Search Climate Insights Directory

Indonesia requires an estimated USD 24 billion to expand its transmission infrastructure by 47.76 thousand circuit kilometers between 2025 and 2034. Because the state-owned utility PLN cannot fund this alone, the report proposes shifting from corporate-level finance to project finance structures using special purpose vehicles (SPVs) and long-term revenue contracts. The evaluated models include leasing, joint ventures, public-private partnerships (PPPs), infrastructure investment trusts (InvITs), and collective investment schemes for infrastructure (CIS-DINFRA). Successful implementation depends on three policy enablers: a dedicated transmission fee, off-balance sheet treatment, and targeted fiscal support.

The report assesses how Indonesia can move from corporate-level financing to project finance to meet a USD 24 billion investment requirement for transmission lines and substations. It analyzes five models: leasing, joint ventures (JVs), public-private partnerships (PPPs), infrastructure investment trusts (InvITs), and collective investment schemes for infrastructure (CIS-DINFRA). While leasing and JVs are easier to implement, InvITs and CIS-DINFRA offer the highest scalability and liquidity. The report emphasizes that success depends on three policy enablers: a dedicated transmission fee, off-balance sheet accounting treatment, and targeted fiscal support.

The Lionheart project in Germany's Upper Rhine Valley secured a €2.2 billion financing package in December 2025 to integrate geothermal power, heat, and lithium extraction. To attract investors amid market volatility, the project employed ten specific financial and operational de-risking measures, including a conservative 60:40 debt-to-equity ratio, government equity from KfW, and a diversified revenue model selling lithium, power, and heat. The project aims to produce lithium hydroxide monohydrate for 500,000 EV batteries and heat for 90,000 homes annually by 2028.

The report identifies a significant pipeline of planned coal capacity in South and Southeast Asia, primarily driven by a small group of parent companies and funded by a concentrated network of Asian and international banks. It argues that existing bank policies are largely superficial, focusing on project-level restrictions while allowing corporate finance to continue flowing to coal developers.

The complaint argues that the Papua LNG project, a joint venture led by TotalEnergies, lacks necessary climate and human rights assessments, fails to obtain Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) from Indigenous Peoples, and threatens critical biodiversity. It specifically targets MUFG bank, claiming it may be misleading other financial institutions about the project's compliance with the Equator Principles.

The paper argues that emerging clean energy technologies face a 'missing middle'—a gap where projects are too large for venture capital but too risky for institutional project finance. To address this, the authors introduce a 'systemic bankability' framework consisting of nine risk factors: construction cost overruns, technology performance, revenue adequacy, regulatory uncertainty, enabling infrastructure limitations, social opposition, supply chain limitations, commercial insurance unavailability, and delivery system limitations. The authors note that while solar and onshore wind eventually achieved systemic bankability, the process was too slow for current climate goals, and even established technologies can see their bankability erode due to new bottlenecks like grid interconnection delays and social opposition.

The report analyzes climate finance flows in Southeast Asia, finding a heavy reliance on international capital despite growing domestic interest. It focuses on Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, identifying that while corporates are the primary local investors, institutional and financial institutions remain underutilized due to risk perceptions and loan tenor mismatches. The document argues that blended finance—through guarantees, technical assistance, and project aggregation—can catalyze local investment in nature-based solutions, adaptation, and utility-scale renewables.

Reclaim Finance critiques the Dutch bank ING for implementing a 'double standard' in its climate policy. While ING is the first major international bank to announce an end to direct project financing for new LNG export terminals starting in 2026, it continues to provide corporate financial services to the companies developing these projects. Between 2021 and 2023, ING provided over $5 billion to LNG expansion, ranking it as the second-largest European financier of the sector. The document highlights that corporate financing, which remains permitted under ING's new policy, accounts for 96% of financing allocated to the fossil fuel industry. Specific examples of continued support include $3 billion provided to Venture Global and the bank's role in the company's January 2025 IPO, as well as bond issuances for Cheniere Energy in early 2024.

Reclaim Finance criticizes ING for a 'double standard' in its climate policy: while the bank is the first major international bank to announce an end to direct project financing for new LNG export terminals starting in 2026, it continues to provide corporate financing to major LNG developers. Between 2021 and 2023, ING provided over US$5 billion to LNG expansion, making it the second-largest European financier in this sector. The document highlights ING's significant financial ties to Venture Global, including US$3 billion allocated between 2021 and 2023 and participation in its January 2025 initial public offering, as well as its role in issuing bonds for Cheniere Energy in early 2024.

The report exposes how 400 banks and 400 investors provided billions in support for LNG expansion between 2021 and 2024, despite IEA warnings that no new export facilities are necessary for a 1.5C pathway. It highlights a significant gap between the net-zero pledges of financial institutions and their actual lending and investment practices, noting that most top funders lack effective LNG-specific policies. The document details the climate risks of methane leakage and the social impacts of LNG projects, while calling for a complete end to financial services for new LNG export and import terminals.

The report finds that French financial institutions are among the top global supporters of LNG expansion, with four banks providing nearly all of the US$14 billion in financing between 2021 and 2023. It highlights a significant gap between these institutions' net-zero pledges and their continued funding of LNG export and import terminals, including support for TotalEnergies. The document argues that current sector policies are insufficient due to loopholes regarding corporate financing and import terminals, and calls for a comprehensive end to financial services for new LNG projects.

Reclaim Finance argues that Barclays' updated climate policies are insufficient and misleading, claiming the bank continues to support oil and gas expansion through corporate finance and vague frameworks. The analysis asserts that the bank's Transition Finance Framework includes problematic technologies like 'blue' hydrogen and CCUS, while failing to set specific, science-based financing targets for sustainable power.

The report reveals that while designated project-specific funding for coal has declined, general corporate financing remains the primary driver of new coal infrastructure. It highlights a gap between the public net-zero commitments of many financial institutions and their actual lending practices, noting that many 'coal exclusion' policies contain loopholes that allow continued support for coal developers. The document provides data on the shrinking coal pipeline and identifies specific banks and asset managers that continue to provide loans, underwriting, or equity to companies building new coal plants and mines.

The Fund for Nature (TFFN) is a financial instrument designed to provide market-rate project-level debt to nature-based carbon projects, primarily in Sub-Saharan Africa. By offering an alternative to the common practice of pre-selling carbon credits at steep discounts to corporate buyers, TFFN aims to increase the revenue captured by local project implementers and communities. A central innovation of the fund is the development of a standardized, open-sourced Simple Agreement for Future Offtake (SAFO), which serves as a bankable document to secure future carbon credit supply and act as collateral for debt. The fund targets the agriculture, forestry, and blue carbon sectors, specifically focusing on afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation (ARR) and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). A pilot fund of USD 50-70 million is envisioned, with the potential to scale as voluntary carbon markets are projected to grow significantly by 2030.

The report by Reclaim Finance criticizes Mizuho, MUFG, and SMBC for their continued role as major financiers of the coal industry. While the banks have introduced restrictions on project financing for new coal, the document asserts these are insufficient because the vast majority of financing occurs through corporate loans and underwritings. Between January 2019 and November 2021, these banks provided billions of dollars to coal developers, including entities like China Huaneng Group and Adani Group. The author concludes that the banks are lagging behind international peers and must adopt stricter corporate-level exclusion criteria to align with the Net-Zero Banking Alliance and IEA pathways.

The document argues that structured finance contracts often insulate fossil fuel assets from market forces, creating a barrier to clean energy transition. Using the Red Hills Power Plant in Mississippi as a case study, it proposes a restructuring model that provides financial benefits to electricity customers, bondholders, the coal supplier, and workers while accelerating the plant's retirement.

Reclaim Finance argues that Japan's three megabanks (Mizuho, MUFG, and SMBC) maintain policies that allow continued support for the coal industry. While the banks have updated policies to restrict direct project financing for new coal plants 'in principle', these policies contain exceptions and do not apply to general corporate financing. Between October 2018 and October 2020, these banks provided $39bn, $36bn, and $32bn respectively to companies on the Global Coal Exit List. The document contrasts this with European peers like Crédit Agricole and notes increasing shareholder and activist pressure on the Japanese institutions to align with the Paris Agreement.

The report finds that the value of Uganda's upstream oil reserves has declined by 70% since 2013 due to structural changes in the global oil market, with a further $10 billion at risk in a transition aligned with the Paris Agreement. Current commercial terms are deemed insufficient for international oil companies like Total and CNOOC to reach a final investment decision, likely necessitating costly renegotiations for the Ugandan government. The authors argue that relying on oil for economic development is increasingly risky and recommend diversifying the economy, potentially through electrification, while incorporating climate transition and physical risks into public debt sustainability forecasts.

The report finds that while global coal capacity grew by 34.1 GW in 2019, this was primarily driven by China, as capacity in the rest of the world continued to shrink. Global coal plant utilization hit a record low of 51% in 2019. The report highlights a shift in financing, with Western commercial banks largely exiting project finance for coal, while Japanese and Chinese public finance continue to support new developments. Significant retirements occurred in the US and EU, though some OECD nations like Japan and South Korea continue to develop new capacity.

The report evaluates the N’Diaye wind farm in Senegal using the SAVi tool, which incorporates externalities and climate risks into financial modelling. While traditional analysis suggests coal is the cheapest option, a holistic cost-benefit analysis reveals that wind energy is the most favourable choice due to lower environmental impacts, higher employment generation, and the avoidance of significant social costs of carbon. HFO is found to be financially non-viable across all scenarios.