Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

As the UK prepares its next carbon budget, what needs to be included?

News Feed
Friday, February 21, 2025

Labour will next week be confronted with stark policy choices that threaten to expose the fault lines between the Treasury and the government’s green ambitions, as advice for the UK’s next carbon budget is published.Plans for the energy sector, housing, transport, industry and farming will all be called into question in a sweeping set of recommendations for how the UK can meet the legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.Ministers will be given hundreds of pages of advice on steps they need to take for an expected reduction of emissions to about a quarter of today’s levels by 2040. The seventh carbon budget, which will be published on Wednesday, is the latest in a series stretching back to 2008.The timeframe for this advice goes far beyond the usual political horizon: the budget will set carbon levels from 2038 to 2042. But the Climate Change Committee, the statutory adviser under the Climate Change Act, is expected to warn that the UK is already falling badly behind.Although the CCC cannot prescribe policy, it can make recommendations and set out the limits within which the government can act – for instance, if airports are expanded and people take more flights, there will need to be much deeper cuts to carbon elsewhere in the economy.For that reason, the advice is likely to make uncomfortable reading for senior ministers. Green campaigners and businesses have grown increasingly alarmed at the rhetoric from sections of the cabinet, which has sometimes seemed to pit economic growth against environmental aims.Doug Parr, the chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, warned of a “growth at all costs, growth is king narrative” that was painting climate and nature concerns as a hindrance.Some recent decisions – to greenlight a new runway at Heathrow, and to continue subsidising the tree-burning power station Drax, albeit at a lower rate than before – have been protested against. Far worse has been the rhetoric: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor the exchequer, alarmed many when she said planning reforms would let developers “focus on getting things built and stop worrying over the bats and the newts”.A recent decision to continue subsiding the tree-burning Drax power station cast doubt on Labour’s green credentials. Photograph: Gary Calton/The ObserverYet the economic arguments for climate action are clear and well established. Mike Childs, the head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth, said: “The cost to the global economy [of failing to control temperature rises] could reach $38tn a year, according to research published in 2024. In the UK, about 6.3 million households are currently at risk of flooding, which could rise to around 8 million by 2050, according to the Environment Agency. It is not just economically prudent to invest in reducing carbon emissions – it would be extreme economic folly not to do so.”Several other big decisions are still in play, including regulations on housebuilders to make new-build homes low-carbon, and a review of nature and farming regulation. But most divisive of all is likely to be the decision over new oil and gas fields in the North Sea, many of which – including one of the biggest, Rosebank – are already in the licensing system. As Labour’s manifesto commitment was to award no new licences without revoking current ones, some in government are arguing for Rosebank to go ahead.Pitting green as the antithesis to growth also risks alienating business, says Rachel Solomon Williams, the executive director at the Aldersgate Group of companies that push for a green economy. “To create a strong and resilient economy we need to be taking the lead in the low-carbon sectors that will drive sustainable growth in the future,” she said. “Businesses across the country want to see a regulatory and policy landscape that rewards ambition and innovation in the private sector, rather than a race to the bottom.”With the UK well off track to meet its current carbon budgets, more action will be needed in the short and longer term, in every sector of the economy, involving changes to nearly every aspect of our lives from how we live at home to how we get around, what we work on and what we eat.Ministers must set the seventh carbon budget by the end of June 2026. They are likely to accept the recommended overall carbon target, but the detailed policy advice will be up for grabs. A spokesperson for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said: “We are committed to meeting our ambitious targets. Britain is back in the business of climate leadership because the only way to protect current and future generations is by becoming a clean energy superpower and leading global climate action.”EnergyIf the government meets its target of decarbonising the electricity system almost completely by 2030 – a very large “if” – that will not be the end of the story. Electricity supply must roughly double from current levels to meet future demand. Ed Matthew, the director of the UK programme at the E3G thinktank, said: “The power system is key because both heating and transport and about two-thirds of industry will need to be electrified. The 2030 target is really just the start of the electrification journey.”Grid upgrades will be needed, along with more focus on demand management, and storage will be key. E3G is calling for more investment in hydrogen, which can be stored in solid or liquid form for producing energy on demand.HomesHome heating makes up roughly 18% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, largely from using gas. By the 2040s, most homes will need to be using heat pumps, but their takeup has so far been stubbornly slow. Last summer, only about 250,000 homes were using heat pumps.They are more expensive to install than gas boilers, and are still not as cheap to run as they should be, because the way the UK’s electricity market works makes electricity much dearer compared with gas. There are even question marks over whether new homes will be built with heat pumps under forthcoming building regulations called the “future homes standard”.Ed Miliband, the energy and net zero secretary, sounded lukewarm on the technology recently when he told a select committee: “I am very wary of saying that we will stop people having gas boilers at a point when we cannot guarantee that heat pumps will be cheaper for people.”Yet there are currently no real alternatives to mass heat pump installations if the UK is to be weaned off gas. The CCC is expected to make this point forcefully.IndustryGiving up fossil fuels in industry will require far more electrification and investment in new technologies, such as electric arc furnaces for steel-making; hydrogen for use in chemicals, plastics and fertilisers; and low-carbon versions of cement. For some industries, the only option will be carbon capture and storage, to which the government will devote more than £20bn in the next two decades.All of this will require investment, but few private sector companies are taking the steps needed. Some are likely to be waiting to see what help the government might offer; others may be in engaged in a game of chicken, trying to bully ministers into watering down the UK’s net zero commitments.Williams, of the Aldersgate Group, said: “By making clear that it’s firmly committed to rapid decarbonisation, the government will provide much-needed economic certainty that will ultimately drive investment and generate prosperity.”TransportFrom 2035, it will be impossible to buy a new petrol or diesel car. Most of the UK’s 30 million strong fleet is likely still be reliant on fossil fuels for some years after, however. Electric vehicles are also no panacea: they still produce significant air pollution and are becoming heavier along with conventional cars.If decarbonisation targets are to be met, people will need to use public transport far more in future. This should also stimulate economic growth – according to the National Infrastructure Commission, the UK lags badly behind other European countries in the availability of public transport in many of its major regional cities, and this is a major brake on productivity.Although the government has begun to take the railways back into public ownership, returned bus services to regulatory oversight and backed an Oxford-Cambridge corridor, there is little sign of the joined-up national public transport strategy and investment in local networks such as trams that experts say is needed.FarmingHooting tractors jamming Whitehall in protest at the removal of inheritance tax breaks have set the tone for this government’s relationship with farmers. Yet farmers are vital to any net zero strategy, to grow more trees, preserve and re-wet peatlands, and reduce the increasing share of emissions from agriculture – which has already overtaken electricity and will be the biggest source of greenhouse gases in just over a decade, according to analysis from the Energy Climate Intelligence Unit.Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas of which animal manure is a leading source, must be tackled as a matter of urgency if the world is to avoid the worst ravages of climate breakdown.Farmers, who have been protesting against the removal of inheritance tax breaks, are vital to any net zero strategy. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPAAction is also in farmers’ own interests, according to Tom Lancaster, an analyst at the ECIU. “Farming is the sector perhaps most exposed to the risks of climate change. We’ve just seen one of the worst harvests in decades in the UK, as farmers battled through the wettest 18 months on record and relentless winter rainfall, made worse by climate change,” he said. “We will only see more terrible harvests and flooded and drought-stricken farms in the future if we don’t do more now to move faster towards net zero.”Behavioural changeThe last government refused to countenance any message that people would have to adapt their behaviour in order to bring down carbon emissions. But all the analysis from the CCC so far shows that without changing consumption, it will not be possible to create the low-carbon society needed. This need not be drastic, and it would be good for us: walking more, cycling where possible, taking public transport instead of the car, and eating less meat would all improve most people’s health.Getting that message across will face deep-seated obstacles, however, including accusations of nanny state-ism – and Keir Starmer’s claim that carbon targets can be reached “without telling people how to live their lives”. Childs, at Friends of the Earth, said proving the benefits was key: “The policy pathway for meeting our carbon budget must not only be robust enough to achieve them – it must also make people’s lives tangibly better, if the mandate for change is to remain strong.”

Expert recommendations will impact plans for energy, housing, transport industry and farming for decadesLabour will next week be confronted with stark policy choices that threaten to expose the fault lines between the Treasury and the government’s green ambitions, as advice for the UK’s next carbon budget is published.Plans for the energy sector, housing, transport, industry and farming will all be called into question in a sweeping set of recommendations for how the UK can meet the legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Continue reading...

Labour will next week be confronted with stark policy choices that threaten to expose the fault lines between the Treasury and the government’s green ambitions, as advice for the UK’s next carbon budget is published.

Plans for the energy sector, housing, transport, industry and farming will all be called into question in a sweeping set of recommendations for how the UK can meet the legally binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Ministers will be given hundreds of pages of advice on steps they need to take for an expected reduction of emissions to about a quarter of today’s levels by 2040. The seventh carbon budget, which will be published on Wednesday, is the latest in a series stretching back to 2008.

The timeframe for this advice goes far beyond the usual political horizon: the budget will set carbon levels from 2038 to 2042. But the Climate Change Committee, the statutory adviser under the Climate Change Act, is expected to warn that the UK is already falling badly behind.

Although the CCC cannot prescribe policy, it can make recommendations and set out the limits within which the government can act – for instance, if airports are expanded and people take more flights, there will need to be much deeper cuts to carbon elsewhere in the economy.

For that reason, the advice is likely to make uncomfortable reading for senior ministers. Green campaigners and businesses have grown increasingly alarmed at the rhetoric from sections of the cabinet, which has sometimes seemed to pit economic growth against environmental aims.

Doug Parr, the chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, warned of a “growth at all costs, growth is king narrative” that was painting climate and nature concerns as a hindrance.

Some recent decisions – to greenlight a new runway at Heathrow, and to continue subsidising the tree-burning power station Drax, albeit at a lower rate than before – have been protested against. Far worse has been the rhetoric: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor the exchequer, alarmed many when she said planning reforms would let developers “focus on getting things built and stop worrying over the bats and the newts”.

A recent decision to continue subsiding the tree-burning Drax power station cast doubt on Labour’s green credentials. Photograph: Gary Calton/The Observer

Yet the economic arguments for climate action are clear and well established. Mike Childs, the head of science, policy and research at Friends of the Earth, said: “The cost to the global economy [of failing to control temperature rises] could reach $38tn a year, according to research published in 2024. In the UK, about 6.3 million households are currently at risk of flooding, which could rise to around 8 million by 2050, according to the Environment Agency. It is not just economically prudent to invest in reducing carbon emissions – it would be extreme economic folly not to do so.”

Several other big decisions are still in play, including regulations on housebuilders to make new-build homes low-carbon, and a review of nature and farming regulation. But most divisive of all is likely to be the decision over new oil and gas fields in the North Sea, many of which – including one of the biggest, Rosebank – are already in the licensing system. As Labour’s manifesto commitment was to award no new licences without revoking current ones, some in government are arguing for Rosebank to go ahead.

Pitting green as the antithesis to growth also risks alienating business, says Rachel Solomon Williams, the executive director at the Aldersgate Group of companies that push for a green economy. “To create a strong and resilient economy we need to be taking the lead in the low-carbon sectors that will drive sustainable growth in the future,” she said. “Businesses across the country want to see a regulatory and policy landscape that rewards ambition and innovation in the private sector, rather than a race to the bottom.”

With the UK well off track to meet its current carbon budgets, more action will be needed in the short and longer term, in every sector of the economy, involving changes to nearly every aspect of our lives from how we live at home to how we get around, what we work on and what we eat.

Ministers must set the seventh carbon budget by the end of June 2026. They are likely to accept the recommended overall carbon target, but the detailed policy advice will be up for grabs. A spokesperson for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said: “We are committed to meeting our ambitious targets. Britain is back in the business of climate leadership because the only way to protect current and future generations is by becoming a clean energy superpower and leading global climate action.”

Energy

If the government meets its target of decarbonising the electricity system almost completely by 2030 – a very large “if” – that will not be the end of the story. Electricity supply must roughly double from current levels to meet future demand. Ed Matthew, the director of the UK programme at the E3G thinktank, said: “The power system is key because both heating and transport and about two-thirds of industry will need to be electrified. The 2030 target is really just the start of the electrification journey.”

Grid upgrades will be needed, along with more focus on demand management, and storage will be key. E3G is calling for more investment in hydrogen, which can be stored in solid or liquid form for producing energy on demand.

Homes

Home heating makes up roughly 18% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, largely from using gas. By the 2040s, most homes will need to be using heat pumps, but their takeup has so far been stubbornly slow. Last summer, only about 250,000 homes were using heat pumps.

They are more expensive to install than gas boilers, and are still not as cheap to run as they should be, because the way the UK’s electricity market works makes electricity much dearer compared with gas. There are even question marks over whether new homes will be built with heat pumps under forthcoming building regulations called the “future homes standard”.

Ed Miliband, the energy and net zero secretary, sounded lukewarm on the technology recently when he told a select committee: “I am very wary of saying that we will stop people having gas boilers at a point when we cannot guarantee that heat pumps will be cheaper for people.”

Yet there are currently no real alternatives to mass heat pump installations if the UK is to be weaned off gas. The CCC is expected to make this point forcefully.

Industry

Giving up fossil fuels in industry will require far more electrification and investment in new technologies, such as electric arc furnaces for steel-making; hydrogen for use in chemicals, plastics and fertilisers; and low-carbon versions of cement. For some industries, the only option will be carbon capture and storage, to which the government will devote more than £20bn in the next two decades.

All of this will require investment, but few private sector companies are taking the steps needed. Some are likely to be waiting to see what help the government might offer; others may be in engaged in a game of chicken, trying to bully ministers into watering down the UK’s net zero commitments.

Williams, of the Aldersgate Group, said: “By making clear that it’s firmly committed to rapid decarbonisation, the government will provide much-needed economic certainty that will ultimately drive investment and generate prosperity.”

Transport

From 2035, it will be impossible to buy a new petrol or diesel car. Most of the UK’s 30 million strong fleet is likely still be reliant on fossil fuels for some years after, however. Electric vehicles are also no panacea: they still produce significant air pollution and are becoming heavier along with conventional cars.

If decarbonisation targets are to be met, people will need to use public transport far more in future. This should also stimulate economic growth – according to the National Infrastructure Commission, the UK lags badly behind other European countries in the availability of public transport in many of its major regional cities, and this is a major brake on productivity.

Although the government has begun to take the railways back into public ownership, returned bus services to regulatory oversight and backed an Oxford-Cambridge corridor, there is little sign of the joined-up national public transport strategy and investment in local networks such as trams that experts say is needed.

Farming

Hooting tractors jamming Whitehall in protest at the removal of inheritance tax breaks have set the tone for this government’s relationship with farmers. Yet farmers are vital to any net zero strategy, to grow more trees, preserve and re-wet peatlands, and reduce the increasing share of emissions from agriculture – which has already overtaken electricity and will be the biggest source of greenhouse gases in just over a decade, according to analysis from the Energy Climate Intelligence Unit.

Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas of which animal manure is a leading source, must be tackled as a matter of urgency if the world is to avoid the worst ravages of climate breakdown.

Farmers, who have been protesting against the removal of inheritance tax breaks, are vital to any net zero strategy. Photograph: Tolga Akmen/EPA

Action is also in farmers’ own interests, according to Tom Lancaster, an analyst at the ECIU. “Farming is the sector perhaps most exposed to the risks of climate change. We’ve just seen one of the worst harvests in decades in the UK, as farmers battled through the wettest 18 months on record and relentless winter rainfall, made worse by climate change,” he said. “We will only see more terrible harvests and flooded and drought-stricken farms in the future if we don’t do more now to move faster towards net zero.”

Behavioural change

The last government refused to countenance any message that people would have to adapt their behaviour in order to bring down carbon emissions. But all the analysis from the CCC so far shows that without changing consumption, it will not be possible to create the low-carbon society needed. This need not be drastic, and it would be good for us: walking more, cycling where possible, taking public transport instead of the car, and eating less meat would all improve most people’s health.

Getting that message across will face deep-seated obstacles, however, including accusations of nanny state-ism – and Keir Starmer’s claim that carbon targets can be reached “without telling people how to live their lives”. Childs, at Friends of the Earth, said proving the benefits was key: “The policy pathway for meeting our carbon budget must not only be robust enough to achieve them – it must also make people’s lives tangibly better, if the mandate for change is to remain strong.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Making clean energy investments more successful

Tools for forecasting and modeling technological improvements and the impacts of policy decisions can result in more effective and impactful decision-making.

Governments and companies constantly face decisions about how to allocate finite amounts of money to clean energy technologies that can make a difference to the world’s climate, its economies, and to society as a whole. The process is inherently uncertain, but research has been shown to help predict which technologies will be most successful. Using data-driven bases for such decisions can have a significant impact on allowing more informed decisions that produce the desired results.The role of these predictive tools, and the areas where further research is needed, are addressed in a perspective article published Nov. 24 in Nature Energy, by professor Jessika Trancik of MIT’s Sociotechnical Systems Research Center and Institute of Data, Systems, and Society and 13 co-authors from institutions around the world.She and her co-authors span engineering and social science and share “a common interest in understanding how to best use data and models to inform decisions that influence how technology evolves,” Trancik says. They are interested in “analyzing many evolving technologies — rather than focusing on developing only one particular technology — to understand which ones can deliver.” Their paper is aimed at companies and governments, as well as researchers. “Increasingly, companies have as much agency as governments over these technology portfolio decisions,” she says, “although government policy can still do a lot because it can provide a sort of signal across the market.”The study looked at three stages of the process, starting with forecasting the actual technological changes that are likely to play important roles in coming years, then looking at how those changes could affect economic, social, and environmental conditions, and finally, how to apply these insights into the actual decision-making processes as they occur.Forecasting usually falls into two categories, either data-driven or expert-driven, or a combination of those. That provides an estimate of how technologies may be improving, as well as an estimate of the uncertainties in those predictions. Then in the next step, a variety of models are applied that are “very wide ranging,” Trancik says, “different models that cover energy systems, transportation systems, electricity, and also integrated assessment models that look at the impact of technology on the environment and on the economy.”And then, the third step is “finding structured ways to use the information from predictive models to interact with people that may be using that information to inform their decision-making process,” she says. “In all three of these steps, how you need to recognize the vast uncertainty and tease out the predictive aspects. How you deal with uncertainty is really important.”In the implementation of these decisions, “people may have different objectives, or they may have the same objective but different beliefs about how to get there. And so, part of the research is bringing in this quantitative analysis, these research results, into that process,” Trancik says. And a very important aspect of that third step, she adds, is “recognizing that it’s not just about presenting the model results and saying, ‘here you go, this is the right answer.’ Rather, you have to bring people into the process of designing the studies and interacting with the modeling results.”She adds that “the role of research is to provide information to, in this case, the decision-making processes. It’s not the role of the researchers to push for one outcome or another, in terms of balancing the trade-offs,” such as between economic, environmental, and social equity concerns. It’s about providing information, not just for the decision-makers themselves, but also for the public who may influence those decisions. “I do think it’s relevant for the public to think about this, and to think about the agency that actually they could have over how technology is evolving.”In the study, the team highlighted priorities for further research that needs to be done. Those priorities, Trancik says, include “streamlining and validating models, and also streamlining data collection,” because these days “we often have more data than we need, just tons of data,” and yet “there’s often a scarcity of data in certain key areas like technology performance and evolution. How technologies evolve is just so important in influencing our daily lives, yet it’s hard sometimes to access good representative data on what’s actually happening with this technology.” But she sees opportunities for concerted efforts to assemble large, comprehensive data on technology from publicly available sources.Trancik points out that many models are developed to represent some real-world process, and “it’s very important to test how well that model does against reality,” for example by using the model to “predict” some event whose outcome is already known and then “seeing how far off you are.” That’s easier to do with a more streamlined model, she says.“It’s tempting to develop a model that includes many, many parameters and lots of different detail. But often what you need to do is only include detail that’s relevant for the particular question you’re asking, and that allows you to make your model simpler.” Sometimes that means you can simplify the decision down to just solving an equation, and other times, “you need to simulate things, but you can still validate the model against real-world data that you have.”“The scale of energy and climate problems mean there is much more to do,” says Gregory Nemet, faculty chair in business and regulation at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, who was a co-author of the paper. He adds, “while we can’t accurately forecast individual technologies on their own, a variety of methods have been developed that in conjunction can enable decision-makers to make public dollars go much further, and enhance the likelihood that future investments create strong public benefits.”This work is perhaps particularly relevant now, Trancik says, in helping to address global challenges including climate change and meeting energy demand, which were in focus at the global climate conference COP 30 that just took place in Brazil. “I think with big societal challenges like climate change, always a key question is, ‘how do you make progress with limited time and limited financial resources?’” This research, she stresses, “is all about that. It’s about using data, using knowledge that’s out there, expertise that’s out there, drawing out the relevant parts of all of that, to allow people and society to be more deliberate and successful about how they’re making decisions about investing in technology.”As with other areas such as epidemiology, where the power of analytical forecasting may be more widely appreciated, she says, “in other areas of technology as well, there’s a lot we can do to anticipate where things are going, how technology is evolving at the global or at the national scale … There are these macro-level trends that you can steer in certain directions, that we actually have more agency over as a society than we might recognize.”The study included researchers in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Colorado, Maryland, Maine, California, Austria, Norway, Mexico, Finland, Italy, the U.K., and the Netherlands. 

German Coalition Agrees to Fast-Track Infrastructure, Scrap Unpopular Heating Law

BERLIN, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Germany's ruling coalition has agreed ‌a ​new law to fast-track infrastructure projects ‌and to scrap clean-heating...

BERLIN, Dec 11 (Reuters) - Germany's ruling coalition has agreed ‌a ​new law to fast-track infrastructure projects ‌and to scrap clean-heating legislation in favour of a broader law ​on modernising buildings, Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Thursday.Merz's government, which took power seven months ago, has ‍pledged to revive Germany's sluggish economy, ​Europe's largest, by accelerating projects to improve infrastructure.The conservative chancellor said a wide range of ​transport schemes ⁠would be classified as being of "overriding public interest" under the new law, giving them priority in planning and approval processes.All related administrative procedures will move to a "digital only" standard intended to shorten timelines, while electrifying rail lines of up to 60 kilometres (37 miles) will no longer require ‌an environmental impact assessment, he said."Environmental protection remains important but it can no longer block ​urgently ‌needed measures through endless procedures," ‍Merz told ⁠a press conference following Wednesday evening's cabinet meeting.Germany was long admired for the efficiency of its infrastructure but has been increasingly criticised for letting it decay due to successive governments' aversion to taking on new debt.Breaking with that fiscal tradition, Merz's government earlier this year pushed through debt reforms to borrow hundreds of billions of euros in a special fund, though critics say some of that fiscal firepower has ​been used to prop up day-to-day spending.MORE FLEXIBILITY ON TECHNOLOGY CHOICESOn heating, Merz confirmed the coalition would scrap a contested law that requires most newly installed systems to run largely on renewable energy.The measure, pushed through by the previous centre-left government, triggered a backlash from homeowners and opposition parties and was widely seen as contributing to a sharp slump in support for the coalition that eventually collapsed.The revamped Building Modernisation Act will keep the goal of cutting emissions from buildings but give households more flexibility over technology choices and timelines. The government plans to send it to parliament ​by next spring.With five state elections looming next year, Merz's conservatives and their junior coalition partner, the centre-left Social Democrats, need some wins after a series of political blunders.Support for both parties has dropped since February's federal election, while the far-right Alternative ​for Germany has shot into pole position in nationwide surveys.(Reporting by Sarah Marsh; editing by Matthias Williams and Gareth Jones)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.Photos You Should See – December 2025

The Navajo Nation said no to a hydropower project. Trump officials want to ensure tribes can’t do that again.

The U.S. Energy Secretary said allowing tribes to weigh in on energy projects on their land creates "unnecessary burdens to the development of critical infrastructure."

Early last year, the hydropower company Nature and People First set its sights on Black Mesa, a mountainous region on the Navajo Nation in northern Arizona. The mesa’s steep drop offered ideal terrain for gravity-based energy storage, and the company was interested in building pumped-storage projects that leveraged the elevation difference. Environmental groups and tribal community organizations, however, largely opposed the plan. Pumped-storage operations involve moving water in and out of reservoirs, which could affect the habitats of endangered fish and require massive groundwater withdrawals from an already-depleted aquifer.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has authority over non-federal hydropower projects on the Colorado River and its tributaries, ultimately denied the project’s permit. The decision was among the first under a new policy: FERC would not approve projects on tribal land without the support of the affected tribe. Since the project was on Navajo land and the Navajo Nation opposed the project, FERC denied the permits. The Commission also denied similar permit requests from Rye Development, a Florida-based company, that also proposed pumped-water projects. Now, Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright wants to reverse this policy. In October, Wright wrote to FERC, requesting that the commission return to its previous policy and that giving tribes veto power was hindering the development of hydropower projects. The commission’s policy has created an “untenable regime,” he noted, and “For America to continue dominating global energy markets, we must remove unnecessary burdens to the development of critical infrastructure, including hydropower projects.”  Wright also invoked a rarely used authority under the Federal Powers Act to request that the commission make a final decision no later than December 18. And instead of the 30 to 60 days generally reserved for proposed rule changes, the FERC comment period was open for only two weeks last month. If his effort proves successful, hydropower projects like the ones proposed by Nature and People First could make a return to the Navajo Nation regardless of tribal support.  More than 20 tribes and tribal associations largely in the Southwest and Pacific Northwest, environmental groups, and elected officials, including Representative Frank Pallone, a Democrat from New Jersey, sent letters urging FERC to continue its current policy. “Tribes are stewards of the land and associated resources, and understand best how to manage and preserve those resources, as they have done for centuries,” wrote Chairman William Iyall of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe in Washington in a letter submitted to the commission.  Tó Nizhóní Ání, or TNA, a Diné-led water rights organization based in Black Mesa on the Navajo Nation, also submitted comments opposing the proposed hydropower project. In the 1960s, after Peabody Coal broke up sections of the resource-rich region between the Hopi and Navajo tribes for mining, the company was accused of misrepresenting the conditions of its operations and the status of mineral rights to local communities. Environmental problems soon followed, as the company’s groundwater pumping exceeded legal limits, compromising the aquifer and access to drinking water. According to Nicole Horseherder, Diné, and TNA’s executive director, this led residents of Black Mesa to use community wells. “They were now starting to have to haul all their water needs in this way,” she said. “That really changed the lifestyle of the people on Black Mesa.”  After the coal mines closed 20 years later, Black Mesa communities have focused on protecting their water resources while building a sustainable economy. But when Nature and People First’s founder Denis Payre presented the company’s plans, he seemed unaware of the tribes’ history in the region. During these presentations, Payre also made promises that if the company’s hydropower project went forward, it would benefit residents. The project would generate 1,000 jobs during construction and 100 jobs permanently, he claimed, and would help locals readily access portable drinking water. “He wasn’t understanding that our region has a history of extraction, and that is coal mining and its impact on our groundwater,” said Adrian Herder, Diné, TNA’s media organizer. “It seemed like this individual was tugging at people’s heartstrings, [saying] things that people wanted to hear.” If the commission decides to retract tribes’ ability to veto hydropower projects, it will mark a shift in the relationship between Indigenous nations and the federal government. Horseherder described such a move as the “first step in eroding whatever’s left between [these] relationships.” She is pessimistic about the commission’s decision and expects it will retract the current policy.  “The only thing I’m optimistic about is that Indigenous people know that they need to continue to fight,” she said. “I don’t see this administration waking up to their own mistakes at all.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline The Navajo Nation said no to a hydropower project. Trump officials want to ensure tribes can’t do that again. on Dec 10, 2025.

Georgia hashes out plan to let data centers build their own clean energy

Big companies have spent years pushing Georgia to let them find and pay for new clean energy to add to the grid, in the hopes that they could then get data centers and other power-hungry facilities online faster. Now, that concept is tantalizingly close to becoming a reality, with regulators, utility Georgia Power,…

Big companies have spent years pushing Georgia to let them find and pay for new clean energy to add to the grid, in the hopes that they could then get data centers and other power-hungry facilities online faster. Now, that concept is tantalizingly close to becoming a reality, with regulators, utility Georgia Power, and others hammering out the details of a program that could be finalized sometime next year. If approved, the framework could not only benefit companies but also reduce the need for a massive buildout of gas-fired plants that Georgia Power is planning to satiate the artificial intelligence boom.Today, utilities are responsible for bringing the vast majority of new power projects online in the state. But over the past two years, the Clean Energy Buyers Association has negotiated to secure a commitment from Georgia Power that ​“will, for the first time, allow commercial and industrial customers to bring clean energy projects to the utility’s system,” said Katie Southworth, the deputy director for market and policy innovation in the South and Southeast at the trade group, which includes major hyperscalers like Amazon, Google, Meta, and Microsoft. The ​“customer-identified resource” (CIR) option will allow hyperscalers and other big commercial and industrial customers to secure gigawatts of solar, batteries, and other energy resources on their own, not just through the utility. The CIR option isn’t a done deal yet. Once Georgia Power, the Public Service Commission, and others work out how the program will function, the utility will file a final version in a separate docket next year. And the plan put forth by Georgia Power this summer lacks some key features that data center companies want. A big point of contention is that it doesn’t credit the solar and batteries that customers procure as a way to meet future peaks in power demand — the same peaks Georgia Power uses to justify its gas-plant buildout. But as it stands, CEBA sees ​“the approved CIR framework as a meaningful step toward the ​‘bring-your-own clean energy’ model,” Southworth said — a model that goes by the catchy acronym BYONCE in clean-energy social media circles. Opening up the playing field for clean energy The CIR option is technically an addition to Georgia Power’s existing Clean and Renewable Energy Subscription (CARES) program, which requires the utility to secure up to 4 gigawatts of new renewable resources by 2035. CARES is a more standard ​“green tariff” program that leaves the utility in control of contracting for resources and making them available to customers under set terms, Southworth explained. Under the CIR option, by contrast, large customers will be able to seek out their own projects directly with a developer and the utility. Georgia Power will analyze the projects and subject them to tests to establish whether they are cost-effective. Once projects are approved by Georgia Power, built, and online, customers can take credit for the power generated, both on their energy bills and in the form of renewable energy certificates. Georgia Power’s current plan allows the procurement of up to 3 gigawatts of customer-identified resources through 2035. Letting big companies contract their own clean power is far from a new idea. Since 2014, corporate clean-energy procurements have surpassed 100 gigawatts in the United States, equal to 41% of all clean energy added to the nation’s grid over that time, according to CEBA. Tech giants have made up the lion’s share of that growth and have continued to add more capacity in 2025, despite the headwinds created by the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress. But most of that investment has happened in parts of the country that operate under competitive energy markets, in which independent developers can build power plants and solar, wind, and battery farms. The Southeast lacks these markets, leaving large, vertically integrated utilities like Georgia Power in control of what gets built. Perhaps not coincidentally, Southeast utilities also have some of the country’s biggest gas-plant expansion plans. A lot of clean energy projects could use a boost from power-hungry companies. According to the latest data from the Southern Energy Renewable Association trade group, more than 20 gigawatts of solar, battery, and hybrid solar-battery projects are now seeking grid interconnection in Georgia. “The idea that a large customer can buy down the cost of a clean energy resource to make sure it’s brought onto the grid to benefit them and everybody else, because that’s of value to them — that’s theoretically a great concept,” said Jennifer Whitfield, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, a nonprofit that’s pushing Georgia regulators to find cleaner, lower-cost alternatives to Georgia Power’s proposed gas-plant expansion. ​“We’re very supportive of the process because it has the potential to be a great asset to everyone else on the grid.” Isabella Ariza, staff attorney at the Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, said CEBA deserves credit for working to secure this option for big customers in Georgia. In fact, she identified it as one of the rare bright spots offsetting a series of decisions from Georgia Power and the Public Service Commission that environmental and consumer advocates fear will raise energy costs and climate pollution.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.