Published

2 years ago

March 24, 2024

Alice Rush

Next month will mark four years since the Indian Point nuclear power plant north of New York City began to be shut down.

Indian Point 2 was closed on April 30, 2020. Indian Point 3’s closure followed a year later. The two units, rated at roughly 1,000 megawatts each, started operating in the mid-1970s. A half-century later, their reactor cores lie dismembered. Both units are irretrievably gone, for better or worse.

I believe the closures are for the worse — and not by a little. The loss of Indian Point’s 2,000 MW of virtually carbon-free power has set back New York’s decarbonization efforts by at least a decade.

I hinted at this in Drones With Hacksaws: Climate Consequences of Shutting Indian Point Can’t Be Brushed Aside, a May 2020 post in the NY-area outlet Gotham Gazette. Soon I grew more outspoken. In two posts for The Nation in April 2022 (here and here) I invoked Indian Point to urge Californians to revoke a parallel plan to close Pacific Gas & Electric’s two-unit Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which I followed up with a plea to Gov. Gavin Newsom to scuttle the shutdown deal, co-signed by clean-air advocate Armond Cohen and whole-earth avatar Stewart Brand. Which the governor did, last year.

Once I had regarded nuclear plant closures as no big deal. Now I was telling all who would listen that junking high-performing thousand-megawatt reactors on either coast was a monstrous climate crime, the carbon equivalent to decapitating many hundreds of giant wind turbines — a metaphor I employed in my Gotham Gazette post. My turnaround rested on two clear but overlooked points.

One was that nearly all extant U.S. nukes had long ago morphed from chronic inconsistency into rock-solid generators of massive volumes of carbon-free kilowatt-hours, with “capacity factors” reliably hitting 90% or even higher. This positive change should have put to rest the antinuclear movement’s shopworn “aging and unsafe” narrative about our 90-odd operating reactors. It also elevated the plants’ economic and climate value, making politically forced closures far more costly than most of us had imagined.

The other new point is connected to carbon and climate: The effort to have “renewables” (wind, solar and occasionally hydro) fill the hole left from closing Indian Point or other nuclear plants isn’t just tendentious and difficult. Rather, the very construct that one set of zero-carbon generators (renewables) can “replace” another (nuclear) with no climate cost is simplistic if not downright false, as I explain further below.

These new ideas came to mind as I read a major story this week on the consequences of Indian Point’s closure in The Guardian by Oliver Milman, the paper’s longtime chief environment correspondent. To his credit, Milman delved pretty deeply into the impacts of reactor closures — more so than any prominent journalist has done to date. Nonetheless, it’s time for coverage of nuclear closures to go further. To assist, I’ve posted Milman’s story verbatim, with my responses alongside.

A nuclear plant’s closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up.

By Oliver Milman, The Guardian, March 20, 2024

When New York’s deteriorating and unloved Indian Point nuclear plant finally shuttered in 2021, its demise was met with delight from environmentalists who had long demanded it be scrapped.

But there has been a sting in the tail – since the closure, New York’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone up.

Castigated for its impact upon the surrounding environment and feared for its potential to unleash disaster close to the heart of New York City, Indian Point nevertheless supplied a large chunk of the state’s carbon-free electricity.

Guardian graphic using eGRID data for NYCW subregion. The chart’s other half was excised to fit the available space.

Since the plant’s closure, it has been gas, rather then clean energy such as solar and wind, that has filled the void, leaving New York City in the embarrassing situation of seeing its planet-heating emissions jump in recent years to the point its power grid is now dirtier than Texas’s, as well as the US average.

“From a climate change point of view it’s been a real step backwards and made it harder for New York City to decarbonize its electricity supply than it could’ve been,” said Ben Furnas, a climate and energy policy expert at Cornell University. “This has been a cautionary tale that has left New York in a really challenging spot.”

The closure of Indian Point raises sticky questions for the green movement and states such as New York that are looking to slash carbon pollution. Should long-held concerns about nuclear be shelved due to the overriding challenge of the climate crisis? If so, what should be done about the US’s fleet of ageing nuclear plants?

For those who spent decades fighting Indian Point, the power plant had few redeeming qualities even in an era of escalating global heating. Perched on the banks of the Hudson River about 25 miles north of Manhattan, the hulking facility started operation in the 1960s and its three reactors at one point contributed about a quarter of New York City’s power.

It faced a constant barrage of criticism over safety concerns, however, particularly around the leaking of radioactive material into groundwater and for harm caused to fish when the river’s water was used for cooling. Pressure from Andrew Cuomo, New York’s then governor, and Bernie Sanders – the senator called Indian Point a “catastrophe waiting to happen” – led to a phased closure announced in 2017, with the two remaining reactors shutting in 2020 and 2021.

The closure was cause for jubilation in green circles, with Mark Ruffalo, the actor and environmentalist, calling the plant’s end “a BIG deal”. He added in a video: “Let’s get beyond Indian Point.” New York has two other nuclear stations, which have also faced opposition, that have licenses set to expire this decade.

But rather than immediately usher in a new dawn of clean energy, Indian Point’s departure spurred a jump in planet-heating emissions. New York upped its consumption of readily available gas to make up its shortfall in 2020 and again in 2021, as nuclear dropped to just a fifth of the state’s electricity generation, down from about a third before Indian Point’s closure.

This reversal will not itself wreck New York’s goal of making its grid emissions-free by 2040. Two major projects bringing Canadian hydropower and upstate solar and wind electricity will come online by 2027, while the state is pushing ahead with new offshore wind projects – New York’s first offshore turbines started whirring last week. Kathy Hochul, New York’s governor, has vowed the state will “build a cleaner, greener future for all New Yorkers.”

Even as renewable energy blossoms at a gathering pace in the US, though, it is gas that remains the most common fallback for utilities once they take nuclear offline, according to Furnas. This mirrors a situation faced by Germany after it looked to move away from nuclear in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011, only to fall back on coal, the dirtiest of all fossil fuels, as a temporary replacement.

“As renewables are being built we still need energy for when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining and most often it’s gas that is doing that,” said Furnas. “It’s a harrowing dynamic. Taking away a big slice of clean energy coming from nuclear can be a self-inflicted wound from a climate change point of view.”

With the world barreling towards disastrous climate change impacts due to the dawdling pace of emissions cuts, some environmentalists have set aside reservations and accepted nuclear as an expedient power source. The US currently derives about a fifth of its electricity from nuclear power.

Bill McKibben, author, activist and founder of 350.org, said that the position “of the people I know and trust” is that “if you have an existing nuke, keep it open if you can. I think most people are agnostic on new nuclear, hoping that the next generation of reactors might pan out but fearing that they’ll be too expensive.

“The hard part for nuclear, aside from all the traditional and still applicable safety caveats, is that sun and wind and batteries just keep getting cheaper and cheaper, which means the nuclear industry increasingly depends on political gamesmanship to get public funding,” McKibben added.

Wariness over nuclear has long been a central tenet of the environmental movement, though, and opponents point to concerns over nuclear waste, localized pollution and the chance, albeit unlikely, of a major disaster. In California, a coalition of green groups recently filed a lawsuit to try to force the closure of the Diablo Canyon facility, which provides about 8% of the state’s electricity.

“Diablo Canyon has not received the safety upgrades and maintenance it needs and we are dubious that nuclear is safe in any regard, let alone without these upgrades – it’s a huge problem,” said Hallie Templeton, legal director of Friends of the Earth, which was founded in 1969 to, among other things, oppose Diablo Canyon.

Templeton said the groups were alarmed over Diablo Canyon’s discharge of waste water into the environment and the possibility an earthquake could trigger a disastrous leak of nuclear waste. A previous Friends of the Earth deal with the plant’s operator, PG&E, to shutter Diablo Canyon was clouded by state legislation allowing the facility to remain open for another five years, and potentially longer, which Templeton said was a “twist of the knife” to opponents.

“We are not stuck in the past – we are embracing renewable energy technology like solar and wind,” she said. “There was ample notice for everyone to get their houses in order and switch over to solar and wind and they didn’t do anything. The main beneficiary of all this is the corporation making money out of this plant remaining active for longer.”

Meanwhile, supporters of nuclear – some online fans have been called “nuclear bros” – claim the energy source has moved past the specter of Chernobyl and into a new era of small modular nuclear reactors. Amazon recently purchased a nuclear-powered data center, while Bill Gates has also plowed investment into the technology. Rising electricity bills, as well as the climate crisis, are causing people to reassess nuclear, advocates say.

“Things have changed drastically – five years ago I would get a very hostile response when talking about nuclear, now people are just so much more open about it,” said Grace Stanke, a nuclear fuels engineer and former Miss America who regularly gives talks on the benefits of nuclear.

“I find that young people really want to have a discussion about nuclear because of climate change, but people of all ages want reliable, accessible energy,” she said. “Nuclear can provide that.”

The forces that won Indian Point’s closure were blind to the climate cost.

By Charles Komanoff, Carbon Tax Center, March 23, 2024

New Reality #1: Indian Point wasn’t “deteriorating” when it was closed.

“Deteriorating and unloved” is how Milman characterized Indian Point in his lede. “Unloved?” Sure, though probably no U.S. generating station has been fondly embraced since Woody Guthrie rhapsodized about the Grand Coulee Dam in the 1940s.

But “deteriorating”? How could a power plant on the verge of collapse run for two decades at greater than 90% of its maximum capacity?

Calculations by author from International Atomic Energy Agency data. Diablo Canyon has also averaged over 90% CF since 2000.

Had Indian Point been less productive, the jump in the metropolitan area’s carbon emission rate would have been far less than the apparent 60 percent increase in the Guardian graph at left. Though the “electrify everything” community is loath to discuss it, the emissions surge from closing Indian Point significantly diminishes the purported climate benefit from shifting vehicles, heating, cooking and industry from combustion to electricity .

The impetus for shutting Indian Point largely came through, not from then-Gov. Cuomo.

Milman pins the decision to close Indian Point on NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Vermont’s U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders. While Cuomo backed and brokered the deal (which Sanders had nothing to do with), the real push came from a coalition of NY-area environmental activists led by Riverkeeper, who, as he notes, “spent decades fighting Indian Point.” And it was relentless.

The wellsprings of their fight were many, from Cold War fears of anything nuclear to a fierce devotion to the Hudson River ecosystem, which Indian Point threatened not through occasional minor radioactive leaks but via larval striped bass entrainment on the plant’s intake screens. Their fight was of course supercharged by the 1979 Three Mile Island reactor meltdown in Pennsylvania and, later, by the 9/11 hijackers’ Hudson River flight path. But as I pointed out in Gotham Gazette, few shutdown proponents had carbon reduction in their organizational DNA. None had ever built anything, leaving many with a fantasyland conception of the work required to substitute green capacity for Indian Point.

And while the shutdown forces proclaimed their love for wind and solar, their understanding of electric grids and nukes was stuck in the past. To them, Indian Point was Three Mile Island (or Chernobyl) on the Hudson — never mind that by the mid-2010s U.S. nuclear power plants had multiplied their pre-TMI operating experience twenty-fold with nary a mishap.

No, in most anti-nukers’ minds, Indian Point would forever be a bumbling menace incapable of rising above its previous-century average 50% capacity factor (see graph above). Most either ignored the plant’s born-again 90% online mark or viewed it as proof of lax oversight by a co-opted Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Note too that the “hulking facility,” as Milman termed Indian Point, lay a very considerable 35 air miles from Columbus Circle, rather than “25 miles north of Manhattan,” a figure that references the borough’s uninhabited northern tip. NYC residents had more immediate concerns, leaving fear and loathing over the nukes to be concentrated among the plant’s Westchester neighbors (Cuomo’s backyard). Which raises the question of why in-city environmental justice groups failed to question the shutdown, which is now impeding closure of polluting “peaker” plants in their own Brooklyn, Queens and Bronx backyards.

Still, the shutdown campaigners’ most grievous lapse was their failure to grasp that the new climate imperative requires a radically different conceptual framework for gauging nuclear power.

New Reality #2: Wind and solar that are replacing Indian Point can’t also reduce fossil fuels.

It’s dispiriting to contemplate the effort required to create enough new carbon-free electricity to generate Indian Point’s lost carbon-free output. Think 500 giant offshore wind turbines, each rated at 8 megawatts. (Wind farms need twice the capacity of Indian Point, i.e., 4,000 MW vs. 2,000, to offset their lesser capacity factor.)

What about solar PV? Its capacity disadvantage vis-a-vis Indian Point’s 90% is five- or even six-fold, meaning 10,000 or more megawatts of new solar to replace Indian Point. I won’t even try to calculate how many solar buildings that would require. But this is where Indian Point’s 90% capacity factor is so daunting; had the plant stayed mired at 60%, the capacity ratios to replace it would be a third less steep.

But wait . . . it’s even worse. These massive infusions of wind or solar are supposed to be reducing fossil fuel use by helping the grid phase out gas (methane) fired electricity. Which they cannot do, if they first need to stand in for the carbon-free generation that Indian Point was providing before it was shut.

So when Riverkeeper pledged in 2015-2017, or Friends of the Earth’s legal director told the Guardian‘s Milman that “we are embracing renewable energy technology like solar and wind,” they’re misrepresenting renewables’ capacity to help nuclear-depleted grids cut down on carbon. Shutting a functioning nuclear power plant puts the grid into a deep carbon-reduction hole — one that new solar and wind must first fill, at great expense, before further barrages of turbines and panels can actually be said to be keeping fossil fuels in the ground.

I suspect that not one in a hundred shut-nukes-now campaigners grasps this frame of reference. I certainly didn’t, until one day in April 2020, mere weeks before Indian Point 2 would be turned off, when an activist with Nuclear NY phoned me out of the blue and hurled this new paradigm at me. Before then, I was stuck in the “grid sufficiency” framework that was limited to having enough megawatts to keep everyone’s A/C’s running on peak summer days. The idea that the next giant batch or two of renewables will only keep CO2 emissions running in place rather than reduce them was new and startling. And irrefutably true.

To be clear, I don’t criticize Milman for missing this new paradigm. He’s a journalist, not an analyst or analyst. It’s on us climate advocates to propagate it till it reaches reportorial critical mass.

I credit Milman for giving FoE’s legal director free rein about Diablo. “There was ample notice for everyone to get their houses in order and switch over to solar and wind and they didn’t do anything,” she told him.

Goodness. Everyone [who? California government? PG&E? green entrepreneurs?] didn’t do anything to switch over to solar and wind. Welcome to reality, Friends of the Earth!

I knew FoE’s legendary founder David Brower personally. I and legions of others were inspired in the 1960s and 1970s by his implacable refusal to accede to the world as it was and his monumental determination to build a better one. But reality has its own implacability. The difficulty of bringing actual wind and solar projects (and more energy-efficiency) to fruition has the sad corollary that shutting viable nuclear plants consigns long-sought big blocks of renewables to being mere restorers of the untenable climate status quo.

In closing: Contrary to Milman (and NY Gov. Kathy Hochul), Indian Point’s closure will wreck NY’s goal of an emissions-free grid by 2040.

“Two major projects bringing Canadian hydropower and upstate solar and wind electricity will come online by 2027,” Milman wrote, referencing the Champlain-Hudson Power Express transmission line and Clean Path NY. But their combined annual output will only match Indian Point’s lost carbon-free production. Considering that loss, the two ventures can’t be credited with actually pushing fossil fuels out of the grid. That will require massive new clean power ventures, few of which are on the horizon.

I’ve written about the travails of getting big, difference-making offshore wind farms up and running in New York. I’ve argued that robust carbon pricing could help neutralize the inflationary pressures, supply bottlenecks, higher interest rates and pervasive NIMBY-ism that have led some wind developers to deep-six big projects.

Though I’ve yet to fully “do the math,” my decades adjacent to the electricity industry (1970-1995) and indeed my long career in policy analysis tell me that New York’s grid won’t even reach 80% carbon-free by 2040 unless the state or, better, Washington legislates a palpable carbon price that incentivizes large-scale demand reductions along with faster uptake of new wind, solar and, perhaps, nuclear.

Up Next

How do Carbon Credits Drive Sustainable Projects

Don't Miss

Protected: The 2 Big Things Missing from Media Coverage of Nuke Plant Shutdowns

Alice Rush

Carbon Footprint

NASCAR’s Biofuel Revolution: How America’s Biggest Motorsport Is Hitting Full Throttle on Net Zero

Published

2 days ago

March 13, 2026

Alice Rush

For decades, the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, aka NASCAR, stood for roaring engines, speed, and fierce competition. The sport, headquartered in Daytona Beach, Florida, built its reputation on powerful combustion engines and high-energy racing events across the United States.

However, the organization has recently shifted gears. Today, NASCAR is embracing sustainability and cleaner technology while still protecting the thrill of racing. The sport is working toward a bold target: net-zero operating emissions by 2035.

This goal forms the backbone of the NASCAR IMPACT strategy. The plan looks at emissions across the sport’s core activities—from race cars and racetrack facilities to large racing events. Instead of relying on a single solution, NASCAR is using multiple approaches, such as renewable energy, cleaner fuels, and improved waste management.

In short, the future of stock-car racing is becoming cleaner without losing its competitive edge.

NASCAR’s Net-Zero Mission

Back in 2023, NASCAR announced its commitment to reach net-zero carbon emissions from its operations by 2035. In simple terms, the goal focuses on the fuel and electricity used at NASCAR-owned racetracks and offices.

To make this happen, the organization plans to reduce overall energy consumption while increasing the share of renewable power used across its operations.

The strategy focuses on three main areas:

Race cars
Racing events
Facilities and offices

Each of these areas produces emissions in different ways. For example, race cars consume fuel, while events require power generators and logistics fleets. Meanwhile, offices and racetracks use electricity, heating, and cooling systems. Therefore, NASCAR’s climate strategy combines efficiency improvements with cleaner energy solutions.

Here’s a snapshot of the motosport company’s 2024 electricity consumption and emisions profile:

Electric Innovation Hits the Track

One of the biggest steps toward cleaner racing arrived in July 2024. Through the ABB NASCAR Electrification Partnership, the sport introduced its first electric race car prototype.

The ABB NASCAR EV Prototype represents a new chapter in motorsports technology. Engineers from NASCAR built the vehicle with support from three major automakers, i.e., Chevrolet, Ford Motor Company, and Toyota.

The project shows how the racing world can experiment with emerging technologies. NASCAR does not plan to replace traditional engines overnight. Instead, the electric prototype works as a testing ground for future performance innovations.

Motorsports has always pushed automotive technology forward. Now, sustainability is becoming part of that engineering race.

A Major Biofuel Partnership with POET Changes the Game

Another major development came through NASCAR’s partnership with POET LLC, the world’s largest biofuel producer. The agreement named POET as the Official Bioethanol Partner of NASCAR. More importantly, the collaboration introduces zero-carbon bioethanol into the sport’s fuel mix.

NASCAR will blend this bioethanol with fuel supplied by its long-time partner Sunoco. As a result, the racing series will become the first major motorsport to use zero-carbon bioethanol fuel.

This change highlights a key idea behind NASCAR’s sustainability strategy: improving performance while cutting emissions.

Bioethanol already offers several advantages. It burns cleaner than conventional gasoline and produces lower carbon intensity. At the same time, it maintains the high-octane performance required for competitive racing.

For drivers and teams, fuel keeps engines running at full power. For the environment, it reduces pollution.

The partnership also brings strong visibility for the biofuel industry. Beginning this season, POET sponsors the “POET Restart Zone” at NASCAR-owned tracks—one of the most intense moments during races when cars restart after caution periods.

In addition, POET branding now appears on all NASCAR fuel cans alongside Sunoco. This move reinforces the growing role of renewable fuels in motorsports.

Cleaner Fuels for the Next Generation of Race Cars

NASCAR’s national racing series already uses Sunoco Green E15, a high-performance unleaded fuel blend. The fuel contains 15% bioethanol and 85% gasoline.

During the 2024 racing season, NASCAR consumed over 261,000 gallons of Sunoco Green E15 across its three national racing series.

While combustion engines will remain part of NASCAR’s identity, the organization plans to keep improving fuel technology over the next decade. And cleaner fuels are a practical step. They allow the sport to reduce emissions without requiring major changes to vehicle design.

Renewable Diesel in NASCAR’s Hauler Fleet

Behind every NASCAR race lies a massive logistics operation. The sport’s equipment travels thousands of miles each season in heavy transport trucks.

In 2024, NASCAR’s fleet of 17 Mack diesel haulers traveled more than 805,000 miles—roughly the distance of going to the moon and back.

Significantly, the company started testing renewable diesel fuel from wood residues, agricultural waste, and used cooking oil to reduce emissions from transportation

The fuel works in existing engines without modifications. That makes it a convenient way to cut emissions immediately while longer-term solutions develop. It also burns cleaner than traditional diesel, which helps lower the environmental footprint of NASCAR’s logistics operations.

ALSO CHECK: Ferrari’s Road to Glory: Massive €1.74 Billion Revenue Boom and Net Zero Goals Aligned

Powering Racetracks with Renewable Energy Credits

Beyond vehicles and events, NASCAR is also transforming the energy used at its facilities.

In 2023, the organization committed to powering all of its facilities with 100% renewable electricity for the next five years. To achieve this, NASCAR partnered with NextEra Energy.
The company purchased Green-e Certified Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) from wind farms across the United States. These credits ensure that an equivalent amount of renewable electricity enters the national power grid. By buying these credits, NASCAR offsets the electricity used at its racetracks and offices.

However, the organization does not plan to rely on credits forever. In the long run, NASCAR hopes to install solar panels directly at its facilities, producing clean electricity on site and strengthening local renewable energy supply.

Reducing Energy Demand at Facilities

Using renewable power is important. But reducing overall energy demand matters just as much.

NASCAR has begun implementing energy-efficiency programs across its buildings and racetracks. These measures focus on cutting electricity consumption while lowering operating costs.

Another key area involves fugitive emissions. These are small gas leaks from equipment such as air conditioners and refrigeration systems. Although they may seem minor, some of these gases can be powerful greenhouse pollutants.

Therefore, NASCAR closely monitors these systems and works to prevent leaks whenever possible.

Cutting Emissions at Racing Events

Large racing events require significant energy. Power generators, logistics fleets, and track equipment all contribute to emissions.

Therefore, NASCAR has started analyzing energy use across its race operations. Data collection helps the organization understand where emissions are highest and where improvements can deliver the biggest impact.

One example involves track dryers. After heavy rain, NASCAR uses specialized machines to dry racetracks quickly so races can continue. Previously, these machines used jet fuel. However, NASCAR recently introduced the first propane-powered track dryer with help from partner Suburban Propane.

The change is expected to reduce emissions from these dryers by about 58%. It may seem like a small improvement, but these incremental changes add up over time.

Another example comes from the Chicago Street Race. By redesigning the layout of temporary power units, the event operations team managed to run multiple areas using a single hybrid generator.

As a result, the race reduced fuel consumption by more than 27% compared with the previous year.

nascar energy efficiency

Recycling and Waste Reduction Across the Sport

Sustainability efforts at NASCAR extend beyond energy and fuel. Waste management has become another major focus.

The organization now operates expanded recycling programs across its tracks and offices. These programs target a wide range of materials, including aluminum cans, plastic bottles, used racing tires, and motor oil.

NASCAR also partners with waste-management companies to divert materials from landfills and promote circular economy practices.

Even fans play a role. During race weekends, it encourages spectators to recycle and dispose of waste responsibly. These engagement campaigns help reduce the environmental footprint of large racing events.

The Future of Sustainable Motorsports

NASCAR remains one of the most recognizable motorsports organizations in the world. Traditionally, the sport has focused on stock-car racing events across the Southeast and Midwest United States.

Yet today, NASCAR is also becoming a testing ground for sustainability innovation. From electric prototypes and renewable fuels to cleaner logistics and renewable energy systems, the organization is experimenting with multiple solutions at once.

Importantly, these efforts prove that high performance and environmental responsibility can coexist. Motorsports has always pushed the limits of engineering. Now, the industry is beginning to push the limits of sustainability as well.

READ MORE: Mercedes-AMG PETRONAS Expands Carbon Removal Portfolio to Accelerate Net Zero Push

The post NASCAR’s Biofuel Revolution: How America’s Biggest Motorsport Is Hitting Full Throttle on Net Zero appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Carbon Footprint

South Korea Mandates ISSB-Aligned Climate Reporting by 2028 for Corporate Giants

Published

2 days ago

March 13, 2026

Alice Rush

South Korea plans to require large companies to publish mandatory sustainability reports starting in 2028. The rule will apply first to major firms listed on the country’s main stock exchange.

Starting in 2028, KOSPI (the largest South Korean stocks) companies with at least 30 trillion won (around $22 billion) in assets will need to reveal their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices.

South Korea’s Sustainability Reporting Era Begins

The reporting requirement will expand in 2029 to companies with 10 trillion won or more in assets. The first phase will focus on about 58 of South Korea‘s largest listed companies. This is based on estimates from the Financial Services Commission (FSC).

Companies must publish clear details on climate risks, emissions, governance, and sustainability strategies. These disclosures will cover greenhouse gas emissions, climate financial risks, and plans to achieve climate goals.

The government says the policy will improve transparency for investors and strengthen confidence in Korea’s financial markets. It will also help the country align with global ESG reporting standards that investors increasingly expect.

South Korea has big industrial companies operating in electronics, cars, steel, and shipbuilding. These industries play a major role in global supply chains. Clear sustainability reporting could help these companies maintain access to international capital and markets.

A Gradual Rollout to Ease Corporate Burden

In 2026, South Korea’s Financial Services Commission released a roadmap for ESG disclosure. The policy forms part of the government’s broader strategy to support the country’s green transition.

south korea 2030 emissions projection

Officials decided on a phased rollout to give companies enough time to prepare. Key elements of the plan include:

Mandatory ESG reporting for large KOSPI companies starting in 2028.
Expansion to additional companies in 2029.
Full adoption of supply-chain emissions reporting by 2031.

Companies will receive a three-year grace period before they must disclose Scope 3 emissions. These emissions include indirect emissions across a company’s value chain. These can come from suppliers, transportation, product use, and waste.

For many firms, Scope 3 emissions represent the largest share of total emissions. The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) states that Scope 3 emissions can be over 11 times greater than direct operational emissions for many companies.

Regulators gave companies more time to create systems for measuring these emissions due to the complexity involved.

Initially, the rules will operate through stock exchange disclosure requirements. Over time, the government plans to convert them into formal legal reporting obligations.

How Climate Finance Powers Korea’s Green Shift

The new reporting framework supports South Korea’s broader climate policy and energy transition. The government aims to raise about 790 trillion won (around $590 billion) by 2032.

The funding will support climate-related investments and help industries modernize and reduce emissions. Priority sectors include renewable energy, hydrogen technologies, green infrastructure, low-carbon manufacturing, and energy efficiency upgrades.

Heavy industries are a key focus of these efforts. South Korea is a top producer of steel, petrochemicals, and semiconductors, which need a lot of energy. The country generates 33% of its electricity from coal, per International Energy Agency data.

International Energy Agency - Electricity generation sources, Korea, 2024

The IEA says South Korea was one of the top ten energy consumers in 2024. Industry made up a large part of the electricity demand. The government will introduce transition finance frameworks. These will help high-emission industries get funding for cleaner technologies.

Korea 2030 ghg reduction targets

South Korea has pledged to reach carbon neutrality by 2050. The country also aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 2018 levels by 2030 under its updated climate plan. Stronger ESG reporting will help investors measure corporate progress toward these goals.

Why Mandatory ESG Reporting Is Going Global

South Korea’s policy reflects a global shift toward mandatory sustainability reporting. Governments and regulators increasingly require companies to disclose climate risks and emissions data. These rules show how climate change and energy policies can impact businesses.

The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) is a major reporting framework. The rule will eventually apply to around 50,000 companies operating in Europe, according to the European Commission.

Global standards are also emerging. The International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) released two key disclosure standards in 2023:

IFRS S1, covering general sustainability disclosures
IFRS S2, covering climate-related disclosures

More than 20 jurisdictions representing over half of global GDP have announced plans to adopt or align with ISSB standards. South Korea’s reporting framework follows these international guidelines.

The country set up the Korea Sustainability Standards Board (KSSB). Its job is to create national reporting standards that match the ISSB framework.

Companies will be required to disclose:

climate risks and opportunities,
governance structures for sustainability oversight,
emissions data and reduction targets, and
strategy and risk management practices.

This alignment helps investors compare companies across different markets using similar data.

Korean Corporations Step Up Sustainability Disclosures

Corporate sustainability reporting has already expanded in South Korea. By 2024, about 203 Korean companies will publish voluntary sustainability reports. This comes from ESG research groups that track disclosure trends.

Large Korean firms have increasingly adopted global reporting frameworks such as:

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB)

However, many companies asked regulators to delay mandatory reporting requirements. Businesses said they need more time to create reliable emissions measurement systems and reporting processes.

The government responded by pushing the start date to 2028. The extra time helps companies create internal ESG management systems and enhance data collection. Financial institutions strongly support stronger sustainability disclosure.

Investors increasingly use ESG data when evaluating risk and long-term performance. According to the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, sustainable investment assets reached over $30 trillion globally in recent years. Analysts forecast it to reach $40 trillion by 2030.

ESG asset forecast 2030 Bloomberg

Transparent ESG reporting helps companies attract capital from these investors. It also helps banks and asset managers assess climate risks across their portfolios.

The Future of ESG Disclosure in Asia

South Korea’s new rules could influence ESG reporting across Asia. Several financial centers in the region are strengthening climate reporting policies.

For instance, Japan plans to expand sustainability disclosure rules for major companies beginning around 2027. The country now requires climate risk disclosures for companies on its Prime Market. These disclosures must follow the TCFD framework.

Singapore and Hong Kong are both starting mandatory climate reporting that will follow ISSB standards. China is also expanding its climate disclosure rules to other major sectors.

SEE MORE: China Expands Carbon Reporting to Airlines and Heavy Industry in Major Climate Disclosure Shift

These developments reflect growing pressure from global investors. Many asset managers now need detailed climate data from companies. They use this information before deciding on investments.

Consistent reporting frameworks also help multinational companies operate across multiple markets. Large corporations often face different disclosure rules in different countries. Aligning with global standards can reduce compliance costs and improve transparency.

As more countries adopt ESG reporting rules, sustainability reporting may become as common as financial reporting.

Transparency as the New Standard in Global Markets

South Korea’s plan to introduce mandatory sustainability reporting in 2028 marks a major step in the country’s climate and financial policy. The phased rollout will start with the largest listed companies and later expand to more firms. Companies will need to disclose detailed data on emissions, climate risks, and sustainability strategies.

The policy aims to improve transparency for investors and align South Korea with global ESG reporting standards. As sustainability disclosure becomes more common worldwide, companies with strong climate strategies and clear reporting systems may gain an advantage in global capital markets.

READ MORE: U.S. Backs South Korea’s Uranium Enrichment and Nuclear-Powered Submarine Ambitions

The post South Korea Mandates ISSB-Aligned Climate Reporting by 2028 for Corporate Giants appeared first on Carbon Credits.

Carbon Footprint

CATL’s Profit Surges 42% With Global Battery Demand and the Shift to a Zero-Carbon Future

Published

2 days ago

March 13, 2026

Alice Rush

Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Limited (CATL) released its 2025 Annual Report on March 10, 2026. The report highlights strong financial growth, rapid global expansion, and continued innovation in battery technology. The company reinforced its position as the world’s largest battery manufacturer while advancing its vision of becoming a leading zero-carbon technology company.

The report explains how CATL is expanding beyond traditional battery markets. The company is applying its technology across electric vehicles, energy storage, aviation, shipping, and AI infrastructure. CATL refers to this strategy as “all-domain growth,” meaning the electrification of multiple industries through advanced battery systems.

CATL’s Strong Financial Performance Reflects Rising Battery Demand

In 2025, the company reported strong revenue growth, record battery shipments, and higher profits. At the same time, it expanded its manufacturing capacity, increased research spending, and advanced sustainability efforts to build a circular energy ecosystem.

Revenue reached RMB 423.7 billion, a 17% increase from the previous year.
Net profit rose to RMB 72.2 billion, growing 42% year on year

The company also generated strong operating cash flow. Net cash flow from operating activities reached RMB 133.2 billion, showing steady demand for its products and solid business performance.

Much of this growth came from the rapid expansion of electric vehicles and energy storage systems worldwide. Governments and companies continue to invest heavily in clean energy, which has increased demand for reliable battery technology.

Battery shipments played a key role in this growth. CATL sold 661 gigawatt-hours of lithium-ion batteries during the year, a 39% increase from 2024. This shows the company’s ability to scale production as global demand for batteries continues to rise.

Maintains Its Global Battery Leadership

According to data from SNE Research, the company held a 39.2% share of the global power battery market in the last year. Thereby, solidifying its leadership in the global battery market.

The company also expanded its international presence. Overseas market share reached 30%, and CATL batteries have now been installed in more than 24 million vehicles globally.

Energy storage has also become a major growth area for the company. Some notable milestones include:

Accounted for 30.4% of global energy storage battery shipments in 2025. This allowed the company to maintain the top global position in energy storage batteries for the fifth consecutive year.
Supported around 2,300 energy storage projects worldwide. At the same time, shipments from its energy storage system integration business grew by more than 160% compared with the previous year.

This growth reflects the increasing role of battery systems in balancing renewable energy grids and improving electricity reliability.

Furthermore, to meet growing global demand, the company expanded its manufacturing capacity to 772 GWh by the end of 2025, with 321 GWh under construction.

It operates advanced Lighthouse factories that use digital technology and automation to boost efficiency and reduce environmental impact.

Global battery demand

New Battery Technologies Expand Product Portfolio

The company introduced several new battery technologies during 2025, reflecting its focus on innovation and product diversification. These include the second-generation batteries, such as:

Shenxing superfast charging
Shenxing Pro
Freevoy dual-power
Naxtra
Super Hybrid

These technologies aim to improve charging speed, increase reliability in extreme environments, and reduce dependence on critical raw materials.

Advancement of Sodium-ion Batteries

One important development is the advancement of sodium-ion batteries. These batteries offer an alternative to lithium-based technologies and can reduce reliance on limited mineral resources.

CATL expects sodium-ion batteries to see broader adoption beginning in 2026 across applications such as battery swapping systems, passenger vehicles, commercial vehicles, and energy storage.

Sodium ion

Batteries Supporting AI Data Centers and Digital Infrastructure

Another emerging opportunity for CATL is energy infrastructure for artificial intelligence. Modern AI data centers require large and stable electricity supplies. Energy storage systems can help manage power consumption while improving efficiency.

CATL already provides storage solutions for SenseTime’s AI data center in Shanghai. The system helps optimize electricity usage and reduce operational costs.

According to the company, the storage system saves more than 10 million kilowatt-hours of electricity every year. It also lowers electricity costs by around 7% and prevents roughly 3,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually.

This example shows how battery technology can play an important role in supporting the growing digital economy while also reducing emissions.

Expanding Electrification Into Aviation and Shipping

The company is expanding into aviation, maritime transport, and logistics as part of its broader electrification strategy.

In aviation, subsidiary AutoFlight completed the first public flight of the world’s largest five-ton electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft. This shows the potential of electric aircraft for city transport and logistics.

In shipping, its battery systems have been approved by major international maritime authorities, making them safe for use in commercial ships.

CATL batteries are already powering nearly 1,000 electric vessels worldwide. The company also launched a “Ship–Shore–Cloud” system that connects electric ships, port charging, and digital energy management to reduce emissions and improve efficiency.

Research and Innovation Strengthen Technology Leadership

Research and development are a key part of CATL’s strategy. In 2025, the company spent RMB 22.1 billion on R&D, and over the past ten years, total investment exceeded RMB 90 billion.

CATL has six research centers and about 23,000 engineers and scientists, helping it create new battery technologies and improve existing ones. By the end of 2025, it held over 54,000 patents and ranked second among Chinese companies in international patent applications.

Moreover, the company uses artificial intelligence in research and manufacturing. For example, its next-generation lithium-ion battery project won the World Economic Forum’s MINDS award, showing how AI speeds up innovation.

ALSO SEE: CATL Stock Surges on JPMorgan Upgrade and China’s Energy Storage Boom

Building a Zero-Carbon Energy Ecosystem

CATL’s strategy goes beyond producing batteries. The company is working to create a complete zero-carbon energy ecosystem that integrates clean electricity, storage, and transportation.

Battery swapping is an important part of this strategy. CATL has built more than 1,000 Choco-Swap stations for passenger vehicles across 45 cities in China. These stations allow drivers to replace depleted batteries with fully charged ones in minutes.

The company also operates battery swapping infrastructure for heavy-duty trucks through its QIJI Energy network. This network includes more than 300 stations across 26 provinces and supports tens of thousands of kilometers of green logistics routes. In 2025, the combined network provided more than 1.15 million battery-swapping services.

CATL is also developing zero-carbon industrial parks and integrated renewable energy systems that combine power generation, storage, and electricity management.

One major project is located in Shandong province, where the company is building what it describes as the world’s first off-grid zero-carbon industrial park powered entirely by renewable electricity. The facility will supply green power to a lithium-ion battery plant with an annual capacity of 40 gigawatt-hours.

Advancing Circular Energy and Sustainability

Alongside business expansion, CATL continues to strengthen its sustainability commitments. In 2025, the company achieved an MSCI ESG rating of AA and was included in the S&P Global Sustainability Yearbook as well as the FTSE Emerging Index.

The company reported that its core operations reached carbon neutrality in 2025. At the same time, it is working to reduce emissions across its supply chain.

Battery recycling plays a key role in this effort. CATL recovered and processed 210,000 tonnes of used batteries during the year. From this recycling process, the company regenerated 24,000 tonnes of lithium salts, helping reduce the need for newly mined materials.

To support the development of a global circular battery economy, CATL also launched the Global Energy Circularity Commitment initiative.

Looking ahead, CATL plans to continue expanding its technology leadership and global partnerships. Growth is expected across electric vehicles, renewable energy storage, electrified transport, and digital infrastructure.

Through continued innovation, manufacturing expansion, and sustainability initiatives, CATL aims to strengthen its role in the global transition toward a zero-carbon energy system. The 2025 annual report shows that the company is not only leading the battery market but also shaping the future of clean energy worldwide.