaled up dramatically. “If we do that, despite the One Big Beautiful Bill, despite the headwinds to the market, there is space for these technologies,” Constantine said.
Right now, there aren’t many other options for meeting soaring energy demand, he added. The megabill signed by President Donald Trump this month undermines the economics of the utility-scale solar and battery installations that make up the vast majority of new energy being added to the grid. And despite the Trump administration’s push for fossil fuels, gas-fired power plants can’t be built fast enough to make up the difference.
Meanwhile, the U.S. power grid has not expanded quickly enough, increasing the risk of outages and subjecting Americans to the burden of rising utility rates, Constantine said. State lawmakers and utility regulators are under growing pressure to find solutions.
Solar and batteries, clustered in small-scale community energy projects or scattered across neighborhoods, may be “the only viable way to meet load growth” from data centers, factories, and broader economic activity, Constantine said. And by relieving pressure on utility grids, they can help bring down costs not just for those who install them, but for customers at large.
This summer has brought new proof of how customers can turn their rooftop solar systems and batteries to the task of rescuing their neighbors from energy emergencies. Over the past two months, Puerto Rico grid operator LUMA Energy has relied on participants in its Customer Battery Energy Sharing program to prevent the grid from collapsing.
“Last night we successfully dispatched approximately 70,000 batteries, contributing around 48 megawatts of energy to the grid,” LUMA wrote in a July 9 social media post in Spanish. Amid a generation shortfall of nearly 50 MW, that dispatch helped avert “multiple load shedding events” — the industry term for rolling blackouts.
Puerto Ricans have been installing solar and batteries at a rapid clip since 2017, when Hurricane Maria devastated the island territory’s grid and left millions of people without power, some for nearly a year.
“There were tens of thousands of batteries already there that just needed to get connected in a more meaningful way,” said Shannon Anderson, a policy director focused on virtual power plants at Solar United Neighbors, a nonprofit that helps households organize to secure cheaper rooftop solar. “The numbers have been really proven out this summer in terms of what it’s been able to do.”
Puerto Rico’s VPPs are managed by aggregators — companies that install solar and battery systems and control them to support the grid. Tesla Energy, one such aggregator, provides live updates on how much the company’s Powerwall batteries are contributing to the system at large.
The impacts of distributed solar and batteries aren’t always so easy to track — but clean-energy advocates are busy calculating where they’re making a difference.
During last month’s heat wave across New England, as power prices spiked and grid operators sought to import energy from neighboring regions, distributed solar and batteries reduced stress on the grid. Nonprofit group Acadia Center estimated that rooftop solar helped avoid about $20 million in costs by driving down energy consumption and suppressing power prices.
A good portion of that distributed solar operates as part of the region’s VPPs. The ConnectedSolutions programs run by utilities National Grid and Eversource cut demand by hundreds of megawatts during summer heat waves. And Vermont utility Green Mountain Power has been a vanguard in using solar-charged batteries as grid resources at a large scale, in concert with smart thermostats, EV chargers, and remote-controllable water heaters. All told, that scattered infrastructure gives the company 72 extra megawatts of capacity to play with during grid emergencies.
Mary Powell, who led Green Mountain Power’s push into VPPs before that term had caught on, left to become CEO of Sunrun, the country’s largest residential solar installer, in 2021. Choosing to hire Powell indicated the company’s growing interest in becoming something of a solar-powered utility.
This summer, Sunrun dispatched hundreds of megawatts from more than 130,000 batteries across California, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico. It recently expanded into Texas’ competitive energy, in partnership with Tesla.
“We are living in the future of virtual power plants in places like Puerto Rico, and California, and New England, and increasingly Texas,” said Chris Rauscher, Sunrun’s head of grid services and electrification. “It’s just about other states putting that in place in their territories and letting it run.”
Sunrun, Vote Solar, and Solar United Neighbors have been working for the last year to advance state policies that support VPPs. So far this year, the groups have promoted model VPP legislation in states including Illinois, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and Virginia.
In May, Virginia passed a law requiring that utility Dominion Energy launch a pilot program to enlist up to 450 megawatts of VPP capacity, including at least 15 MW of home batteries, Anderson said.
The legislative effort has had less luck in New Mexico and Minnesota, where bills failed to advance, Anderson said. In Illinois, a proposed bill did not pass during the regular legislative session, but advocates hope to bring it back for consideration during the state’s “veto session” this fall, she said.
A lot more batteries are being added to rooftop solar systems in Illinois, Anderson noted — a byproduct of the state clawing back net-metering compensation for solar-equipped customers starting this year. Similar dynamics have played out in Hawaii and California after regulators reduced the value of solar power that customers send back to the grid, making batteries that can store extra power and further limit customers’ grid consumption much more popular.
Rooftop solar advocates have fought hard to retain net-metering programs across the country. But Jenny Chase, solar analyst with BloombergNEF, noted that most mature rooftop solar markets have shifted away from rewarding customers for sending energy back to the grid at times when it’s not needed.
“In some ways that’s justified, because net metering pushes all responsibility and cost of intermittency onto the utility,” she said.
VPPs flip this dynamic, turning rooftop solar and batteries from a potentially disruptive imposition on how utilities manage and finance their operations to an active aid in meeting their mission of providing reliable power at a reasonable cost. Utilities have traditionally been leery of trusting customer-owned resources to meet their needs. But under pressure from lawmakers and regulators, they’re starting to embrace the possibilities.
In Minnesota, utility Xcel Energy has proposed a “distributed capacity procurement” program that would allow it to own and operate solar and batteries installed at key locations, letting the company defer costly grid upgrades. Rooftop solar advocates have mixed feelings about the proposal, given their longstanding complaints about Xcel’s track record of making it more difficult for customers and independent developers to build their own solar and battery systems.
Similar tensions are at play in Colorado, where Xcel is under state order to build distributed energy resources like rooftop solar and batteries into how it plans and manages its grid. This spring, Xcel launched a project with Tesla and smart-meter company Itron aimed at “taking these thousands of batteries we have connected to this system over time and [being] able to use them to respond to local issues,” Emmett Romine, the utility’s vice president of customer energy and transportation solutions, told Canary Media in an April interview.
But waiting for utilities to deploy the grid sensors, software, and other technology needed to perfectly control customers’ devices runs the risk of delaying the growth of VPPs, Anderson said. Simpler approaches like those being taken in Puerto Rico — where aggregators manage VPPs — can do a lot of good quickly. “Once you get that to scale, there will be a lot of learnings for the next stage,” she said
State- and utility-level incentives that encourage individuals to participate in VPPs are also a vital countermeasure against the damage incurred by the “big, beautiful bill” passed by Republicans this month, Anderson said. Under that law, households will lose a 30% tax credit that offsets the cost of solar, batteries, and other home energy systems by the end of this year.
However, companies such as Sunrun and Tesla will retain access to tax credits for solar systems that they own and provide to customers through leases or power purchase agreement structures, as long as they begin construction by mid-2026 or are placed in service by the end of 2027. And tax credits for batteries remain in place until 2033 for these companies.
VPP programs can’t make up for the loss of the tax credit for customers who haven’t yet installed solar or batteries, Anderson said. But by financially rewarding participants, they can help consumers recoup initial costs, she said, as long as they aren’t hampered by ineffective state policies.
“Folks can earn over $1,000 a summer through [some VPPs],” she said. “You couple in the leasing model for solar and storage, which is going to get a little more popular in the aftermath of the bill,” due to its ability to continue to earn tax credits, “and I think it’s a pretty good way to get batteries for low or no cost up front.”
It’s getting easier and easier to find a public EV charger in the U.S.
Between 2020 and 2024, the number of public EV charging ports available to U.S. drivers doubled, reaching nearly 200,000 by the end of last year, according to International Energy Agency data. Northeast states have the highest charger density by far, with Massachusetts at the top of the list.
It’s solid growth, though significantly slower than other regions that have embraced EVs more wholeheartedly. In Europe and China, both of which are adopting EVs much faster than the U.S., public chargers roughly quadrupled over the same period.
Even though an estimated 80% of charging happens at home in the U.S., concerns about a lack of public charging infrastructure have dogged EV adoption for years. American drivers consistently cite the issue, or its close cousins, like a fear that EVs are no good for road trips, as among the top reasons they are unlikely to get an electric car.
That’s why widely available public EV charging ports are so important to the transition to electric vehicles — a shift that needs to happen for the U.S. to clean up transportation, its biggest source of carbon emissions.
If the number of public plugs continues to grow at the rate observed in recent years, the industry would have over half a million public charging ports available by 2030, enough to meet a goal set by the Biden administration years ago.
That might be a big “if” under President Donald Trump.
Since taking office in January, Trump has tried to freeze billions of dollars’ worth of federal funding for public EV charging authorized by the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law. A judge ruled last month that the administration must turn the spigot back on. The program was already sluggish to begin with, having funded the installation of just a couple hundred charging ports over the last four years, and the Trump turmoil has only thrown more sand in its gears.
Then there’s the possibility that EV sales slow down in the U.S. after Sept. 30, when Trump’s megabill eliminates federal tax credits for consumers. Fewer EVs hitting the road could undermine the economic case for companies to build new charging stations.
Still, it’s true that chargers are becoming a more familiar sight for drivers — especially those in the Northeast. As time goes on, that familiarity should help erode the stubborn perception that EVs are unworkable, and help push more and more people to embrace electric, emissions-free driving.
So far, 2025 has been a mixed bag for EV sales in the U.S. A record 607,089 EVs left the lot in the first six months of the year, Cox Automotive reports, but sales in the second quarter were still lower than in Q2 2024.
A big part of that Q2 decline has to do with Tesla, which remains the U.S.’s top EV seller but has suffered stateside and around the world thanks to CEO Elon Musk’s stint in the White House. This week, Tesla reported its profits dropped 16% in Q2 compared to the same period last year. Tesla doesn’t report its sales, but it delivered nearly 60,000 fewer vehicles in Q2 compared to a year ago.
General Motors, meanwhile, had better news to share. It sold 46,280 EVs in Q2, more than double its sales in the same period last year. That’s still a far cry from Tesla’s 380,000-plus deliveries, but it was enough to make GM the No. 2 EV brand in the U.S. And slower EV sales across the industry aren’t deterring GM CEO Mary Barra, who said the company sees EV production as its “North Star.”
Rivian reported a delivery decline in the second quarter but still plans to build new headquarters and an EV factory in Georgia. Smaller EV company Lucid says it delivered a record 3,309 cars in Q2.
Be prepared, though, for a rollercoaster in the next few months now that the “Big, Beautiful Bill” has sent EV tax credits to an early grave. Cox Automotive predicts EV sales will hit a new record in Q3 as buyers race to use federal incentives before they expire at the end of September. After that? “A collapse in Q4, as the electric vehicle market adjusts to its new reality.”
Trump calls off loan for major transmission line
The Trump administration this week canceled a $4.9 billion federal loan guarantee for the Grain Belt Express, putting its future in jeopardy, Canary Media’s Jeff St. John reports.
The planned transmission line, which was granted its loan guarantee under the Biden administration, is meant to bring wind and solar power generated in the Great Plains to cities further east. It has been in the works for more than a decade, and construction on its first phase was slated to start next year.
While the Grain Belt Express had support from utility regulators and large electricity consumers along the line’s route, Missouri Republicans turned against it in recent weeks. The state’s Republican attorney general launched an investigation into the project earlier this month, and Sen. Josh Hawley said he made a direct appeal to President Trump to pull back federal support.
Can the EPA revoke all its emissions rules at once?
The U.S. EPA is planning to demolish the bedrock of many of its climate change-fighting regulations, The New York Times reports. The agency is reportedly preparing a rule that would rescind the 2009 “endangerment finding,” which scientifically established that greenhouse gases harm human health. That finding underpins many of the EPA’s landmark emissions rules, including regulations targeting pollution from cars, factories, and power plants. If the finding is revoked, it would immediately end all those limits and make it harder for future presidential administrations to reinstate them.
The draft of the rule change doesn’t dispute that climate pollutants like carbon dioxide and methane drive global warming or put people’s health at risk, according to the Times. Instead, it claims the endangerment finding oversteps the EPA’s authority. The new rule is almost certain to face legal challenges if it’s finalized.
A “shadow ban” on renewables? Democrats, advocates, and industry groups push back on the Trump administration’s decision to heighten reviews for proposed solar and wind projects on federal land, saying it could lead to a clean energy “shadow ban.” (E&E News)
Shaving solar costs: Solar industry veteran Andrew Birch says cutting non-equipment costs like permitting and project management can reduce the price of rooftop solar installations as federal incentives expire. (Canary Media)
Reeling in the deep: The U.S. government’s step toward issuing The Metals Co. deep-sea mining permits conflicts with an international treaty, leaving the startup’s partners abroad wary of continuing to work together. (New York Times)
Can SMRs succeed? Nuclear industry leaders say there’s enough momentum and funding behind small modular reactor development to propel the sector beyond its past failures. (Canary Media)
Data center downgrade: OpenAI’s Stargate project softens its ambitious plans and is now only looking to build one small data center this year, which could have fallout for energy developers who would have powered the projects. (Wall Street Journal)
Carbon capture’s secret supporters: The oil and gas industry has played a big role in crafting an Ohio carbon-capture bill that could help keep fossil fuel operations running. (Canary Media)
Rates on the rise: U.S. utilities have requested or secured a record $29 billion in rate increases in the first half of the year, more than double the total reached halfway through 2024. (Latitude Media)
A controversial bill to unravel North Carolina’s climate law would cost the state more than 50,000 jobs annually and cause tens of billions of dollars in lost investments, a new study finds. The research comes days before the Republican-controlled state legislature aims to override a veto of the measure by Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat.
First passed by the Senate in March, the wide-ranging Senate Bill 266 repeals the 2030 deadline by which utility Duke Energy must curb its climate pollution 70% compared to 2005 levels. It leaves intact a mandate that the company achieve carbon neutrality by midcentury.
Senate leader Phil Berger, a 13-term Republican from Rockingham County, has said his chamber will vote on the override Tuesday, July 29. The House, which approved the bill with bipartisan support in June, could attempt an override of Stein’s July 2 veto the same day.
Conducted by BW Research for clean energy nonprofits, the new analysis draws on earlier projections from Public Staff, the state-sanctioned customer advocate. That modeling showed that without a near-term climate goal, Duke would build about 40% less new generation capacity over the next decade — leaning harder instead on aging fossil-fueled units to meet demand.
The fresh research calculates the economic losses of foregoing those new power plants, including massive amounts of solar and wind along with 300 megawatts of new nuclear and 1,400 megawatts of combined-cycle gas plants.
From 2030 to 2035, North Carolina would see nearly 50,700 fewer jobs annually and over $47.2 billion sacrificed in power-plant construction, the study says. More than $1.4 billion in tax revenue would also be left on the table.
“This study conveys in real terms the impact of arbitrarily removing a market signal that has proven to be a job creator and an economic booster for North Carolina,” said Josh Brooks, chief of policy strategy and innovation with the North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association.
BW Research finds that if SB 266 became law, Duke would have 12 fewer gigawatts of capacity in 2035 to meet peaks in power demand, like those that happen on unusually cold winter mornings. Experts say the company would likely have to purchase more out-of-state power or rely more heavily on fossil fuels as a result.
“This limitation hampers the state’s ability to meet current energy needs and undermines its competitive edge in attracting energy-intensive industries,” the analysts say.
The new study is the second to show how Public Staff’s modeling belie claims from SB 266 proponents that the bill will save money and promote more power generation.
Late last month, three researchers from North Carolina State University found that with fewer solar, wind, and nuclear plants as projected by Public Staff, Duke would have to burn almost 40% more natural gas between 2030 and 2050.
Under a worst-case but plausible scenario for gas prices, the trio found, customers could pay $23 billion more in fuel costs on their electric bills by midcentury as a result. The figure would cancel out projected consumer savings from building fewer new sources of generation, a fact not lost on the governor.
“My job is to do everything in my power to lower costs and grow the economy,” Stein said in a statement when he vetoed SB 266 early this month. “This bill fails that test.”
In his veto message, Stein also referenced another study, from EQ Research, showing the measure would make energy more expensive for North Carolina households.
“[SB 266] shifts the cost of electricity from large industrial users onto the backs of regular people,” Stein said. “Families will pay more so that industry pays less.”
Still, the findings from independent researchers and the three NC State professors may not be enough to counter the lingering narrative that SB 266, dubbed the Power Bill Reduction Act, will help customers.
Duke Energy and major industrial groups have lined up in support of the measure — the latter falsely suggesting that solar power investments have raised electric rates.
The North Carolina Chamber, the state’s major business lobby, says the bill’s enactment would provide “businesses and consumers with more affordable, predictable energy costs.” The group plans to include SB 266 in its annual scorecard rating legislators’ performances.
Perhaps most daunting for clean energy advocates and other bill opponents is that several Democrats appear swayed by these arguments. While Republicans have enough members to overrule Stein in the upper chamber, they’re one vote shy in the House. With all members present, that means the 11 House Democrats who previously voted for SB 266 would need a change of heart to uphold Stein’s veto.
House Speaker Destin Hall, a Republican from Caldwell County, says that won’t happen.
“I’m disappointed in the governor’s veto of the ‘Power Bill Reduction Act,’ which would have delivered cheap, reliable energy to North Carolina, cut the red tape that is choking innovation and long-term energy solutions, and saved consumers over $12 billion dollars,” Hall said in statement moments after Stein rejected the bill. “Considering the strong bipartisan support in both chambers, we anticipate overriding this veto.”
But Will Scott, Southeast climate and clean energy director for the Environmental Defense Fund, hopes the study will help change lawmakers’ minds.
“This shows that passing this legislation is going to have negative consequences for our ability to meet growing demand,” he said, “and that’s going to have knock-on economic impacts across the state.”
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”.
.svg)
