Climate change solutions
We deliver game-changing environmental solutions that have a real impact for people around the globe.
In the Governor’s updated Regulatory Agenda, published in the July 25, 2026 Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection proposed two rulemakings to regulate methane emissions from new and existing sources at conventional and unconventional oil and gas well sites.
Then at the August 6, 2026, Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee meeting, DEP outlined their approach and proposed to submit draft rules utilizing their authority under the Air Pollution Control Act to the Environmental Quality Board in 2027.
Governor Shapiro’s administration listened to overwhelming public support for durable methane protections while considering permit updates last summer. They took the important next step for Pennsylvania, directing the Commonwealth to move forward with rules that cut methane pollution from oil and gas, modeled on federal existing source standards known as OOOOc. That is leadership. The significance of these rules should not be overlooked. The nation’s second-largest natural gas producer is now moving forward with comprehensive regulations to reduce methane. As Washington retreats from federal methane protections, Pennsylvania is moving forward, and the Governor deserves our thanks for this leadership.
Now the task remains to get it right, because a methane rule only delivers if it covers every source of the problem.
Pennsylvania has long been at the center of America’s energy economy. What we do here doesn’t just affect our own communities. It shapes markets, jobs, and energy policy across the country. That’s why the conversation around methane emissions matters so much.
Industry groups, policymakers, and advocates all acknowledge that methane is both a valuable energy resource and a pollutant that should be addressed. In an April 21, 2026, House Natural Resources methane hearing, stakeholders agreed that Pennsylvania should do so through a state rulemaking.
That’s an important place to start.
The question facing Pennsylvania is no longer whether to act, but whether the eventual rules will reflect the full environmental, economic and scientific picture – or leave significant sources of pollution unaddressed.
Methane is the primary component of natural gas, and the very product Pennsylvania produces more of than any state except Texas. When methane leaks, it isn’t just pollution. It’s wasted energy.
In 2023 alone, Pennsylvania’s oil and gas sector emitted:
If market incentives alone were enough to prevent methane loss, we would not be wasting this much product every year. The scale of that waste makes one thing clear: voluntary efforts, while valuable, are not enough on their own.
There’s a competitive dimension, too. Buyers are demanding cleaner sources of energy, and the European Union’s new import rules will require measurement and verification of the emissions tied to the gas it buys by 2029. Importers will need to meet a set methane intensity (or methane loss rate) standard by 2030.
Producers that can document low-emission output will have the advantage. Those that cannot may face growing commercial and regulatory risk. Clear, statewide standards give Pennsylvania operators the certainty and the credentials to compete, turning strong methane performance into a market asset rather than a liability.
As demand for Pennsylvania gas grows – from LNG exports to manufacturing and new data center development – the question is not simply how much energy the Commonwealth will produce. The question is whether that production will be managed responsibly and competitively.
The Appalachian Basin has among the lowest methane intensity or loss rates in the country. That broad statement leaves out important differences among operators and well types.
A recent study by the Appalachian Methane Initiative (AMI) offers a fuller picture of methane emissions in the Appalachian Basin based on real-world measurement data.
Here are a few key findings:
This tracks with earlier work by EDF scientists on the outsized role of low-producing well sites. EDF estimates that about half of all emissions in Pennsylvania are from low-producing well sites that contribute just 1% of total production.
Some operations perform extremely well, while others do not. Top-performing operators have already shown that low-emissions production is possible. However, the basin’s overall methane performance is undermined by approximately 175,000 low-producing well sites – including more than 73,500 in Pennsylvania—that contribute disproportionately to methane pollution. Ignoring that reality would risk designing policy around the industry’s best performers while leaving a significant share of emissions unaddressed.
This is why the details of the Pennsylvania rules will matter so much. To deliver real, meaningful reductions, they need to cover all sources, including low-producing, conventional well sites.
That runs against a familiar argument: that regulation will put small, independent “mom and pop” operators out of business. Legitimate operational realities deserve a real answer, and flexibility can and should be built in to protect truly small operators. Nearly $1 billion in Methane Emission Reduction Program grants, much of which target low-producing well sites, are moving forward that can offer assistance.
Flexibility should be targeted since most Pennsylvania’s low-producing well sites are owned by larger oil and gas corporations.
Here in Pennsylvania, just 11 oil and gas corporations owned nearly half, 49%, of all low-producing well sites in Pennsylvania with portfolios of more than 1,000 low-producing well sites and generated $2.7 million to $298 million in revenue.
Just over 100 oil and gas corporations owned nearly 90% of all low-producing well sites with portfolios of 100 low-producing well sites or more. Operators with portfolios of 100-200 low-producing well sites generated an average of $2.7 million of revenue.
Just 3.6% of sites are owned by operators with 30 or fewer well sites with an average revenue of $472,000.
Pennsylvania should address the genuine challenges facing a discreet subset of operators without allowing those challenges to become a shield against action across the entire sector.
The industry has the capacity to address this problem and cut a substantial share of emissions.
The 2024 U.S. EPA methane rule built in flexibility such as allowing well sites near the end of their useful life to forgo equipment upgrades.
Emissions-reduction requirements should focus on the sources responsible for the greatest pollution. Flexibility can and should be built into the rule to minimize costs for truly small operators.
There is also a smarter path for the lowest-producing well sites, where emissions are disproportionately high, production is minimal, and the economics often do not support long-term operation. Rather than allowing pollution in perpetuity, the state should prioritize these well sites for plugging and remediation, cutting emissions at the source while preventing future orphaned well sites and taxpayer liability.
The data points toward a clear, workable approach. A smart methane policy should:
Often, stakeholders do not begin with a shared premise, but here we do. We agree on three things: methane emissions must be reduced, solutions exist and policy should be practical.
Governor Shapiro has taken the first step, and both he and DEP Secretary Jessica Shirley have our thanks for it.
The work ahead is to carry that commitment through a lengthy rulemaking process and ensure the final standards reflect reality. That means covering the major sources of pollution, supporting DEP in designing solutions that match the problem and avoiding broad exemptions that would leave significant emissions unaddressed.
Pennsylvania has the tools, the data, and now the momentum to lead.
As the nation’s second-largest natural gas producer, Pennsylvania now has an opportunity to demonstrate that energy leadership and methane accountability can go hand in hand. Governor Shapiro and Secretary Shirley should continue to carry this process forward with strong and commonsense rules that reduce waste, protect communities, and strengthen the Commonwealth’s energy economy.
The work has just begun. Now we roll up our sleeves to get the job done.
July announcements included new heavy-duty pilot projects around the Tesla Semi, progress on electric corridor between Texas and Mexico and additional cold-climate buses being put into service in Minnesota.
Medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles are hitting the road in 2026, and we’ve collected last month’s most exciting news. In 2025, EDF delivered monthly deployment updates on the biggest zero-emission transportation stories. By the end of 2025, it was clear that momentum was sustained throughout a challenging year. This year will undoubtably see more big announcements, and we’ll be here to showcase the biggest orders and deployments of zero-emission trucks happening around the country.
DSV deploys 10 Windrose electric Class 8 trucks, in step towards cross-border electric freight between the U.S. and Mexico
DSV, a global transportation firm, is set to deploy 10 new Windrose Class 8 electric trucks in collaboration with Allogic and Greenspace E-Mobility. The trucks will operate between distribution centers in Loredo and Dallas, Texas. Greenspace E-Mobility, acting as Windrose’s strategic infrastructure partner across South Texas and Mexico, is building a network of dedicated charging hubs along the route.
Paper Transport begins Tesla Semi pilot
Paper Transport announced they are evaluating a Tesla Semi for daily freight operations in the Chicago area. The company is testing the long-range truck within their dedicated operating model, with predictable routes and consistent mileage to evaluate performance compared to diesel models. The Tesla Semi has seen an uptick in adoption and new pilot projects since it entered mass production earlier in 2026, with many fleets testing the vehicle in their operations.
Duluth Transit Authority expands electric bus fleet with two GILLIG vehicles
The Duluth Transit Authority in Duluth, Minnesota has deployed two new electric buses, manufactured by GILLIG, for passenger service. The transit authority first started introducing electric buses into their operations in 2018 and continues to build on the zero-emission fleet. The buses were purchased with remaining funds from a previous Federal Transit Authority grant awarded to the city.
Now is a critical time for fleets to invest in medium- and heavy-duty electric trucks. These vehicles improve public health and help combat the climate crisis by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. Unlike traditional diesel-powered trucks, electric trucks produce no tailpipe emissions, which significantly cuts down on health-harming pollution. Adoption represents a key step toward a more sustainable and resilient transportation industry.
Check back here next month to see a collection of the most exciting zero-emission vehicle announcements from August. In the meantime, check out EDF’s Electric Fleet Deployment & Commitment List to track announcements as they happen in real time, and view all July announcements.
Check out last month’s announcements here.
Louisiana families and businesses deserve an electric system that is reliable, affordable and prepared for a rapidly changing future. They also deserve confidence that when utilities ask customers to pay billions of dollars for new power plants, those investments truly represent the best available option.
That is the central issue before the Louisiana Public Service Commission as it considers Entergy Louisiana’s request to build two new gas-fired power plants, Waterford 6 and Westlake, at an estimated cost of $4.1 billion. If approved, the projects could add nearly $15 a month to the average residential customer’s electric bill, with those costs ultimately recovered through customer rates.
In testimony filed on behalf of Environmental Defense Fund with the Louisiana Public Service Commission, energy planning expert Dr. Maria Roumpani concludes that Entergy has not demonstrated these plants are the lowest-cost, lowest-risk option for customers and that regulators should require a more rigorous evaluation before committing ratepayers to decades of costs.
Why this matters
Louisiana is experiencing one of the fastest periods of projected electricity demand growth in its history, driven by major industrial development. Meeting that demand will require significant investment, but regulators must ensure utilities invest in resources that are the lowest-cost, lowest-risk option and continue to deliver value for customers if conditions change, including load forecasts, commodity prices or policy constraints. The Commission must also evaluate these proposed plants in the context of Louisiana’s broader electricity system and the additional infrastructure and generation being planned to support future industrial growth, including data centers.
No one disputes that Louisiana needs reliable electricity to support a growing economy. The question is whether building two large gas plants now is the smartest way to deliver it. Once customers begin paying for these facilities, they could be responsible for their costs for decades, making today’s decisions critical for the future of customer bills, fuel reliance and grid reliability.
Main reasons for concern
First, Entergy has not demonstrated that Louisiana needs two new gas plants of this size. The testimony finds that the company’s demand forecasts rely heavily on projected large industrial customers without adequately accounting for uncertainty, changing customer plans or the possibility that some projects never materialize. For example, if one or more of the largest proposed industrial projects are delayed, reduced in scope or never built, one of the proposed generators may no longer be needed, yet customers could still be on the hook for its costs. The company also has not committed to retirement dates for aging power plants or completed analyses showing these new facilities are the best replacement option.
Second, Entergy did not adequately evaluate whether more incremental, cost-effective solutions could meet Louisiana’s growing electricity needs. Rather than asking which combination of resources would best meet future demand, Entergy largely compared different gas plant proposals with one another. That means alternatives like energy efficiency, demand response, solar power, battery storage, transmission upgrades and customer-owned energy resources were never fully evaluated alongside the new proposed fossil fuel plants.
Third, the economic case is weaker than it appears. Entergy’s economic analysis relies on assumptions that have not been sufficiently supported. The testimony finds that the projected benefits depend on assumptions about costs and future demand that may not hold. A modest increase in project costs or a likely shortfall in projected load growth could erase the projected savings altogether, leaving customers to bear the costs without receiving the promised benefits.
Finally, the proposal shifts substantial risk onto customers. If construction costs increase, fuel prices rise, or anticipated industrial demand fails to materialize, Louisiana ratepayers could remain responsible for paying for infrastructure they may not need. They would also face decades of exposure to natural gas price volatility because fuel costs are passed directly through on electric bills. Louisianans have already seen what those price swings can mean. Between October 2025 and February 2026, higher natural gas prices added about $16 to the monthly bill of a household using 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity.
A smarter path to affordable growth
As Louisiana plans for future electricity demand, EDF recommends evaluating more incremental, cost-effective solutions before committing customers to major new gas generation. That broader portfolio includes energy efficiency, demand response, customer-owned resources like rooftop solar and battery storage, transmission improvements, grid-enhancing technologies, and incremental utility-scale solar and battery storage. Together, these resources can improve reliability, meet growing demand and reduce the need for costly new power plants.
Together, these resources can improve reliability, meet growing demand and reduce the need for costly, customer-funded gas investments. With important regional transmission studies already underway, it’s worth waiting for more information and evaluating additional technologies that could improve reliability while reducing costs before committing customers to major new generating facilities.
What we recommend
EDF recommends that the Commission deny certification of both plants at this time. Before reconsidering the proposal, the Commission should require Entergy to:
Building the right grid for Louisianans
Louisiana’s economy is changing rapidly, and the electric grid must evolve with it. But planning for growth should not mean assuming that expensive investments automatically deliver better outcomes. Before asking customers to pay billions of dollars for new infrastructure, regulators should require utilities to demonstrate that those investments are the most cost-effective way to meet the state’s growing energy needs.
The Commission has an opportunity to require utilities to compare competing solutions, evaluate customer risks and pursue the most cost-effective path forward. With billions of customer dollars at stake, regulators should insist on a thorough evaluation of all viable alternatives before asking Louisianans to pay for decades to come.
Every dollar families spend on their energy bills should make the energy system safer, more reliable and more efficient. As the Illinois Commerce Commission considers Peoples Gas’ latest $144 million rate request, it has an opportunity to ensure customers receive greater value from the investments they are being asked to fund.
The first statistical analysis of Peoples Gas’ leak records, pipeline maps and neighborhood demographic data, commissioned by Environmental Defense Fund and conducted by methane scientist Dr. Joe von Fischer, reveals an important challenge. Chicago neighborhoods with higher percentages of people of color have approximately 30% more leak-prone pipe per person, 40% more gas leaks per capita, 43% more leaks per mile of gas main and nearly 80% more leaks per mile of leak-prone pipe than neighborhoods with lower percentages of people of color.
The analysis also found these neighborhoods are more likely to rely on residents reporting the smell of gas, rather than proactive utility surveys, to identify leaks. Together, these findings raise an important question: Are customer dollars being invested where they can make the biggest difference? The good news is that they can be.
Peoples Gas already collects detailed information about the condition of its gas system and has invested in Advanced Methane Leak Detection technology, which can identify leaks more accurately and estimate how much methane each leak releases. By making better use of the data and reporting it publicly, the utility can reduce pollution, improve safety, make smarter infrastructure investments, deliver greater value for customers and increase transparency and accountability.
Customers deserve confidence that every dollar they invest is improving safety, reducing methane emissions and reaching the communities where it can make the greatest difference. On behalf of EDF, Dr. von Fischer’s testimony before the Illinois Commerce Commission outlines practical steps to help achieve that goal.
Better data should drive smarter investments
Advanced Methane Leak Detection is an important step, but once it has the data, Peoples Gas should use it to prioritize repairs and pipeline replacement where they will have the greatest impact. The largest leaks often account for a disproportionate share of methane emissions, meaning that fixing them first can reduce pollution more quickly while making the best use of customer dollars.
Not every segment of leak-prone pipe requires the same solution. In some cases, targeted repair can extend a pipe’s useful life at lower cost. In others, replacement is the best option. And in some areas, retirement – taking pipe out of service entirely – may deliver the greatest value, particularly where Non-Pipeline Alternatives such as electrification or energy efficiency can meet customer needs without investing in costly, long-lived gas infrastructure.
Methane is the primary component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas responsible for about 30% of the global warming the world is experiencing today. Reducing methane emissions is one of the fastest ways to slow near-term warming while preventing customers from paying for natural gas that escapes into the atmosphere before it can be used.
Customers deserve to know what’s working
Customers are paying for infrastructure improvements, so they should be able to see whether those investments are delivering results. Today, Peoples Gas does not publicly share enough information for customers or regulators to evaluate its performance. EDF recommends publishing annual information on leaks, repairs, pipeline replacement projects and overall system performance.
Greater transparency would help regulators, consumer advocates and the public assess whether customer-funded investments are improving safety, reducing methane emissions and delivering value. It would also help communities understand whether those investments are reaching the neighborhoods with the greatest need.
Transparency also builds accountability. When utilities clearly explain how they prioritize projects and publicly report measurable outcomes, regulators can make more informed decisions, communities can better track progress and customers gain confidence that their money is being spent wisely.
Investments should reduce inequities, not reinforce them
Every customer helps pay to maintain and modernize the gas system. Those investments should improve safety and reliability for everyone, especially the communities facing the greatest risk of leaks.
The statistical analysis found significant disparities in aging gas infrastructure across Chicago neighborhoods. Communities with higher percentages of people of color have more leak-prone pipe, more gas leaks and are more likely to rely on residents reporting gas odors than on proactive utility leak surveys. While repairing or replacing older pipes will eventually reduce risks, the order in which projects are completed determines which communities benefit first. If communities are not prioritized effectively, disparities will remain.
As the Commission considers Peoples Gas’ rate request, it should require the company to prioritize repairs and pipeline replacement using engineering data, informed by environmental justice considerations. Doing so would help ensure customer investments improve safety, reduce methane emissions and deliver benefits more equitably across Chicago.
Illinois has an opportunity to lead
Illinois has long been a leader in modernizing energy policy. As the Illinois Commerce Commission considers Peoples Gas’ rate request, it has an opportunity to ensure customers receive the greatest possible value from every dollar they invest.
EDF’s recommendations offer a practical path forward. By making better use of data, improving transparency and prioritizing investments where they will have the greatest impact, Peoples Gas can reduce methane emissions, strengthen safety and address longstanding inequities in its system.
Customers should not have to choose between affordability, safety and climate progress. By making better use of data, increasing transparency and directing investments where they will have the greatest impact, Illinois can deliver all three.
Guest Blog Post by Melanie Minuche, Sustainable Transportation & Environmental Justice Advocate, Little Village Environmental Justice Organization
When severe storms knock out power, reliable electricity becomes more than a convenience. It becomes a lifeline. I know this firsthand. I grew up in a household that experienced energy insecurity. High utility bills piled up, poor insulation drove up energy costs and financial stress touched every part of daily life.
My family’s experience was not unique. Across Illinois and throughout the country, many communities face rising utility bills, deteriorating infrastructure and increasingly frequent climate disasters. These challenges motivated me to learn more about our electric grid and advocate for meaningful public participation in grid planning.
At the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization (LVEJO), I work to advance building and transportation decarbonization policies that help clear the air and lower energy burdens for communities across Illinois. For more than 30 years, LVEJO has worked alongside residents in Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood to address pollution, improve public health and advocate for the clean energy investments our community deserves.
A stronger, more resilient grid can help deliver those benefits while enabling cleaner transportation and healthier communities.
Testifying before the Illinois Commerce Commission
For many families struggling to afford housing, groceries, and other necessities, participating in utility planning processes may not seem like a priority. Yet decisions about the grid affect nearly every aspect of our lives – from keeping the lights on during extreme weather to enabling clean transportation options that reach neighborhoods that have long borne the burden of pollution. This is why I chose to testify in a ComEd grid planning proceeding. I wanted to use my voice to shape the future of my community’s energy system.
Through my testimony, I was able to paint a picture for the commissioners about the Little Village community, hoping to make them feel the health effects of the energy system, the diesel truck traffic that causes those problems, and the community’s desire to find solutions, including grid investments that will allow electric trucks to deliver goods in the neighborhood without making people sick.
A stronger grid for cleaner transportation
For fenceline communities like Little Village, a stronger grid is essential to reducing freight pollution. Thousands of diesel trucks move through neighborhoods every day, delivering goods from across the country and around the world. While these trucks support economic activity, they also release harmful air pollution that contributes to asthma, respiratory illness and other health impacts in communities located near truck routes, warehouses and industrial facilities.
trucks and buses offer a cleaner alternative. Because they don’t produce tailpipe emissions, they can improve air quality for drivers, warehouse workers and residents living near heavily trafficked roads. But transitioning to cleaner freight transportation requires more than vehicles. It requires charging infrastructure and a grid capable of supporting new electricity demand.
Too often, opponents of freight electrification point to charging capacity as a barrier to progress. That challenge underscores why proactive grid planning matters. Communities like Little Village need utilities, regulators and policymakers to invest in grid upgrades before demand arrives, particularly in areas where freight electrification is expected to grow. Planning ahead reduces costs, improves reliability and accelerates the transition to cleaner transportation.
Centering communities in grid planning
Historically, grid investments have often failed to reflect the needs of environmental justice communities. Without meaningful public participation, investments can bypass the communities that stand to benefit most or even place new costs on residents by raising electric rates, without delivering clear benefits. The transition to a cleaner energy future will only succeed if the communities most affected by pollution and energy insecurity help shape it.
As climate impacts intensify, resilient grid infrastructure is becoming increasingly essential to public health and community wellbeing. Illinois recently experienced a record number of tornadoes, underscoring the need for a grid that can withstand extreme weather and keep critical services running when communities need them most.
A resilient, clean energy grid is more than an infrastructure investment. It is an investment in public health, cleaner air, reliable power and a more equitable future. The transition to a cleaner, more resilient energy system will only succeed if environmental justice communities have a meaningful voice in shaping the grid investments that affect their lives.
(This blog post was cross posted from Community Voices in Energy)
By Pedro Barata, Rohemir Ramirez Ballagas, Pedro Piris-Cabezas and John Schmitz
Just over eighteen months from today, the world’s first truly global carbon market will face a consequential deadline. Airline operators will be required to fulfill their offsetting obligations under the first phase of the International Civil Aviation Organization’s Carbon Offsetting Reduction Scheme for International Aviation.
This deadline has weighed heavily on many of us who have worked hard over the years to make CORSIA a success. CORSIA was designed to achieve carbon-neutral growth in international aviation from 2021-2035. However, as airlines approach the January 31, 2028 deadline to retire Eligible Emissions Units covering 2024-2026 emissions, supply for these units faces tight constraints.
What happens over the course of the next year will define CORSIA’s role, not just to decarbonize the aviation sector, but as a backbone of global carbon markets.
Where are we: CORSIA 2024-2026
This coming October will mark CORSIA’s tenth anniversary. Adopted in October 2016, the flagship United Nations market-based mechanism for international aviation is designed to be implemented in three phases: (1) the pilot phase (2021-2023); (2) Phase 1 (2024-2026); and (3) Phase 2 (2027-2035). The pilot and first phase are voluntary, but in 2027, CORSIA will be mandatory for States with a larger aviation footprint. As of July 2025, 130 States confirmed voluntary participation in CORSIA’s pilot and first phase.
The impact of COVID-19 on the aviation industry significantly reduced emissions in the sector, which meant that CORSIA’s pilot phase did not create offsetting obligations. However, due to CORSIA’s tightened cap and the industry’s quick recovery with record-breaking volumes of passenger traffic in 2025, Phase 1 of CORSIA is expected to generate offsetting requirements of 100-150 million tonnes of CO2, according to ICAO.
To fulfill their offsetting obligations, air carriers can either use CORSIA eligible fuels, including sustainable aviation fuels and lower carbon aviation fuels of fossil origin, or purchase and cancel CORSIA Eligible Emissions Units (EEUs) that meet specific emission unit criteria and can only be issued by eligible offsetting programs. Each EEU represents 1 tonne of CO2 reduction, avoidance or removal outside of the aviation sector. As of today, ICAO has recognized ten emission unit programs that can issue EEUs for Phase 1 covering activities such as: high integrity jurisdictional REDD+, carbon capture and storage, clean cook stoves projects and certain renewable electricity projects, among other activities.
According to ICAO’s own live tracker, there are only around 41 million EEUs verified, issued and labeled as eligible by the programs. Considering an expected demand of between 100-150 million tCO2 for 2024-2026 according to ICAO, this implies that we still need up to four times the current level of eligible EEUs for air carriers to meet their offsetting obligations in time for the first consequential deadline in January 2028 – making this one of the strongest demand signals in global carbon markets today.
As of today, host-country authorization – a critical requirement to avoid double counting and ensuring the integrity of the units – continues to be the main hurdle to a robust EEU supply. Nonetheless, as reported by the Article 6 Implementation Partnership, progress is evident. Fourteen countries have authorization and tracking arrangements in place while an additional eighty-six countries are either considering or in the process to have these in place.
Some potential turbulence and bright developments along the way
Over the last couple of years, new geopolitical shifts, weakened climate momentum and renewed energy insecurity have complicated countries’ efforts to meet CORSIA obligations and sustain focus on long-term climate solutions. Recent volatility in global oil markets has also shifted the aviation industry’s focus away from decarbonization.
Adding another layer of complexity, the EU Commission last week issued its assessment of CORSIA to date and its effectiveness as a tool to reduce climate pollution from aviation within the European Economic Area. CORSIA owes its existence, in part due to the EU’s proposal in 2008 to include all flights arriving and departing from European airports in its EU Emission Trading System (EU ETS). Major backlash from the United States, China, Japan and other countries led to a decision by the EU to “stop the clock” and allow for a global measure (what is now CORSIA) to address international aviation emissions. On July 17, 2026, the European Commission proposed to partially lift that measure for four years for some routes beginning in 2029.
In its environmental integrity assessment of CORSIA, the Commission underscored that ICAO had not strengthened its ambition and that State participation in the global market-based measure still represented less than 70% of international aviation emissions. The Commission also underscored the need to address “hub leakage” to inform its proposal.
The EU Commission is proposing to:
• Expand EU ETS coverage to international aviation covering all routes departing from the EEA and landing within 5,000 kilometers from the largest hub in central Europe (presumably Frankfurt), including flights to hubs in the Middle East and North Africa but effectively excluding flights landing from the United States, Latin America or China.
• Deduct the cost of emissions covered by CORSIA from the newly covered routes in the EU ETS based on a credit price index.
• Expand coverage for all business jet flights that otherwise fell below a minimum emissions threshold.
• Review the EU ETS coverage of international aviation and restrict its application if by July 2032: (1) CORSIA has been strengthened to achieve ICAO’s long-term aspirational goal, towards meeting the Paris Agreement goals; (2) States participating in CORSIA represent more than 70% of international aviation emissions.
In parallel, the EU Commission is reviewing whether to allow the purchase of international carbon credits toward its 2040 climate targets, which could expand the global supply of carbon credits in the coming years and improve the EU’s position in global climate diplomacy. If greenlit, this could create an additional market signal for investors and project developers of offsetting programs. The framework expected later this year will set the environmental integrity and quality bar, government standards and safeguards that will shape the relevant offset supply markets from the start. Though not directly involving CORSIA initially, this will inevitably have an impact – CORSIA offset supply markets will quickly see dramatic improvement around the world as host countries finalize terms and put relevant infrastructure into place, incentivized as sellers to the European buyer.
From a legislative perspective, it is important to recall that the July 17 EU Commission proposal is simply the beginning of a long and unpredictable EU co-decision legislative process that will end up with a Trialogue involving the co-legislators and the Commission sometime in 2027.
Moving forward with a stronger integration of global carbon markets
At this crossroads, and to ensure CORSIA’s success in the near term, it is crucial to support and build capacity for host countries to be able to generate high integrity EEU-generating units. It is crucial that sufficient credit supply is generated in the coming 18 months, and that such supply is indeed leading to not only emission reductions but with adequate safeguards and co-benefits.
In that regard, EDF will continue to support that effort by providing host country support and advice on how to consider and structure their authorization processes, while helping proof of concept carbon credit transactions at large scale in the immediate future. EDF will also continue working toward strengthening CORSIA’s ambition in line with ICAO’s net zero carbon goal by 2050 and expanding its scope to cover all climate impacts, notably from condensation trails and nitrogen oxides, while minimizing public health impacts.
A narrow window and a real opportunity
The tenth anniversary of CORSIA’s adoption arrives alongside its first real test: a supply of eligible emissions units that, as it stands, covers only a fraction of what airlines will need to meet their Phase 1 obligations by January 2028 – not to mentioned larger demand for Phase 2 covering 2027-2035, which ICAO estimates between 880 and 1350 million tons. Closing the supply gap will take sustained, practical work in the countries positioned to generate units, paired with the kind of integrity and safeguards that make those credits trustworthy.
None of this is guaranteed, and the flight path between now and 2028 will have real challenges. But the pieces are visibly moving in the right direction, and the next year offers a rare opportunity to prove that a truly global carbon market can work – for aviation, and as a model for the climate finance architecture the world still needs to build.
