CCAN

By Denise Robbins, CCAN Communications Team

In London, nations at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) advanced a proposal for a net-zero framework on maritime shipping, functionally creating the world’s first-ever price on carbon. 

In Santa Marta, Colombia, more than 50 countries gathered for the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, a historic attempt to move the world from vague climate promises toward concrete plans to phase out oil, gas and coal.

And in the rest of the world, many countries are moving away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible due to the Middle Eastern conflict causing oil prices to skyrocket. 

The movement to make polluters pay for a just transition is growing to the point of inevitability, no matter what President Donald Trump does to try and stop it. But what exactly is happening, and what does it mean for the United States? 

Jack Hall/PA Media Assignments

A Groundbreaking Carbon Price on Maritime Shipping

International shipping has long been treated as one of the hardest sectors to regulate. The sector produces roughly 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and because ships operate across borders, national climate rules alone cannot easily cover it. So the IMO is one of the few venues capable of setting global standards for shipping emissions.

The IMO’s framework that advanced through last week’s talks would create a global fuel standard for ships and an economic mechanism for emissions, with funds intended to support cleaner fuels and help developing countries navigate the transition. 

This happened despite Trump’s best efforts. For the past year, United States representatives have been bullying and pressuring other countries to pull away from the net-zero framework. As a result, Greece pushed back, even as the European Union continued to have a public unified statement of support. Liberia and Panama led a counter-proposal that would have removed carbon pricing from the framework. The United States continued its aggressive approach during the talks this spring, pulling out all the stops to derail the framework. They lobbied delegates, backed delay tactics and aligned with Saudi Arabia and other opponents of the emissions fee. Yet the nations were not dismayed. The draft text, which would combine a global fuel standard with a pricing mechanism charging ships for emissions above set limits and channeling revenue into cleaner fuels and support for developing countries, moved forward, and it will be officially voted on in December. 

If passed, a global framework that prices pollution would mark a major shift from voluntary climate promises toward enforceable rules — and toward making polluters contribute to the cost of the transition.

Marco Perdomo / Oxfam Colombia y Trineo Comunicaciones

Meanwhile, in Colombia….

More than 50 countries met for the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, a historic attempt to move the world from vague climate promises toward concrete plans to phase out oil, gas and coal.

The conference focused heavily on financing. For many countries, especially in the Global South, the barrier to getting off fossil fuels is not a lack of will or clean energy potential. It is debt, high borrowing costs, limited fiscal space and a global financial system that still makes it easier to fund fossil fuel projects than renewable energy.

That is why “make polluters pay” is becoming central to the next phase of climate politics. The transition away from fossil fuels will take money and this money shouldn’t come from the communities already paying for debilitating climate disasters. Instead, the companies that made billions from extracting and selling fossil fuels must be required to contribute to the cost of moving beyond them.

Outside the formal negotiation halls, civil society in Santa Marta demanded a fair transition. The People’s Summit for a Fossil-Free Future brought together frontline communities, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant leaders, trade unions, youth, farmers, fisherfolk, feminists and social movements.

Nearly 1,000 organizations united behind a declaration calling for a fossil fuel phaseout that is fast, fair, fully funded and grounded in justice. Their demands included no new fossil fuel expansion, time-bound national phaseout plans, grant-based public finance, debt cancellation, an end to fossil fuel subsidies and binding safeguards against fossil fuel lobbying.

And U.S. States Are Taking Action

Make Polluter Pay Campaign in D.C.

Even as the federal government retreats, state campaigns are advancing their own versions of “make polluters pay.”

Vermont and New York have already passed climate superfund laws that seek to recover climate-related costs from major fossil fuel companies. These laws build on the same principle as traditional Superfund-style accountability: companies that created the harm should help pay to clean it up and protect communities.

Maryland has taken a first step as well. In 2025, lawmakers passed a climate superfund cost assessment bill requiring the state to study the financial impact of climate change and explore how fossil fuel companies could be made to pay for the damage they helped cause.

Virginia advocates have also pushed legislation to make the biggest polluters contribute to disaster relief and resilient clean energy infrastructure. The proposed Extreme Weather Taxpayer Relief Act would establish a cost recovery program aimed at ensuring fossil fuel companies help fund responses to the extreme weather made worse by climate change.

Fossil Fuels Profiting from War

The timing matters. As governments met in Colombia to discuss how to pay for a just transition, fossil fuel majors were preparing to announce another round of huge profits driven by instability and energy price spikes.

Oil majors banked more than $30 million every hour in unearned profit in the first month of the conflict and could make around $234 billion in excess profits by the end of 2026 if oil prices remain high. 

Those profits strengthen the case made in London, Santa Marta, and across the U.S. If shipping companies can be asked to pay for their emissions, oil and gas companies can be asked to pay for the climate damage and economic instability their products create. If countries struggling with debt are being told to finance their own transition, then fossil fuel companies posting crisis-driven windfalls should be first in line to contribute.

Marco Perdomo / Oxfam Colombia y Trineo Comunicaciones

The Movement Is Bigger Than Trump

Trump’s strategy is not stopping the broader movement. Trump may be trying to protect fossil fuel executives, weaken climate rules and isolate the United States from global climate progress. But the make polluters pay movement is still growing — internationally, nationally and locally.

London showed that governments are still pursuing global rules to price pollution, even in hard-to-regulate sectors like shipping. Santa Marta showed that countries are beginning to plan the end of the fossil fuel era and name the financing challenge directly. U.S. states are showing that climate accountability legislation can move forward even when the federal government refuses to act.

New polling commissioned by Oxfam in seven countries found that approximately two thirds of people supported increasing taxes on the profits of large oil and gas corporations to help fund the transition to renewables. This movement is growing in popularity and political momentum. 

So when you’re fighting for “make polluters pay” legislation in Richmond, you’re not alone. When you’re helping figure out next steps for the “make polluters pay” movement in Maryland, you’re not alone. When you’re writing to your D.C. Councilmembers, you’re not alone. You’re part of an era-defining shift that will keep growing and becoming more powerful. 

The movement to make polluters pay is moving unstoppably forward. The world has stopped waiting for Trump. 

Want to help make polluters pay? Join CCAN’s efforts in Maryland, D.C., Virginia, and beyond.

Become an Action Team Member Today!

The post Who’s Waiting for Trump? The World is Taking Steps to Make Polluters Pay  appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Outside of PJM’s annual meeting, speakers called out grid mismanagement, rising electricity costs, and failure to bring cheaper clean energy online

 

BALTIMORE, MD — PJM Interconnection (PJM), the regional grid operator for Maryland and a dozen other states, is holding its annual conference at the Baltimore Marriott Waterfront from May 11 to 13. State lawmakers and advocates held a press conference today on the sidewalk outside the hotel to call out PJM’s mismanagement of the grid, which has led directly to surging energy prices. 

“Maryland families are already seeing higher electric bills, driven in part by rapid growth in energy-hungry data centers. Ratepayers shouldn’t have to compete with global corporations for power,” said Senator Katie Fry Hester (D-Maryland). 

“Pennsylvania produces the energy that powers much of the PJM region, yet our residents should not be asked to subsidize the explosive growth of private data centers,” said Rep. Danielle Otten (D-Pennsylvania). “We need fairness and accountability — making sure new industrial demand brings new supply with it. Protecting reliability while keeping electricity affordable is essential for our households, our manufacturers, and our economic future.” 

“Clean energy is chomping at the bit to lower energy bills, but PJM is artificially slowing clean energy from coming onto the grid in order to benefit fossil fuel interests,” said Delegate Lorig Charkoudian (D-Maryland).  

“PJM needs to more swiftly and efficiently greenlight clean energy projects and hold data centers responsible for paying for their own energy needs instead of further burdening already stretched ratepayers,” said Senator Shelly Hettleman (D-Maryland) 

PJM’s policies are delaying lower-cost clean energy projects while keeping more expensive power sources on the system – contributing to higher electricity bills across the region. A recent analysis found that if PJM were to allow more clean energy to connect to the grid, it would save each of its customers $500 a year in reduced energy bills. Advocates shared recent cost savings from clean energy in other regions, such as Massachusetts’ recent announcement that residents are saving $1.4 billion over the next 20 years with the completion of the Vineyard Wind offshore wind project. Meanwhile, PJM is forcing ratepayers to pay coal plants just south of Baltimore hundreds of millions of dollars to stay open, when cleaner alternatives would be less expensive. 

“PJM is failing us not by accident, but by design. It has been co-opted by fossil fuel energy generators and utilities and is quickly being overtaken by Big Tech and their data center companies as well. All the while, PJM’s members have been raking in massive revenues due to energy market dysfunction. PJM won’t help energy bills decrease until there is meaningful governance reform within PJM. And, they missed an opportunity by selecting their Board Chair and interim President as their new President and CEO just last month,” said Jake Schwartz, Federal Campaigns Manager for Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

“If PJM were truly focused on lowering soaring energy bills, the solution would be clear: invest in clean energy. Instead, PJM continues to prioritize energy sources that are neither clean nor affordable, while Marylanders face growing pressure from rising utility, fuel, and healthcare costs. It’s time for PJM to listen to its customers and deliver the reliable, affordable clean energy Maryland families deserve,” said Rebecca Rehr, Director of Climate Policy & Justice for Maryland LCV.  

Find a recording of today’s press conference here.

# # #

The post Lawmakers and Advocates Demand Reforms from PJM, Regional Grid Manager appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

As extreme weather worsens, FEMA Review Council recommendations weaken federal disaster response and shift costs to states

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. —  The Trump Administration’s FEMA Review Council released yesterday its final report of recommendations to overhaul FEMA. These recommendations, which include privatizing the National Flood Insurance Program, increasing qualifying thresholds for disaster aid, and responding to fewer major disasters, leave states, localities, and tribal governments to navigate climate-fueled catastrophes with fewer federal resources.  

FEMA is the backbone of the nation’s disaster response system. As the climate crisis drives more frequent, unpredictable, and destructive disasters, the need for preparation and response from all levels of government and vulnerable communities has never been greater. At this critical moment, communities need lawmakers to strengthen FEMA’s capacity to prepare and respond to emergencies, not weaken or restrict the very resources that save lives and help communities recover. 

Gabrielle Walton, the Federal Campaigns Coordinator at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, issued the following statement: 

“The FEMA Review Council’s proposed changes fail to offer the needed certainty that the government will provide aid when Americans need it most.  As drought grips the county, hurricane season approaches, and the climate crisis worsens, extreme weather events, communities need a government that commits to enhancing safety and preparedness, not one that proposes restricting access to critical, life-saving resources. The Council’s proposed reforms would leave states, localities, and disaster survivors with less funding and fewer resources to prevent, mitigate, and respond to disasters. Congress must take the lead in creating comprehensive FEMA reforms that will protect our communities as the climate crisis worsens.”

###

Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. Founded in 2002, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, Washington, DC and beyond.

The post Trump’s FEMA Reform Proposal Would Leave Communities to Face Climate Disasters Alone appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

Maryland Public Service Commission asked staff to conduct further analysis despite evidence that ending gas line extension allowances would provide $1 billion in savings to gas customers over next decade

 

BALTIMORE, MD —The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) today delayed finalizing regulations to end gas line extension allowances (LEAs), preventing gas customers from having to pay for the expansion of the gas system to new homes and businesses. When finalized, the new rules are expected to save Baltimore Gas & Electric (BGE) and Washington Gas Light (WGL) customers nearly $1 billion in the next decade. The Commission asked staff to conduct further analysis, with an unclear timeline for when the Commission will make a decision, adding to advocates’ concern that regulator delays from the PSC are putting customer savings at risk.

“The analysis is already in: allowing gas utilities to pass on the cost of new gas lines to their existing customers unfairly drives up energy bills and locks us into polluting fossil fuels for decades to come. Maryland gas customers shouldn’t have to wait a day longer for regulators to take action to address rapidly rising gas delivery rates,” said Emily Scarr, Senior Adviser at Maryland PIRG Foundation. “Whether it’s finalizing rules to save customers $1 billion or ending multi-year ratemaking, the Commission is creating a habit of unnecessary delays that harm customers and benefit utilities.”

Under the draft regulations, new customers and developers can still choose to connect to the gas system, but will be responsible for the cost of doing so. The hearing comes just weeks after the Maryland General Assembly rejected attempts by housing developers and gas utilities to prevent the PSC from finalizing rules to end LEAs.

“Today’s decision by the Public Service Commission is disappointing and continues to place burdens on front-line communities and Marylanders already struggling to pay costly energy bills,” said Sari Amiel, Staff Attorney at Sierra Club’s Environmental Law Program. “Ongoing reliance on costly gas infrastructure impacts our health and financial well-being, while utility companies reach record profits. We will continue advocating for the state to move away from reliance on fossil fuels and towards more affordable and efficient clean energy.”

Initially petitioned for by the Office of the People’s Counsel (OPC), the rulemaking is the first to come from the “future of gas” proceeding, a venue for short and long-term gas planning. The proceeding aims to protect customers from skyrocketing costs by smoothing the transition away from gas heat and appliances and the outsized infrastructure costs that come with it. 

“Seeing the commission delay such an important consumer protection at the 11th hour is exceedingly disappointing. Gas utilities use line extension allowances to boost their profits while locking in decades of pollution and costs,” said Bryan Dunning, Senior Policy Analyst at Center for Progressive Reform. “Each day we delay, utilities are incentivised to further build out the gas system, undermining state climate goals.” 

For decades, existing gas customers have covered some or all of the costs to extend gas lines to new customers, driving up delivery rates and adding to utility profits over a decades-long payback period. Connecting a home to the methane gas system hooks it onto fossil fuels for years, contributing to climate pollution in the state and creating new risks for deadly explosions.

“Maryland gas customers shouldn’t be incentivising housing developers to build housing with dual fuel sources, when electric heating is safer, cleaner, and more affordable for renters,” said Monica O’Connor of Grassroots Maryland Legislative Coalition’s Climate Justice Wing. “Today’s decision by the PSC to delay the end of incentives for new gas lines not only fails to align regulatory policy with fiscal prudency, but sets back our state climate goals.”

In 2025 alone, BGE planned to spend $103.5 million on gas pipeline expansion, costing customers $397 million, while Washington Gas Light (WGL) planned to spend $56.25 million, costing customers $238 million.  Utility spending on gas pipelines has caused energy bills to rise in Maryland. Since 2010, Baltimore Gas & Electric and Columbia Gas customers have seen their delivery rates more than triple, far outpacing the rate of inflation, due to excessive gas utility spending. This rise in delivery costs is why BGE gas customers now pay $2 to BGE for delivery for every $1 they spend on gas. A recent analysis found that gas delivery charges account for more than 60% of the average Maryland customer’s gas bill.

“We’re very frustrated to see the Commission needlessly delay a clear action to align state climate goals, consumer protections, and lower gas ratepayer costs,” said Brittany Baker, Maryland Director of Chesapeake Climate Action Network. “We need strong leadership from the PSC to act in the best interest of ratepayers and transition Maryland off the gas distribution system. Today, they missed the mark.”

The Upgrade Maryland campaign is calling on the PSC to swiftly finalize regulations to end LEAs, both to protect customers from the rising costs of the gas system and to ensure utility regulation is in line with state climate policy.

###

Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots organization dedicated exclusively to raising awareness about the impacts and solutions associated with global warming in the Chesapeake Bay region. Founded in 2002, CCAN has been at the center of the fight for clean energy and wise climate policy in Maryland, Virginia, Washington, DC and beyond.

The post Advocates Warn Utility Regulators’ Decision to Delay Puts Customer Savings at Risk appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

By Olivia Bahena Sahagún, Federal Carol Brantley Climate Justice Fellow, Chesapeake Climate Action Network

In July 1995, Chicago endured one of the deadliest climate disasters in U.S. history. A heatwave pushed temperatures above 100°F and heat index values to 115°F, causing more than 700 heat-related deaths. What made this heatwave so deadly for certain communities was not just the temperature, but poor housing infrastructure, weak emergency response, and social inequality. Thirty years later, as climate change increases extreme heat in cities, the lessons from 1995 are still relevant today. This disaster demonstrated that extreme heat is not just a weather problem; it is a policy failure shaped by infrastructure, governance, and social inequality.

Climate change is now making heat policy more urgent, as the frequency and intensity of extreme heat events are increasing, and heatwaves like 1995 are no longer rare events. Without addressing climate change, we cannot protect our communities from extreme heat. President Trump’s recent proposed budget cuts to the EPA, NOAA, and FEMA only threaten to undercut efforts to keep Americans safe from extreme heat. A decrease in funding for climate and environmental programs will limit localities’ ability to prepare for future heat events and properly adapt to climate change. Without sustained investment in climate resilience, the same structural inequalities that made the 1995 heatwave so deadly will continue to put lives at risk.

The Legacy of Redlining Lives On: Systemic Inequalities Increase Risk to Extreme Heat

Urban infrastructure played a major role in determining which Chicago communities felt the biggest impact of the heatwave and which didn’t. Predominantly low-income, Black neighborhoods had and still have fewer trees and more pavement than other areas, which intensifies heat. Many residents in those neighborhoods also did not have AC units or could not afford to use them. A New England Journal of Medicine study found that half of the deaths could have been prevented with a working AC in each home. These conditions demonstrated how unequal infrastructure directly shaped who faced the greatest risk.

These infrastructure disparities are rooted in Chicago’s history of redlining, a practice that denied loans and investments to communities of color and left them in hotter, less resilient neighborhoods. Through this racist housing practice, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation made the city extremely segregated, and this legal segregation has led to the urban infrastructure and housing issues that caused low-income, Black communities to feel the worst of the 1995 heatwave. 

Social isolation was also a determining factor in whether residents survived the heatwave. A 1996 study found that living alone doubled the risk of death during the heat and that those who died from heat-related deaths were less likely to leave home frequently or have friends in Chicago. Without strong social networks, victims of extreme heat who lived alone, especially the elderly, could remain unnoticed for long periods of time, not receiving immediate medical attention needed to possibly save their lives.

Beyond Chicago: How Patterns of Inequities Create Urban Heat Islands 

This pattern is not unique to Chicago. Cities like Washington, D.C. show the same inequities, where historically underinvested neighborhoods become urban heat islands, metropolitan areas significantly hotter than surrounding areas. These similarities show that the 1995 heatwave isn’t an isolated event caused by one-time failures, but part of a larger national pattern of unequal climate vulnerability, which is why a stronger federal response is needed. 

Chicago improved its heat response after 1995, but these changes focused mostly on emergency management. During a 1999 heatwave, the city issued more warnings and press releases, opened cooling centers, and sent police to check on vulnerable residents. Today, Chicago has a very extensive extreme heat emergency plan. However, improved emergency planning does not address the structural issues that create risk in the first place.

The federal government has also responded more seriously to heat since 1995. In 2015, NOAA and the CDC launched the National Integrated Heat Health Information System (NIHHIS) to support heat resilience in the U.S.

In 2022, the NIHHIS created the Heat.gov website to educate the public and decision-makers on reducing heat risk. Additionally, the EPA has also increased attention and public awareness of heat. Today, heat is recognized as a public health issue.

The Path Forward: Recognize Extreme Heat as a Major Disaster

Despite greater awareness, the underlying inequities that make heat deadly have not been solved. Extreme heat waves are often viewed as temporary weather emergencies, rather than long-term infrastructure problems. FEMA can change that by recognizing extreme heat as a major disaster, just like floods or tornadoes, and ensuring cities are prepared for heatwaves. FEMA could then provide funding for cooling centers, AC installations, housing improvements, and expanded tree canopy, all of which would protect vulnerable communities.

The 1995 Chicago heatwave revealed that when extreme temperatures intersect with poor housing, segregation, and weak preparedness, the outcome is deadly for vulnerable communities. Although some cities now have stronger emergency response programs, many underlying structural inequalities remain. As climate change increases the frequency of extreme heat, a federal policy response is needed to make cities resilient and adaptable to extreme heat. FEMA must recognize heat as a major disaster so that localities can receive support with immediate danger and the deeper inequities that make heat so dangerous; it’s how we save lives in a hotter, more unequal world.

As we face more frequent and severe climate disasters, it’s clear that our federal systems must be ready for every kind of extreme weather event. With recent winter extreme weather disasters and hurricane season quickly approaching, there is uncertainty about whether FEMA will deliver aid when communities need it most. Tell your member of Congress to pass the FEMA Act of 2025 to strengthen and reform FEMA. Urge them to make sure FEMA is fully staffed, funded, and prepared to respond to ongoing and future climate disasters.

Tell Your Representative to Pass the FEMA Act of 2025

About the author: Olivia Bahena Sahagún (she/her) is the Federal Carol Brantley Climate Justice Fellow for spring 2026. In her role, she supports the Federal team by assisting their campaigns to advance impactful climate policy. She is currently a student at Wake Forest University where she is working to receive a bachelor’s degree in Politics and International Affairs.

Olivia’s passion for the environment began at a young age, shaped by her grandma, who passed down her deep care for animals and the planet. She hopes to pursue a career in environmental policy and work to advocate for a sustainable future. In her free time, Olivia enjoys thrifting, going on walks, and spending time with her cat Pancho.

The post Why Chicago’s 1995 Heatwave Was More than a Weather Disaster appeared first on Chesapeake Climate Action Network.