Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that the State of Chile violated the fundamental rights of the Mapuche-Pehuenche communities of Ralco-Lepoy and Quepuca Ralco through the construction of the Ralco hydroelectric plant, which led to the destruction of ancestral lands, cemeteries, and ceremonial spaces. It contends that domestic legal remedies in Chile have been ineffective, illusory, or subject to unjustifiable delays, thereby satisfying the requirements for the admissibility of the petition before the IACHR. The text further argues that the project was economically inefficient and driven by the monopolistic interests of the company Endesa rather than public interest. Additionally, it details systemic discrimination against indigenous peoples in Chile's political and judicial systems, including the use of anti-terrorist and state security laws to criminalize indigenous demands.

The IISD Climate Change and Energy Team focuses on mitigation, adaptation, and capacity building to address global climate change. Key initiatives include the Inuit Observations on Climate Change project, the Climate Change Knowledge Network (CCKN), and the development of a continental energy strategy. The team collaborates with indigenous peoples, governments, the private sector, and international organizations like IUCN and the Stockholm Environment Institute to promote sustainable development and renewable energy.

The document examines the restructuring of Argentina's electric power sector, which transitioned from state dominance to a privatized model of unbundled generation, transmission, and distribution. It analyzes the political economy of this shift, highlighting the influence of the World Bank and other multilateral development banks in promoting neoliberal reforms. The study finds that while the reforms improved technical efficiencies and reduced wholesale prices, they often resulted in regressive social impacts, such as the elimination of social tariffs for low-income groups and significant job losses. Environmental concerns were largely relegated to compliance with pre-existing manuals, and energy efficiency initiatives were hindered by the unbundling of the sector and low electricity prices. The report concludes that the reforms were largely irreversible due to a strong government commitment to the market model, despite emerging governance challenges and public dissatisfaction following major service failures like the 1999 EDESUR blackout.

The report advocates for a "whole buildings" approach, treating buildings as integrated systems rather than collections of components. It highlights the significant energy and environmental impact of the US buildings sector and argues that federal R&D is currently too fragmented and underfunded to realize the potential benefits of systems integration. The author proposes five policy criteria: establishing the whole building framework as a cornerstone of policy, funding collaborative R&D, supporting verification efforts, embracing education, and stimulating market demand.

The report evaluates local management of rural electrification in Bolivia, India, and Nepal, concluding that it is a feasible approach in developing countries that can lower costs and accelerate load development. Key findings highlight that success depends heavily on local willingness, clear national policies, and initial technical and financial assistance. While some co-operatives in Bolivia failed due to poor management and restrictive profit laws, others, like CRE in Santa Cruz, thrived by serving both urban and rural loads. In India, co-operatives showed higher electrification rates than state-run schemes, though they struggled with top-down control and fixed tariffs. In Nepal, micro-hydro projects managed by local committees or shareholder companies proved effective in remote areas, often supported by international NGOs.

The report evaluates TANESCO's rural electrification efforts, finding that while basic services like lighting and health care improved, wider economic goals—such as industrialization and deforestation reduction—were largely unmet. Technical reliability is low, particularly in diesel-supplied areas, and the program is financially unsustainable due to heavily subsidized tariffs and high operating costs. The authors recommend restructuring TANESCO's organization, revising tariff policies to reflect marginal costs, and adopting project selection criteria based on economic net present value.

The report argues that the current fragmented system of mandatory standards, voluntary labeling, and energy guides creates marketplace confusion. It recommends replacing the binary ENERGY STAR system and the FTC Energy Guide with a unified, multi-tiered 'bin' or 'star' rating system (one to four stars) to better differentiate 'best in class' products. Additionally, it suggests modifying the 'rebuttable presumption' for economic justification of standards to be based on a percentage of an appliance's service life rather than a flat three-year period, granting DOE authority for 'smart grid' requirements, and mandating that federal procurement focus on top-tier (three or four star) products to drive market scale and lower costs.

The analysis demonstrates that in Benin, additional expenditures on 'preventive strategies'—such as voltage stabilizers and generators—significantly increase the prevalence of energy poverty. Using 2015 survey data from 3,816 households, the study finds that these extra costs represent 41% of total electricity expenditures. When these costs are included in the assessment, the proportion of connected households in energy poverty rises from 51% to 72%. The report concludes that policymakers must account for these defensive expenditures to accurately measure and address energy poverty in the region.

The document argues that Poland must adopt a 'portfolio approach' to decarbonization, integrating renewables, nuclear power, carbon capture, and hydrogen to ensure energy security and industrial competitiveness. It emphasizes the need to harmonize national strategies—such as the Polish Nuclear Energy Program and the National Energy and Climate Plan—within the next 12 months to attract private capital. Key recommendations include expanding onshore wind to 70 GW, establishing a nuclear fleet of at least 8 GW, creating a national CCUS strategy by early 2026, and updating the Polish Hydrogen Strategy by the first half of 2026. The brief also highlights the importance of next-generation geothermal energy and strict adherence to EU methane emission regulations for the oil, gas, and coal sectors.

The document details the India-UK Energy for Growth Partnership, focusing on four main areas of cooperation: capacity building for legislators, off-grid renewable ventures, the development of the offshore wind market, and the scaling of solar initiatives. It highlights the UK's role in providing technical advisory, financial modeling, and policy frameworks to help India reach its target of 175GW of renewable energy by 2022. Key efforts include the creation of the 'Renewable Energy Local Area Development toolkit' for legislators and the formulation of the National Offshore Wind Energy Policy in 2016.

A formal request sent on 29 November 2016 by the Life After Coal Campaign and other environmental organisations to the South African Minister of Energy, seeking an extension for public comment on the Integrated Energy Plan (IEP) and the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Update and demanding the release of critical supporting documents.

The document serves as a PAIA manual for the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE), detailing how individuals can exercise their constitutional right to access information. It outlines the department's mandate to develop the mineral resources and energy sector, lists the legislation it administers, and categorizes the types of records it holds, including policies on electricity, coal, gas, and nuclear energy. The manual specifies the process for submitting requests via Form A, the associated fees (such as a R100 request fee), and the internal appeal process to the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy. Additionally, it describes the department's handling of personal information under the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), including the categories of data subjects and the security measures implemented to protect such data.

This document is a PAIA Manual issued by the South African Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE). It serves as a guide for the public to exercise their constitutional right of access to information held by the Department, detailing the types of records available, the process for requesting them, and the protections afforded to personal information under the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA).

The National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) responded to a request from the Centre for Environmental Rights regarding the Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity, 2019. NERSA argues that its role in the development of the plan is limited to consultation with the Minister of Energy, which does not constitute an administrative action requiring separate public consultation.

The paper analyzes the diverse structures of Canadian provincial electricity markets, noting that a lack of coordination creates economic inefficiencies and hinders the integration of renewable energy. It identifies six primary challenges to integration, including constitutional jurisdictions and vested interests in price differentials. To address these, the author proposes four strategies: enhancing bilateral projects, adopting a bottom-up Nordic-style collaborative model, utilizing the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, or implementing a federal healthcare-type framework of shared principles.

The document maps the EU's power system planning, detailing five primary workstreams: national and European grid needs, European and national capacity sufficiency, and system flexibility. It identifies the roles of key actors such as TSOs, ENTSO-E, ACER, and the European Commission, and specifies the frequency and purpose of core assessments like the Ten-Year Network Development Plan (TYNDP) and Resource Adequacy Assessments (NRAA and ERAA).

The document argues that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) will negatively impact the U.S. economy, costing households $170 billion in energy bills and reducing GDP by $1.1 trillion by 2035. To counter this, it urges states to reduce clean energy costs by improving siting and permitting, optimizing existing transmission, promoting self-supply for large customers, and enhancing procurement practices.

The report examines the relationship between ENTSOG, a body that influences EU gas infrastructure funding, and GIE, a gas industry lobby group. It highlights significant membership overlap and a lack of transparency regarding meetings and conflict-of-interest policies. Global Witness asserts that this relationship has led to billions in EU subsidies flowing to industry-favoured projects, some of which are failing, while contradicting the EU's climate targets.

The report identifies a 300,000 GWh annual electricity saving potential in the U.S. industrial sector by closing the productivity gap between the lowest and highest performing states. It argues that while exogenous factors like electricity prices play a role, the primary constraints are endogenous barriers such as poor understanding of efficiency potential, fossilized design paradigms, and capital constraints. Through case studies in high technology, oil and gas, and food production, the authors demonstrate that holistic design and overcoming these barriers can significantly reduce energy use and costs. The document concludes that policymakers should provide low-cost capital and education to incentivize efficiency measures that benefit society but may be NPV neutral for individual firms.

The author describes the U.S. nuclear power industry as the "greatest collapse of any enterprise in industrial history," attributing this failure to a combination of institutional hubris, skewed economic data, and a federal policy focus on hardware over energy efficiency. The text details how the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the Department of Energy (DOE) promoted myths regarding the cost-competitiveness of nuclear power compared to coal and ignored the potential of energy productivity improvements. It further examines the failure of the breeder reactor and reprocessing programs, arguing that the federal government continues to subsidize an uncompetitive technology while ignoring cheaper, more efficient alternatives.