Quebec’s new separatist government accused Ottawa on Tuesday of barring the province from this week’s EU-Canada summit in Montreal and warned it would have the last word on any deals struck there that concern its powers.

The dispute erupted Tuesday morning when Quebec Justice Minister Marie-Claude Sarrazin said in a statement that Ottawa had refused Premier Paul St-Pierre Plamondon’s request to address the summit, which opens Thursday.

St-Pierre Plamondon said in a post on X that the decision revealed a “serious lack of respect,” adding that Ottawa would rather he “serve shrimp cocktail” at a function rather than address one.

Ottawa also turned down a September request from the previous Quebec government to host a reception on the sidelines of the summit, Sarrazin noted.

Prime Minister Mark Carney hit back, saying St-Pierre Plamondon had himself turned down an invitation to the Thursday night summit dinner. “It’s his decision to leave an empty chair again,” Carney told reporters in French.

The tiff threatens to overshadow an international gathering that Carney, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa have billed as a step change in mutual relations, driven by U.S. President Donald Trump’s aggressive tariffs and scorn for the postwar Western consensus.

Early drafts of the joint declaration include a digital trade deal and a pact that lets the European Investment Bank finance Canadian critical minerals projects. Many of those deliverables fall under provincial jurisdiction, such as natural resources.

“’When you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu,’ Prime Minister Carney told us,” Sarrazin said in her statement. “The federal government has chosen to prevent Quebec from having a say on its own territory.”

Whatever agreements are signed at the summit, “Quebec is sovereign in its fields of jurisdiction internationally, so it will have the last word,” Sarrazin warned.

Her statement evoked the 1965 Gérin-Lajoie doctrine, a principle of Quebec’s international policy that holds it can conduct its own foreign relations in areas the Canadian Constitution assigns to the provinces. It also noted that Quebec had a seat at the table during negotiations on CETA, the EU-Canada trade deal signed in 2015, attending more than 100 meetings.

Yves-François Blanchet, leader of the separatist Bloc Québécois in the federal parliament, also said he had been refused a request to attend. “You’re invited to come, but above all, keep quiet. Don’t speak,” he told reporters on Parliament Hill.

The plot thickens

On Tuesday midmorning Ottawa time, Trump congratulated St-Pierre Plamondon on his election victory — three weeks after the actual Oct. 5 ballot — sharing an article headlined “Separatists win Quebec provincial election in blow to Mark Carney.”

Trump and Carney have been at odds since the dramatic implosion of mutual trade talks in late August, with the U.S. president deploring the Canadian leader as “nasty.”

The Quebec premier, meanwhile, is all-in on sovereignty in a province where support for separating from Canada reached a three-decade low of 29% earlier this year.

Carney rejected St-Pierre Plamondon’s claims of exclusion, saying Quebec had been consulted on the summit. “We have had three consultations with the Quebec delegation already on the agreement with the European Union,” he said. Carney’s office told POLITICO on Tuesday that it had invited every premier to attend the Thursday dinner in Montreal.

St-Pierre Plamondon also skipped a federal meeting with Indigenous leaders and premiers on Monday, an absence Carney criticized.

Industry Minister Mélanie Joly said the premier was “welcome” in Montreal, but that the summit was a federal meeting, with geopolitics a federal area of responsibility. “With everything going on in the world, we just need to make sure we can reach an agreement with the European Union,” she said. “That’s what Quebecers want.”

Despite the public spat over the summit logistics, working-level officials described the relationship between the different levels of government as constructive.

Hélène Drainville, Quebec’s delegate general in Brussels, told POLITICO on Monday that federal and provincial officials have set up joint working groups to implement the summit’s outcomes.

Quebec is also in talks with the European Investment Bank and DG GROW, the Commission’s industry department, about the bank’s entry into Canada, she said.

“Right now, all the signals are green,” Drainville said. She underlined, however, that the province “has to be at the table” if Ottawa and Brussels strike deals in its areas of jurisdiction.

Mickey Djuric and Sue Allan contributed reporting from Ottawa.

Ford is rolling out two new chargers capable of powering a home or the grid — so-called V2X capability.

BRUSSELS — Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

The European Commission updated its approach to dealing with climate change along those lines on Tuesday with a package aimed at improving the bloc’s response to mounting disasters such as extreme heat, supercharged storms and worsening wildfires. 

Unveiling its first-ever law to boost the bloc’s resilience to global warming, the EU executive conceded that merely slashing planet-warming emissions is insufficient as climate extremes wreak havoc across the continent. 

“There is no alternative to continue to cut emissions more forcefully and to move full-frontal into clean energy,” Climate Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra told reporters. “But at the same time, we do have to acknowledge that the problems we’re facing have morphed into something that is so large that just doing that alone unfortunately no longer is good enough.” 

The Commission’s proposed Climate Resilience Law asks governments to draft plans to prepare for a world that’s 2 degrees Celsius hotter in 2050 and 3C hotter by the end of the century, aligning with the United Nations’ latest projections that current global climate policies can only limit warming to 2.8C. 

The same U.N. report also warned that the world can no longer limit warming to 1.5C, the lower bound of the Paris Agreement’s dual goals, and that steep emissions cuts are needed to achieve the best-case scenario of halting the rise in global temperatures at 1.8C. 

The Commission insisted that Tuesday’s package did not amount to Brussels resigning itself to catastrophic levels of warming. 

“Let me just be crystal-clear on the 1.5C, that remains our goal,” said Hoekstra. “At the same time, it would be unwise not to prepare for… the current trajectory the world is on.” 

Regulation for the deregulation era

Under the proposed law, governments are “encouraged” to take the 3C scenario into account when designing policies, budgets and investments. 

Countries will have to carry out national climate risk assessments every five years starting in 2029, and subsequently draw up climate-proofing plans by the end of 2030. These strategies should also indicate which public authorities are in charge of managing certain climate risks to avoid inaction and finger-pointing among ministries and agencies.  

The fairly light-touch legislation reflects the prevailing mood in the EU. Brussels itself has committed to a deregulation agenda, and national governments have called for fewer rules, not more, particularly where climate and the environment are concerned. 

Efforts to improve resilience to weather extremes, such as flood prevention or urban greening, are also largely a national and even local responsibility, with the EU holding limited powers. 

Even the limited rules proposed on Tuesday are already raising eyebrows. 

“I strongly support a clearer allocation of responsibilities,” said Peter Liese, the lead climate lawmaker of the center-right European People’s Party. But, he added, “we need to examine whether the plans, in the form proposed by the Commission, are necessary. Plans alone do not protect people and could tie up resources unnecessarily if we do not design them pragmatically.” 

Others argued the law was too limited. “The danger is a framework that tells us exactly how exposed we are and then commits us to nothing,” said Greens-affiliated lawmaker Kai Tegethoff. “Europe needs binding resilience targets and clear, measurable goals for the sectors most at risk.”

The Commission, for its part, has sought to appeal to governments’ concerns over the EU’s economic competitiveness by emphasizing the wealth-destroying threat of climate disasters and the business potential of climate-proofing technologies. 

“Some may say resilience is expensive. But the right question is, what is the real cost of being unprepared,” said Teresa Ribera, the Commission’s executive vice president in charge of the green transition. Both she and Hoekstra cited data showing the impact of heat on GDP as an example. “Europe cannot be competitive without being resilient,” she added. 

In the wider package presented Tuesday, the Commission also highlighted the emerging market for climate technologies such as drought-resilient crops and cooling solutions, casting European industry as a front-runner in that sector. 

As the EU is currently negotiating its next long-term budget, the package does not come with any funding attached, despite financing often acting as the biggest barrier to climate-proofing efforts. The bloc needs to invest around €70 billion a year by 2050 to adapt to a warmer world but currently only spends €29 billion. 

More where that came from

While presenting new obligations for governments, the Commission also promised to push ahead with work in Brussels. 

The European Environment Agency will draw up bloc-wide climate risk assessments, with the next one due in June 2028, and the Commission will present an EU “strategic plan on climate resilience” by the end of September 2028. 

Progress will be assessed regularly based on four criteria — climate-related deaths, economic losses attributable to global warming, the share of uninsured losses, and related fiscal costs. The Commission’s Eurostat agency will start compiling EU-wide statistics on climate-related deaths and economic losses by the end of 2030, according to the regulation. 

Beyond the legislative efforts, the EU executive also presented a wider package that includes several digital tools, including a “climate viewer” that converts the new warming scenario into local projections policymakers can use.

The Commission also vowed to take into account the new 3C warming scenario in all its future policy proposals. Further steps, including a heat wave action plan and a climate insurance alliance, are planned for next year, it said. 

“I wouldn’t say that we’re nearly done,” said Hoekstra. “Much of this is going to be work in progress.” And if climate change continues getting worse, he added, “this package might well need to be beefed up.” 

The European Investment Bank is due to sign a framework agreement with Canada this week that will pave the way for investments into critical raw materials and other areas, a Bank official told POLITICO.

The deal with the long-term lending arm of the European Union is expected to be signed on the sidelines of an EU-Canada summit on Thursday in Montreal, said the official who was granted anonymity to discuss internal preparations.

Such a deal would mark a concrete step toward closer ties amid broader discussions about cooperation on arctic security and the EU’s potential offer of “associate member” status to Canada. The summit will aim to highlight deepening ties between like-minded partners.

The signing follows a September visit to Ottawa by EIB President Nadia Calviño, during which she took the first steps toward establishing a permanent Canadian presence for the bank.

The imminent framework agreement is significant given that the EIB typically operates only in developing countries or members of the EU or the European Economic Area.

Earlier this year, Canada offered G7 members “priority access” to its critical raw minerals stockpile, according to a letter seen by POLITICO. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has also said he wants to boost EU-Canada cooperation on critical raw materials.

BRUSSELS — The EU was split Tuesday over whether to offer “associate membership” status to Canada, with several countries refusing to sign off on a statement containing that phrase just 48 hours before a summit between the two sides in Montreal.

After EU capitals could not agree on the language in the statement in talks between ambassadors Monday, they used the so-called silence procedure on Tuesday. That meant a new text would be adopted automatically without a formal meeting or vote, if no countries objected by midday.

But Germany, which is leading the push to have the term “associate member” fully removed from the text, was among at least four countries that broke the silence procedure before that deadline, said two EU diplomats, granted anonymity to speak freely. That means the topic will be discussed Wednesday at another meeting of EU ambassadors, just one day before the EU-Canada summit kicks off.

The fracture shows how divided the EU remains on the idea of “associate membership,” which European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen offered to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during her State of the Union speech in Strasbourg last month.

Four EU diplomats told POLITICO at the time that she did not consult European capitals before floating the idea.

Von der Leyen, European Council President António Costa, the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas and a host of commissioners will fly to Montreal for a summit with Carney on Thursday and Friday, aiming to deepen ties and cooperation on everything from trade and energy to education and the Arctic.

BRUSSELS — Quebec’s new separatist government is treating this week’s EU-Canada summit in Montreal as the start of a wider diplomatic push to get the province in the room whenever Ottawa and Brussels strike deals that concern its powers.

The separatist Parti Québécois returned to power this month at the head of a minority government in the province, promising to assert greater control over Quebec’s affairs and eventually hold another referendum on independence. 

“Quebec has to be at the table, and Canada understands that very well,” Hélène Drainville, the province’s delegate general to the Benelux and the EU institutions, said in an interview in Brussels.

Prime Minister Mark Carney hosts Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa on Thursday and Friday for a summit the two sides have billed as a step change in relations, driven by Donald Trump’s tariffs and a shared need for new partners. Von der Leyen has even proposed to make Canada an “associate member” of the EU — an offer that goes too far even for some of the bloc’s member countries. 

Early drafts of a joint summit declaration include a digital trade deal, a pact to let the European Investment Bank finance Canadian critical minerals projects, and a consignment of Canadian water bombers for Europe’s emergency services.

While Canada is responsible for negotiating the text, much of it lands in areas where its 10 provinces have extensive powers, such as over natural resources, education and health. Quebec is the second-largest province by population after Ontario and has a territory more than twice the size of France — with which three-quarters of its people share French as their mother tongue.

“Canada negotiates the umbrella agreement, and where we come in is when what’s negotiated touches our areas of jurisdiction,” said Drainville, who has been in post for a year. Natural resources are a provincial matter, she added, noting that Quebec has deposits of 22 of the 34 minerals on the EU’s critical list.

The province is already talking to the European Investment Bank and DG GROW, the European Commission’s industry department, about the bank’s entry into Canada, she noted. 

Asked whether Quebec’s interests line up with those of Ottawa, Drainville said federal and provincial officials have already set up joint working groups to implement the summit’s outcomes. “Right now, all the signals are green,” she said.

New arrival

The cooperation comes at an unusual moment. Quebec’s new premier, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, won power on Oct. 5 while promising a third referendum on sovereignty, though not as long as Trump is in the White House. His cabinet includes the new position of minister for “accession to independence.”

However, support for independence in the province is the lowest it has been for three decades, around 29% in a poll from earlier this year — hardly a popular mandate for the project.

The Parti Québécois has nevertheless pledged to double Quebec’s 34 offices abroad. A party blueprint published last year would raise the number of countries with a Quebec office from 19 to 38 and, if the referendum delivers a “yes” to sovereignty, would turn those delegations into embassies and consulates.

“Quebec is going to start to exist and shine everywhere in the world,” St-Pierre Plamondon said last year, describing the representative network as a prerequisite for independence.

Drainville said the new government, which has been in office for three weeks, has not yet set its line on Europe. 

“Our political leaders haven’t taken a position yet, which is normal,” she said. “But if they decide to double [the network], it’s because they believe in this partnership.” As for the associate-member label, she declined to engage: “We’re not really into semantics. That’s Canada.”

What Quebec does want from the EU, she said, is “win-win partnerships,” noting that the province and Ottawa complement each other and are stronger together when it comes to relations with Europe.

It hasn’t always been so amicable. 

Quebec’s diplomatic ambitions date back to the 1960s, when the provincial government asserted the right to pursue international relations in areas under its constitutional jurisdiction.

Its international aspirations became politically contentious when French President Charles de Gaulle publicly embraced Quebec’s independence movement in 1967 — ending a speech in Montreal by proclaiming: Vive le Québec libre! (“Long live free Quebec!”) 

The Brussels office opened in 1972, and the province now counts 10 posts in Europe, which Drainville called the most of any Canadian province.

Quebec never consented to the constitutional changes Canada enacted in 1982, and its 1995 independence referendum failed by the narrowest of margins (49.4% to 50.6%). A decade ago, Quebec lobbied Europe for a seat at the table in negotiations on the CETA EU-Canada trade deal.

Fusion startups face a new challenge, one unrelated to plasma physics: Give the government shares in exchange for funding awards or go it alone?

Mark Carney’s pursuit of a global alliance of middle powers has a Europe problem.

Canada’s prime minister wants to help build a new world order that can counterbalance the power of the United States and China. But his vision depends on a new relationship with a Europe that doesn’t see itself as a middle power at all. 

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has a different vision: a Brussels-centered bloc that extends the EU’s economic and geopolitical influence, starting with Canada. The idea, according to senior European lawmaker Siegfried Mureșan, is to create an opportunity for the EU to become the “global center of gravity for liberal democracies.” 

The competing visions will be tested this week when Carney and von der Leyen meet in Montreal for a summit intended to chart a new course for transatlantic relations. Both want to demonstrate they can prosper in a world upended by U.S. President Donald Trump. But they have different ideas about their curious new alliance — and face political resistance that could limit how far the partnership can go. 

Von der Leyen’s offer of “associate membership” in the EU surprised officials on both sides of the Atlantic. Four diplomats told POLITICO they were not consulted before she floated the idea in the State of the Union. The officials added that they don’t understand the label, which has yet to be defined. Germany has since led pushback on the plan.

“We’ve definitely put the cart before the horse,” one of the diplomats said. “We’re announcing something and then figuring out how to flesh it out.”

Trump called the membership idea “laughable,” but also threatened “very serious tariffs” should it come to be — a reminder that leaders in pursuit of Washington workarounds must avoid provoking the White House. 

The leaders are under pressure to leave Montreal with more than a liberal democratic photo-op. For starters, they need to decide what “associate membership” means — and disarm resistance in the EU capitals blindsided by von der Leyen’s plan.

Canada’s Ambassador to the EU Jonathan Wilkinson told POLITICO last month that people got too hung up on a label that was revealed prematurely. Carney called the Canada-EU relationship an “alliance for the future” when he addressed European lawmakers in Strasbourg.

Wilkinson said the Canada-EU project will show other democratic nations how to deepen partnerships. “It ties into very much what [Carney] talked about at Davos — and after Davos.”

Carney, von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa have two days to chart what’s next while American foreign policy continues to stress test geopolitical relationships in midterm campaigns that will shape Trump’s last two years in office.

The economic divide 

Ottawa considers the EU an obvious partner in its push to diversify trade away from the U.S. There’s already a free-trade agreement that both sides view as being underutilized. 

Leaders gathering in Montreal this week will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Canadian-EU trade agreement, nicknamed CETA. But nine EU member countries have yet to ratify the deal, underscoring the challenge of turning rhetoric into reality. 

“We have shared challenges and many more shared opportunities,” Canadian International Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu told reporters last week in Dublin, where he was invited to participate in an informal meeting of EU trade ministers, a preview of what a more integrated Canada could look like. “Canada wants to be Europe’s most reliable partner.”

Sidhu said CETA utilization rates in EU member countries range from 60% to 80%, making a point about room for improvement and perennial challenges. “We know there’s room to grow.”

Von der Leyen’s associate membership plan “has been coldly received by member states,” a senior EU official said. “It [the summit] is more about what we do, how we can use the real potential of the CETA agreement.” CETA has been provisionally in force since 2017.

Trade talks between Canada and the bloc read like a lengthy transatlantic grievance list.

At a meeting between Brussels and Ottawa last October, the EU complained about Canadian taxes it says disproportionately hit European carmakers, opaque cheese-import quotas, cumbersome rules on cosmetics and what it considers discriminatory provincial taxes and markups on European wines and spirits.

Canada, meanwhile, warned that the EU’s deforestation rules could burden its exporters, questioned the impact of Brussels’ carbon border tax and pressed for greater recognition of Canadian standards in areas including AI.

The senior EU official described the relationship as constrained by “irritants and unfulfilled promises” that must be resolved if the two sides are to make progress.

There are hurdles ahead. Even as Canada and the EU imagine a deeper economic and security partnership, both are pursuing industrial policies that could shut the other’s companies out of lucrative public contracts — death by compounded trade barriers.

Brussels has concerns about Ottawa’s “Buy Canadian” initiatives and their compatibility with the EU-Canada free trade agreement. “Some member states didn’t like the ‘Buy Canada’ thing from Carney,” the official added.

Canada is likewise uncertain whether its companies will qualify for the EU’s proposed “Made in Europe” preferences foreseen in a major industry bill that would seek to channel public procurement spending to European companies. The EU is divided over whether to extend those preferences to trusted trading partners, a topic that is expected to come up in Montreal.

Canadian business leaders recognize the domestic appeal of “Buy Canadian” in the face of Trump’s threats, but warn there will need to be concessions.

“It’s something that will have to be resolved in order to move the relationship deeper, particularly with respect to industrial cooperation or collaboration,” Mark Camilleri, president of the Canada EU Trade and Investment Association, told POLITICO.

Camilleri likened the 10-year-old CETA deal to a garden overgrown with weeds. “It pains me to see market access being eroded through Canadian and European preferences,” he said.

Pressure is on

European and Canadian leaders are under pressure to deliver wins this week that demonstrate that “non-hegemons” — a descriptor Carney used in his Davos speech — can survive and thrive in an age of great-power rivalry.

Canadians currently support closer ties with Europe. But the EU faces political headwinds of its own, from fraught budget negotiations within the bloc to right-wing populist movements that are picking up momentum in some of its biggest economies.

One likely deliverable is a new digital trade agreement. Talks launched in March and were still underway last week. But the agreement lacks substantive text on artificial intelligence, leaving the two sides to find other places to cooperate, potentially through the EU’s proposed Cloud and AI Development Act. That proposal seeks to reduce reliance on U.S. tech giants, raising the risk of a new row with Washington. 

The European Commission is also pushing for Canada to join Erasmus+, the bloc’s student exchange program, according to one EU official. Carney has already publicly expressed interest. 

But Brussels has bigger ambitions for the partnership. The EU is pressing Canada to increase its funding for Ukraine, a test of Canada’s willingness to take on more of the security burden. 

For von der Leyen, securing that commitment would be a win. So would leaving the summit with a pledge from Carney to explore her offer of an “associate membership” — or whatever they end up calling it.

Zi-Ann Lum reported from Toronto, Sebastian Starcevic from Brussels and Camille Gijs from Dublin.

Top-funded fusion startup Commonwealth Fusion Systems received an $85 million award from the federal government to advance conductors for fusion power plants.

When millions of voters fill out their ballots in November, they won’t just be choosing elected representatives. Many states are offering the chance to impact conservation and wildlife as well, through ballot measures focused on things like dedicating more money to habitat protection or mitigating the impacts of climate change. One could even reshape wildlife management in one of the country’s most picturesque mountain states — and also lead to the indiscriminate deaths of all kinds of wild animals. 

And while ballot measures might seem like small potatoes in the grand scheme of electoral politics, they could have an outsized impact this year. The Trump administration has been systematically rolling back protections for endangered species, taking a hammer to longstanding pillars of climate regulation, and cutting funding to agencies like the National Park Service and National Forest Service, both of which oversee vast stretches of wildlife habitats. In many cases, states have had to step up, putting more resources into conserving the habitats and species within their borders, and ballot measures can help shape those decisions. 

Here are the seven ballot measures that could transform ecosystems across the country this election: 

California — Proposition 45: Cutting pesky environmental reviews, also maybe cutting habitats  

This ballot measure would shorten environmental review periods for “essential projects” like housing, water systems, clean energy, and medical facilities, among others. In a state that’s been struggling to build what it needs fast enough, this could help speed essential clean energy projects that could help slow climate change. On the other hand, reducing California Environmental Quality Act review time, as this proposition would do, could also lead to increased habitat destruction, leading advocacy organizations like the Sierra Club to oppose it. 

Georgia — Amendment 1: Tax breaks for conservation land (maybe)

This amendment might seem a little in the weeds — and mostly in the interest of farmers and ranchers looking for tax breaks. But it would double (from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres) the amount of land an owner can get tax breaks from if they protect it under the state’s Conservation Use Valuation Assessment program. As Yanshu Li, an Associate Professor of Forest Economics at the University of Georgia, told me, the amendment could incentivize landowners to set aside larger tracts of their property for wildlife habitat conservation, which would benefit species like the nine-banded armadillo and the northern bobwhite quail that call these habitats home. 

Massachusetts — Question 6: A fund for nature

Question 6 would create a “Nature for All Fund,” routing existing taxes on sporting goods, recreational vehicles, and money spent at golf courses to conservation. That fund could then be used on natural resource conservation, making it the first time the state has a dedicated funding source for conservation projects.

Colorado — Proposition 137: More money for restoration and wildfire prevention

This proposition, similar to Massachusetts’, would direct existing sales taxes on sporting goods to a state fund dedicated to conservation and wildfire prevention. In a state where wildfires have torn through more than 2 million acres in the past decade, dozens of conservation groups are supporting this measure to protect habitats and species.

Arkansas — Issue 4: Waterworks and waterways 

Here, voters are being asked to approve up to $500 million in bonds that can be used to fund water-related infrastructure projects like water treatment, waste disposal, and wetlands infrastructure. A boost to wetlands under the Arkansas proposal could help animals that live in those habitats, which are often overlooked in this region. 

Rhode Island — Question 5: New money for climate resilience and habitat protection

This measure would allow for $55 million in bonds to fund environmental and recreational projects. The largest chunk of this change — $25 million — would go to helping to protect the state from the impacts of climate change. Another $7 would be devoted to protecting Narragansett Bay and its watersheds, which would include funding to “restore natural habitats and control invasive aquatic plants,” according to the Rhode Island Current. 

These ballot measures are all relatively straightforward so far, but there’s one question up to voters this fall that puts wild animals front-and-center — and is splitting hunters and anglers down an ethical centerline. Which takes us back to Colorado: 

Colorado — Amendment 83: A constitutional right to hunt…traditionally

On its surface, this amendment seems fairly innocuous. It asks voters to enshrine “the right to hunt, fish, and harvest fish and wildlife by traditional methods” in the state’s constitution. Hunting and fishing are already big in Colorado, and they’re protected by statute, so this may not seem like a major change. But, as Rebecca Niemiec, co-director of Colorado State University’s Animal-Human Policy Center and a Colorado Parks and Wildlife commissioner, speaking for herself, told me, neither the text of the bill nor its proponents define what “traditional methods” of hunting and fishing would be allowed under this amendment.

“Read plainly, traditional methods could be interpreted to include practices like poisoning, leg hold traps, gill nets, or baiting and hounding,” Niemiec said. Many of these practices injure or maim animals, including ones that aren’t targeted: Steel-jawed traps and poisons don’t discriminate between, say, a deer, a wolf, and a lynx. All of these practices have been outlawed in Colorado over the years, either through other ballot measures or regulatory changes; in 1992, for example, Coloradans voted to ban hunting bears using bait and hounds, and four years later they banned leg-hold traps and snares. 

The new amendment also continues on to propose: “establishing hunting and fishing as the preferred means of managing fish and wildlife populations.” This would leave far less room for wildlife agencies like CPW to make nuanced decisions or roll out alternative programs, like birth control or animal relocation. It also reduces their ability to take into account the preferences of people who value wildlife for reasons other than hunting. 

“Biological science can inform decisions about how many animals can be killed without threatening a population,” Niemiec said. “But it can’t tell us what hunting practices are ethical, or how to balance hunting opportunities with the public’s desire to see wildlife alive — and protected from unnecessary suffering.” 

The push for these constitutional protections, Niemiec told me, is part of a larger backlash against conservation groups. But in this case, it’s not as simple as hunter vs. non-hunter: Plenty of hunters and anglers support taking ethical considerations into account when making decisions about how to manage wildlife, and some hunting groups in Colorado have publicly spoken out against the amendment. 

“If we’re going to enshrine anything in the Constitution, it should say we should be balancing the diversity of public interest in wildlife in all of our management decisions,” Niemiec said. “We need innovative methods, not traditional methods, if we’re going to deal with the complex challenges that our wildlife is facing moving forward in the state and throughout the country.”

MADRID — The Spanish government has won a significant victory in a long-running legal dispute with international investors over its decision more than a decade ago to scrap renewable energy subsidies.

This week, a Belgian court overturned a ruling that ordered the Spanish government to pay investors nearly €76 million.

It was a major win for Spain, which has been fighting attempts to freeze its assets around the world from clean energy investors who claim they are owed at least €2 billion in subsidies.

The dispute dates back to 2013, in the middle of the European debt crisis, when cash-strapped Spain, then under a new conservative government, decided to remove subsidies for renewable energy. Investors who had poured money into Spanish renewables said this was a breach, as they had invested on the understanding they would receive the subsidies.

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ruled that Spain must pay the money, but the European Commission has told Spain doing so would constitute unlawful state aid.

The standoff has played out all over the world, with investors attempting to freeze Spanish assets in multiple jurisdictions. In June, U.S. investment fund Blasket Renewable Investments LLC issued subpoenas demanding documents from Adidas, Hilton Hotels, and other entities involved in Spain’s Football World Cup participation to help with its bid to freeze Spanish assets.

In the end, the team went back home with its assets intact, along with the World Cup.

Spain also has cases going on in courts in Australia, Germany and the U.S.

In 2023, a British court ordered an embargo on an international school in London owned by the Spanish state. The Belgian court’s original decision was one of the few examples where investors were successful, and the decision this week to overturn it will set a precedent for other challenges.

The case

Spain’s defense persuaded a Belgian court to lift an embargo imposed in 2025 on state-owned air-navigation company Enaire for €75.76 million, according to documents seen by POLITICO.

The case was also brought by Blasket, which bought the dispute from an investment fund called RREEF. The European Commission intervened in support of Spain.

RREEF, which was originally linked to Deutsche Bank, invested in Spanish wind and solar power under a 2007 regulatory framework that guaranteed subsidies for renewable energy. In 2013, amid the economic crisis, the government of then-Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy, of the conservative People’s Party, cut those subsidies to reduce electricity costs.

International investors turned to arbitration, arguing that the Energy Charter Treaty, an international agreement signed in the 1990s, guaranteed them fair and predictable treatment. The funds sought more than €10 billion in compensation, according to sources at Spain’s Environment Ministry.

The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, part of the World Bank, which handled most of the arbitration cases, ruled against Spain, though it reduced the amount sought in many cases. The total awards came to about €2 billion. In its 2019 ruling, the tribunal ordered Spain to pay RREEF €59.6 million, plus interest and costs.

Most of the claims, including RREEF’s, were sold to Blasket, which began seeking to enforce the awards. The funds have searched for Spanish assets that could be seized to satisfy the claims.

Spain says it cannot pay because the European Commission has determined that doing so would constitute unlawful state aid. The funds invested through companies based in Luxembourg, and the EU’s top court ruled that the Energy Charter Treaty did not apply to disputes between EU investors and EU member states; EU law governed instead.

In August 2026, the Commission opened infringement proceedings against Spain over a €23 million payment on an award involving a Japanese company, which was not based in the EU.

On June 17, 2025, Blasket secured a Belgian court order freezing €75.76 million belonging to Enaire, the state-owned company that manages air navigation in Spain. Enaire receives payments from Eurocontrol, the Brussels-based European organization that collects air-navigation charges from airlines and distributes the proceeds.

That arrangement made it possible to freeze Spanish public funds in Belgium. After a legal dispute, Spain deposited €75,759,538 on May 4, 2026.

The freeze was a high-profile win for investors pursuing Spain. They have secured other attachments in the United Kingdom and are engaged in ongoing U.S. court disputes over enforcement of the awards.

Spain appealed, and the European Commission intervened on its behalf. The Belgian state also argued that the attachment breached EU law. The Belgian court has now ruled in Spain’s favor, lifting the freeze and ordering Blasket to pay the legal costs.

That leaves Spain in a stronger position against international investors seeking to enforce the awards — at least within the EU.

BRUSSELS — Extreme heat killed more than 50,000 Europeans this summer. Climate change was responsible for two-thirds of the death toll. 

Those are the stark findings from two new peer-reviewed studies in the academic journal Nature Health, marking the first comprehensive assessment of fatalities during this year’s record-breaking heat waves. 

The figures come from around 850 cities across Europe, meaning the full death toll, including rural areas, is higher still. The scientists also found that this summer was the deadliest so far this century, far outstripping previous records. 

“I think we can be quite confident in stating that the summer of 2026 is likely to have been the worst on record for heat-related mortality across much of Europe,” said study lead author Clair Barnes, an extreme weather researcher at Imperial College London. 

“These numbers are a stark reminder that our hotter, more extreme summers are having an increasingly severe impact on public health. Behind these statistics are real people whose lives were lost and real families who grieve for them,” she added. 

Scientists from Imperial College and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine examined 854 cities in the European Union, the United Kingdom, Norway and Switzerland, home to about 40% of the 30 countries’ population. 

The first study, published earlier this month, looked at climate-linked mortality between 2000 and 2025, while the second study, released on Friday, focused on 2026.

Both papers estimated heat-related excess deaths by analyzing temperature records and historical heat-mortality models, a method the researchers say has consistently produced results mirroring official statistics later released by governments. 

To isolate the role of climate change, the scientists then compared the actual weather seen in these cities to a temperature model representing a world without global warming. 

They found that more than 50,000 heat-related excess deaths occurred in those cities this summer, with around 32,000 attributable to climate change driving up temperatures. 

The studies also showed how exceptionally deadly this year’s summer proved. Between 2000 and 2025, the first paper found a total of 430,000 heat-related deaths, with around half caused by climate change. The 2026 figures eclipsed the previous records of 29,000 deaths in 2022 and 28,000 in 2003.

Almost a third of this summer’s heat-related deaths occurred during Europe’s late June heat wave that smashed several temperature records. 

And while the elderly were the worst-affected population group, the death toll of this summer included around 6,000 people under the age of 65. 

“The burden was greater among older adults. People aged 85 and over accounted for roughly half of the estimated deaths,” said Garyfallos Konstantinoudis, study co-author and assistant professor at Imperial College. 

“However, heat-related mortality was not limited to the older populations,” he added. “Even among younger adults, people aged between 20 and 44, we estimated more than 800 excess deaths.” 

BRUSSELS — Germany, France and at least six other EU countries are pushing against “associate membership” as the name for closer EU ties with Canada, six diplomats involved in the negotiations said.

The label is one of the main sticking points in talks over a joint declaration setting areas of deeper cooperation between Brussels and Ottawa ahead of the EU-Canada summit in Montreal on Oct. 29-30, the six diplomats and two EU officials told POLITICO. They were granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive negotiations.

The diplomats said the objections center on the wording of “associate membership,” not the broader goal of closer ties.

Five weeks after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen first proposed Canada becoming an “associate member” of the EU in her State of the Union speech — to the surprise of both Ottawa and EU capitals — and one week out from the summit itself, the disagreements show the term remains a political and messaging hurdle.

The EU “is really keen to have close cooperation with Canada,” said Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s trade committee. But, he added, he too would avoid using the term “associate membership,” as it leaves too much room for confusion with other forms of EU partnerships, such as association agreements.

Germany is pushing hardest to remove the label from the draft declaration, five of the EU diplomats said, while France, Italy and Belgium were among those expressing skepticism about the phrasing.

The central concern among the capitals that object to the term is that the EU is labeling the relationship before agreeing what it would mean. They argue the name should have been defined before negotiations with Canada began, four diplomats said, with two others adding that the objecting capitals are annoyed that von der Leyen proposed the label without first consulting national governments.

“We’ve definitely put the cart before the horse,” one diplomat said. “We’re announcing something and then figuring out how to flesh it out.”

A representative for the German Permanent Representation to the EU declined to comment.

The European Commission will engage with skeptical capitals and work on acceptable language, an EU official said, adding that they believe the countries’ doubts stem from not yet understanding what the proposal means in concrete terms.

There is no disagreement over the aim of strengthening an already close relationship, including economic and defense cooperation, international engagement and institutional links, the official stressed. “What matters is what we do, not what we call it.”

What’s in a name?

The label aims to describe the EU-Canada relationship as closer than Brussels’ partnerships with other countries, without making Canada a member of the bloc, one of the diplomats said. Canada cannot become a formal member, as the EU’s founding documents limit that status geographically to Europe.

The distinction matters because existing arrangements with European neighbors, including the U.K., Switzerland and countries in the European Economic Area, center largely on access to the EU’s internal market. Canada, on another continent, is not seeking the same model or the four freedoms of movement, the diplomat said.

The idea is to identify practical areas for cooperation first, then decide whether new treaties or formal negotiations are needed, the same diplomat said.

Work on six priority areas is expected to begin after the summit, with progress reviewed after six months and then a proper stock-take one year later at the next EU-Canada summit, which will be held in Europe.

The stock-take would consider whether Canada has moved closer to the EU by becoming a full member of Horizon Europe and Erasmus, is building undersea cables and stockpiling critical raw materials with the EU, and is exploring pension-fund investment. If Canada meets those criteria, it could become the EU’s first associate member, the diplomat said.

The diplomat described the idea as an experiment, adding that “Canada might be the only one” to ever get associate membership of the EU.

The plan reflects changing calculations on both sides. Canada has long depended heavily on trade with the United States, but tariffs and political pressure from Washington have sharpened concerns about that reliance. Prime Minister Mark Carney wants to diversify trade and modernize the country’s infrastructure, including energy links that largely run north to south.

For the EU, a closer partnership with Canada is part of a broader effort to build relationships as pressure from the United States, China and Russia grows. The summit is intended to give the partnership a more distinctive political framework.

The declaration is still being revised, with EU ambassadors due to discuss it again on Monday. One of the EU officials cautioned that several parts of the declaration still had comments outstanding.

Another controversial element concerns energy cooperation, with Austria pushing back against any mention of deepening nuclear ties, while France, Romania, Slovakia and some other countries support its inclusion.

A spokesperson from the Canadian mission to the EU did not respond to POLITICO’s request for comment.

ROME — Roadblocks by truckers in southern Italy are exposing the limits of Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s hardline approach toward protests, as she concedes she will have to take a carrot-and-stick approach to demonstrators struggling with soaring fuel costs.

The demonstrations across the south are fast spiraling into a full-blown economic crisis. Truck drivers and farmers protesting soaring diesel bills have blocked highways, ports and distribution centers this week, leaving supermarket shelves empty and petrol pumps dry. Airports in the south are also suffering from fuel shortages.

After a cabinet meeting on Thursday, the right-wing Meloni vowed to use a security decree to clear the roadblocks, but also pledged to give financial relief to farmers and fishermen crippled by the price of diesel.

Regarding the decree, she said her government would not be “blackmailed by those who use violence as an instrument of pressure.” But she cushioned that blow by acknowledging that financial relief measures were needed to offer “immediate responses, especially to workers, to people who are in difficulty, to families.”

With elections expected in spring next year, the truckers’ protests threaten to shift the political debate from immigration and crime to whether Italians can afford to keep their businesses running. 

Gaetano Amato, a lawmaker from Naples for the populist left 5Star Movement, accused the government of offering security measures instead of answers to the economic grievances driving the protests.

“The government has done nothing and is continuing to do nothing, because it is basing everything on security decrees,” he told POLITICO. 

Stefano Orlacchio, president of the opposition center-left Democratic Party’s youth wing in the southern region of Campania, also slammed the government’s response as “an anti-southern attitude.”

“The protests in the south aren’t being taken into consideration at all,” he told POLITICO.

Diesel squeeze

At the heart of the revolt is a squeeze that truckers say they can no longer absorb. Diesel prices in Italy have risen by about a third since the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran began, and the cost of a long haul journey like Naples to Milan has climbed with them. 

Pasquale, a truck driver with a Campania-based company, who asked POLITICO to withhold his surname for fear of retaliation, said a trip’s profit had now shrunk sharply once fuel, tolls and wages were covered, and that the extra cost was working its way down the supply chain to supermarket shelves. 

Far-right Transport Minister Matteo Salvini of the League party, who posed in a truck cab a few months ago, should “come spend a week with me and we’ll see how comfortable it is,” Pasquale quipped.

While a cap on fuel prices exists on paper, he added petrol stations had ignored it “in these days of chaos.”

Beyond fuel prices, Pasquale zeroed in on EU environmental rules that Italian businesses struggle to comply with, even as cheaper foreign produce continues to reach supermarket shelves. “How can you face something like that?” he asked.

The Brussels-based International Road Transport Union has also appealed directly to European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for help. 

In a letter sent on Thursday and seen by POLITICO, the group and its national member associations said they did not support the blockades but warned that soaring diesel prices were pushing operators to the brink, calling for extended EU state aid and tougher rules on late payments from customers.

The blockades hit hundreds of supermarkets and dozens of distribution centers, according to retailers’ association Federdistribuzione. Fresh fruit, meat and fish ran out within days, followed by other food products, leaving some shops completely empty.

Carlo Alberto Buttarelli, the association’s president, put the damage at “tens of millions of euros,” with fresh food spoiling in trucks and warehouses. Supplies were beginning to resume in Sicily and Calabria on Thursday, but disruption remained in Campania. 

No room to maneuver

Meloni has limited resources to offer relief. Italy remains subject to EU deficit proceedings, constraining Rome’s room for additional spending, while the international instability driving fuel prices higher lies largely beyond her control.

Amato dismissed the announced support from the cabinet meeting on Thursday as money that had already been promised.

While the government’s reaction to last weekend’s northern protests, which were hijacked by masked gangs that looted shops and set fires, was to link the unrest to immigration and deploy troops, the southern unrest is harder for Meloni to handle because it demands concrete economic relief, said Marco Valbruzzi, a researcher at the University of Naples Federico II.

Frustrated voters could turn to the 5Star Movement, which has previously channeled economic discontent in the south, or abstain from voting altogether. 

The protests could also weaken the appeal of early elections expected in April or May next year. A winter of sustained protests would give Meloni a reason to wait until autumn 2027, hoping for an ease in international instability and improved fiscal flexibility. 

If economic grievances dominate the campaign, “she is playing an electoral game on a field that she cannot control,” Valbruzzi said.

BRÜSSEL — Konservative und rechtsextreme Abgeordnete haben am Donnerstag dafür gestimmt, wichtige EU-Vorschriften zu Methanemissionen um drei Jahre zu verschieben. Zuvor hatten die fossile Industrie sowie mehrere Mitgliedstaaten Druck ausgeübt, die Vorschriften aufzuschieben.

Diese Position wurde von der Europäischen Volkspartei sowie von der rechtsextremen Fraktion „Patrioten für Europa“ und der rechtsgerichteten Fraktion „Europäische Konservative und Reformisten“ unterstützt.

Sollte der Beschluss von anderen EU-Institutionen gebilligt werden, würde die Frist für die Umsetzung wichtiger Vorschriften zur Regelung der Methanemissionen auf das Jahr 2030 verschoben – weit über die von der Kommission vorgeschlagene Verlängerung bis 2028 hinaus.

Dies geschah nach einer monatelangen Kampagne von Öl- und Gasunternehmen. Sie machten geltend, dass wesentliche Elemente der Vorschriften, die sie zur Überwachung und Nachverfolgung von Leckagen des starken Treibhausgases verpflichten, unklar seien. Das berge die Gefahr von Verstößen, was dazu führen könnte, dass wichtige Lieferungen Europa nicht erreichen.

Mit seiner Haltung schließt sich das Parlament der Forderung der Industrie nach einer dreijährigen Verschiebung an. Die Abgeordneten schlossen sich den Bedenken der Branche hinsichtlich des Risikos von Versorgungsengpässen an, die mit einer übereilten Umsetzung der Vorschriften verbunden wären.

„Die Verschiebung der Anforderungen an Öl- und Gasimporteure im Rahmen der Methanverordnung ist eine Frage der politischen Verantwortung … Wir brauchen rechtssichere Vorschriften …, um die Energieversorgung und die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit Europas zu sichern“, erklärten die Europaabgeordneten Andrea Wechlser und Christian Ehler, beide von der EVP, in einer Stellungnahme gegenüber POLITICO.

„Die Krise im Nahen Osten übt bereits enormen Druck auf die Energiemärkte aus – etwa 20 Prozent des weltweiten LNG-Handels werden über die Straße von Hormus abgewickelt“, fügten sie hinzu.

Der Standpunkt des Parlaments könnte den nationalen Delegationen Rückenwind geben, die auf eine längere Frist drängen. Zuvor hatten sie sich am Mittwoch nach Widerstand seitens Deutschlands, Italiens und Polens nicht auf einen gemeinsamen Standpunkt einigen können. Die Mitgliedstaaten hoffen, am kommenden Mittwoch einen Kompromiss zu finden, nachdem sie daran zu Wochenbeginn gescheitert waren.

Dieser Artikel ist zuerst auf Englisch bei POLITICO erschienen.

BRUSSELS — The center-right European People’s Party joined forces with far-right lawmakers Thursday to push through a vote delaying a key EU climate law governing the methane emissions of oil and gas companies.

It was the latest example of the European Parliament’s biggest group ignoring old taboos and working with the far right to pass legislation weakening environmental rules.

The EU Methane Regulation requires fossil fuel companies to monitor and report emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that’s a major cause of global warming.

The requirements were due to come into force in 2027, but the Commission last week proposed delaying implementation by a year following intense lobbying from the oil and gas lobby and the U.S. government.

The EPP proposed going further, calling for a three-year delay. The amendment passed by 326 votes to 244, with the support of far-right groups Patriots for Europe, the group of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally; and Europe of Sovereign Nations, the group of the German far-right party the AfD. Giorgia Meloni’s European Conservatives and Reformists also backed the proposal.

Most lawmakers from other centrist and center-left groups, including Renew Europe, Socialists and Democrats and the Greens, opposed the three-year delay.

The right-wing majority also voted for an amendment that would force the Commission to review the law and propose any necessary changes by mid-2029.

It comes a year after the EPP — the group of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen — set a new precedent when it sided with the far right to vote to weaken environmental reporting rules for companies, breaching the so-called cordon sanitaire. Since 2024, right wing groups have made up a majority in Parliament.

Thursday’s vote, if adopted by other EU institutions, would move the deadline for implementation of rules to 2030 — well beyond the Commission’s proposed delay to 2028.

It comes after a months-long pressure campaign by oil and gas companies, which claimed that key elements of the rules requiring them to monitor and track leaks of the potent greenhouse gas were unclear, risking compliance failures that could deter critical supplies from reaching Europe.

The Parliament’s position aligns it with industry’s own call for a three-year delay, and lawmakers echoed the sector’s concerns about the risk of supply disruptions linked to hasty implementation of the rules.

“The postponement of the requirements for oil and gas importers in the Methane Regulation is a matter of political responsibility … We need legally certain rules in place … to safeguard Europe’s energy supply and competitiveness,” MEPs Andrea Wechlser and Christian Ehler, both in the EPP, said in a statement to POLITICO.

“The crisis in the Middle East is already putting massive pressure on energy markets—about 20 percent of global LNG trade passes through the Strait of Hormuz,” they added.

The Parliament’s position could empower national delegations — which failed to agree on a joint position Wednesday after pushback from Germany, Italy and Poland — pushing for a longer delay. Member countries hope to find a compromise next Wednesday after failing to find agreement earlier this week.

CORRECTION: This article has been updated to reflect that Parliament voted to delay the rules until 2030.

Helion now has another $225 million to help speed development of its first fusion power plant, due to provide Microsoft with electricity in 2028.

When the sun goes down, the wind picks up in central New Mexico, whipping through arid canyons with a ghostly howl that for centuries, locals have likened to the wails of the folkloric ghost La Llorona. 

A few hours east of Albuquerque, this June, those gusts began powering the largest wind farm this continent has ever seen, twirling over 900 colossal steel turbines. Each is as tall as the Statue of Liberty, scattered across a patch of desert roughly the size of Chicago. They plug into a 550-mile transmission line stitched across the Southwest and are now powering over one million homes — as far away as California. 

The SunZia Wind and Transmission project is a rare 21st-century triumph of American infrastructure, an engineering marvel that generates more electricity than the Hoover Dam. When the turbines came online this spring, they immediately broke records for wind-generated power in California’s energy supply, where solar power may rule the day, but the winds of New Mexico increasingly fuel the night.

After years of stagnant power growth, the US is absolutely starving for more electricity, with demand projected to rise by 25 percent by the end of this decade, and a staggering 78 percent by 2050. Enormous as this challenge might seem, it may ultimately be the catalyst the country needs to dramatically dial up its renewable energy infrastructure, so that the years to come are powered not by gas or coal, but by clean energy sources like the sun and the wind. By next summer, the project will have prevented about 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, according to Pattern Energy, the project’s developer. 

For decades, however, it seemed the project would remain little more than a spectral dream. 

“It works!” This was the call Hunter Armistead, Pattern’s CEO, remembers getting from his head engineer when the turbines came online for the very first time. “We were creating power, and it was showing up 550 miles away in Phoenix, almost as if it was magic.” During the ribbon-cutting for the wind farm, some construction workers showed off massive new turbine tattoos. “It’s their pride that for the rest of their lives, they can drive by and tell their kid, ‘I did this,’” Armistead said.

But SunZia almost didn’t get built at all. It is not just the project’s scale that makes it remarkable, but the utter morass its developers slogged through to bring it online. The project spanned five presidential administrations, an ownership change, a major reroute, and a standoff with a US military base. 

It also involved a series of lawsuits from local tribal communities and environmental advocates, some of which remain pending even as the turbines now finally whirl. Building any renewable megaproject requires vast amounts of space, and hyperspecific natural conditions, like a wind that blows at night or a reliably sun-soaked desert plain. Then getting that energy to major cities means traversing some of the most pristine, spectacular natural corridors this nation has left, and particularly in the Southwest, rubbing up against the sacred lands of local tribal communities. 

The decades-long saga to settle some of these tensions has turned SunZia into a helpful lesson, and for many, deserved or not, it became the ultimate poster child for permitting reform. And for many years, the country’s need for power didn’t seem to call for such a wildly ambitious project anyway. But in the interim, as the world changed, SunZia changed too, becoming — at least in some places — a better and more collaborative project than it was when it began. And now, with a nation finally focused on building more clean energy megaprojects, it can offer a glimpse of what’s to come, even a blueprint of what could be.

The real reason(s) it took so long for SunZia to get built

When SunZia was first proposed in 2006, the same year Twitter went online, coal was still the most important electricity source in America, and the nation’s appetite for electricity had remained nearly flat year after year.

And for the next 17 years, SunZia flailed, never even breaking ground. It ping-ponged between financial and regulatory purgatories that most commentators have attributed to endless permitting delays. There were, for example, a few state-level permitting debacles, with New Mexico rejecting SunZia’s initial transmission route in 2018. Even after such interstate power lines get federal approval, they often need to wait years longer for approvals from every state in which their project passes.

Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, for one, has cited SunZia as a key impetus for his co-sponsoring the Senate’s new plan for permitting reform. This would make it easier for the federal government to coordinate approval processes for interstate transmission lines, ensuring that they happen concurrently and preventing one state from dragging its heels. 

The project had faced one particularly large and sticky permitting challenge: getting the power through the White Sands Missile Range. But this, and other challenges, were eventually resolved relatively quickly. And to David Hayes, who served as deputy secretary of the Department of the Interior during the Obama administration, this suggests that financing hamstrung the project even more than red tape. 

“The facts are the facts, and they got their permit,” said Hayes — all the way back in 2015, not long after the Obama administration put SunZia on a “fast-track” to approval. “So we finally got the permit done. Hooray, right? And then nothing happens. Nothing happens.” 

Part of that was the fact that the two states where SunZia wanted to build its transmission lines were not entirely on board. But it was also the sheer expense involved in building the project, especially given that the federal approval required burying parts of the transmission line near the missile range. Moreover, even if everything went perfectly with the project’s permitting process, it might have been impossible to build SunZia back then, said Armistead, because “we really didn’t have the market need for it.” 

The US simply wasn’t as ravenous for new electricity as it is right now, and the importance of building out the future of energy was not enticing enough for investors on its own.

But, refusing to die a slow death of a thousand permitting blockades or financial setbacks, SunZia instead evolved. Pattern Energy, initially only in charge of developing the wind farm portion of the project, took over the transmission line project in 2022. Around that time, SunZia applied for a revised federal permit, one that would circumvent the missile range, and within less than two years — a relative sprint for federal bureaucracy — they had a new approval in hand. Then came $11 billion in financing from several global financial institutions, pension funds, and clean energy investors. Then, a few years of construction time later, the Americas’ biggest wind farm was finally switched on.

And more massive projects like this will be needed because nowadays, “there is no longer the excuse” of a market unready for high volumes of clean energy, Armistead told me. “It is game time, and we’re supposed to get this done.”

What America’s biggest clean energy project got right

One of the secrets to SunZia’s ultimate success in New Mexico was the project’s ability to strike compromises, even with some of its earliest critics. In some cases, a bunch of birds. 

Right about now, the earliest migratory birds, like the crimson-capped sandhill crane, have begun arriving at their Southwestern wintering grounds, not far from some of SunZia’s newly operational high-voltage transmission lines.

This crane had nearly gone extinct before, driven in part by an explosion of new hydroelectric dams in the early 20th century, whose construction dried out local wetlands. SunZia’s initial route, which was planned across one of the most congested flyways in the country, threatened them again, birders feared, alongside other migratory species who might accidentally fly into the new power lines, a threat believed to kill millions of birds nationwide each year. 

While SunZia’s original developer, the Southwestern Power Group, was largely unmoved by those concerns, said Sarah Rose, vice president of climate at the National Audubon Society, the nonprofit found an unusually receptive partner to compromise when Pattern Energy took over. 

“They took their role as a project developer really seriously,” she said, “and I think they engaged with us with a lot of integrity and a lot of good faith.” Under a rerouting plan, original power lines were moved north, erected next to existing infrastructure, or affixed with visual warning systems or bird diverters. Not only did the changes make the bird advocates happy, but they were enough to help convince the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, which had rejected SunZia’s permit application a few years earlier in part due to these concerns, to unanimously approve the project in 2022. 

To be clear, not everybody believed Pattern always made the appropriate compromises, especially in Arizona, where SunZia’s route remained unchanged under the new management. Peter Else, a local environmentalist, has spent years fighting SunZia in court over its intrusion into the scenic San Pedro Valley, a region that is sacred to Indigenous communities such as the Tohono O’odham Nation and San Carlos Apache Tribe. To see it marred by more power lines through the landscape has been like “mourning a death,” Else said, “like an ecological homicide.” 

He would have liked to see SunZia try to run the valley’s new power lines alongside existing ones, as it managed to do in parts of New Mexico, a process that Armistead told me would not have been possible because the Arizona portion of the line “was already put to bed,” and the original federal permit had found the valley to be “the least impactful and best route.” A lawsuit from the Tohono O’odham Nation and San Carlos Apache Tribe accusing SunZia and the Department of the Interior of failing to protect the valley remains pending. 

Of course, climate change threatens many of these regions more than a single power line. In the two decades it took SunZia to begin pumping clean energy across state lines, waves of extreme heat have taken tens of thousands of American lives, and the entire Southwest has continued in a megadrought unseen in the past 1,200 years. 

These are some of the very concerns that SunZia seeks, in part, to combat. And if we want to avoid even more heat deaths, extreme droughts, more flash floods, and more habitat destruction, then we probably will need a lot more facilities like it, some of which will require hard tradeoffs. 

But they aren’t doomed always to. It may have taken SunZia over a decade to learn that lesson, but for future megaprojects, the blueprint may already be there. The nearby 280-mile high-voltage Southline Transmission Project spanning parts of Arizona and New Mexico is set to begin construction next year, and it’s been so intentional about minimizing its ecological and cultural impact that even Else praised it as a good idea. And this approach could pave the way for even more essential large-scale projects like it. “If more folks could come to the table looking for solutions as opposed to expecting conflict,” Rose said, “I think we would be able to move a lot more quickly.” Ideally, it won’t take another 20 years.

This story was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting.

LONDON — Brussels is proposing to extend negotiations on its core demand for cut-price tuition fees for EU students studying in the U.K. beyond next month’s leaders’ summit, as a package of deals nears completion, three EU diplomats with knowledge of the talks told POLITICO.

The European Commission on Wednesday presented the option to member countries of decoupling the tuition fee demand from the long-delayed U.K.-EU summit on Nov. 20.

A postponement would clear the way for a deal to be struck on other key elements of Britain’s “reset” with the bloc, including new agreements on agri-food trade, emissions trading, and a youth experience scheme.

The diplomats — all of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely about ongoing talks — said the proposal would involve asking the U.K. to commit to finalizing an agreement on tuition fees within six months. The proposal was first reported by the Financial Times.

The EU is pushing for European students to pay the domestic rate for tuition fees when studying at British universities, as they did before Brexit.

But one of the diplomats highlighted that the tuition fee demand was still part of a wider “package” linked to the other three agreements slated for the summit, and that the agreements would not enter into force until there was agreement on all areas. 

In addition, the diplomats confirmed that both sides were considering a joint summit statement on economic security, amid mounting U.K. concerns about the EU’s Made in Europe proposals.

Meanwhile, negotiations on a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) deal — which would see the U.K. and EU align on agri-food standards — are close to completion, two of the diplomats said. The deal would include temporary arrangements for gene-edited plants and novel foods, such as lab-grown meat.

For gene-edited plants, the U.K. wants to keep its own rules until equivalent EU rules come into force, and has pledged not to change them in the meantime.

For novel foods, the U.K. would follow EU decisions to approve or reject products, but could set its own rules for products the EU has not yet assessed. In both cases, the products would be sold only in Great Britain and would not have access to the EU single market.

Dan Bloom contributed to this report

LONDON — Britain’s energy regulator is planning to authorize urgent investment to increase gas pipeline imports from continental Europe this winter, amid fears over the country’s ability to supply all customers in an emergency scenario. 

The plans, outlined in a document published Thursday morning, have been published a day after Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh approved a controversial North Sea gas project, Jackdaw.  

Government documents show that gas security considerations were given “substantial weight” in her decision. 

In a consultation paper, Ofgem said that, without intervention, Britain would have a “negative supply margin” this winter, in the event of a one in 20-year cold day — a day so cold Britain would only be expected to have one every 20 years — coinciding with the loss of key gas infrastructure. 

This unlikely scenario is a key standard followed by Britain’s energy authorities to assess its resilience in maintaining gas supply — also called the “N-1 gas security” standard. 

A shortfall in gas supply would be a national emergency, potentially requiring power plants or factories to shut down, or in extreme cases homes being disconnected from the gas network.  

Britain has never experienced a “network supply emergency,” but diminishing domestic supply and the threat of Russian sabotage of key undersea gas pipelines has raised fears over the country’s energy security. 

Last year the energy system operator, NESO, said long-term declines in domestic North Sea gas supply and global competition for LNG imports could mean the N-1 gas security standard is breached in winter 2030/31. 

However, there are now fears of a crunch point as soon as this winter, after the Belgian operator of the undersea gas pipeline Interconnector said it would cut planned export capacity to the U.K. because of soaring maintenance and operating costs. EU countries are also facing concerns over gas supply this winter. 

Ofgem, the regulator, said it is now planning to amend gas system operator National Gas’s regulatory licence, allowing them to cover the costs of maintaining imports from Belgium at current capacity, in agreement with Interconnector Ltd, majority-owned by Belgian firm Fluxys. 

“Without intervention, Great Britain could potentially face a negative supply margin in winter 2026/27 involving extremely high gas demand on a 1-in-20 cold weather day and the loss of the single largest element of GB gas infrastructure,” Ofgem said. “The position could become more constrained in future winters without intervention. While these are low-probability stress scenarios, their potential consequences are significant.” 

Costs will be recouped through customers’ energy bills. Ofgem said costs of £147 million could be passed on to bills, adding an estimated £1.19 to every domestic energy bill per year over a five-year period.  

Interconnector Ltd said it would restore British import capacity to 27.8GW this winter, an additional 11.3GW of capacity above the previously announced level. 

National Gas welcomed the plans but insisted that the warning over gas security “should not be interpreted as an indication that gas shortages are expected.” 

The Conservatives’ Shadow Energy Secretary Andew Bowie called the situation “utterly outrageous.” 

Britain is “going cap in hand to Europe and paying vast sums to import foreign gas,” he said, criticizing the Labour government for what he characterized as a failure to fully exploit domestic gas supplies. 

“Britain has one of the most secure and resilient energy systems in the world– and gas interconnectors form part of our diverse energy mix,” Energy Minister Michael Shanks said in a statement. 

“We are working with industry to build a gas system fit for the future, ensuring value for money for consumers while giving investors’ confidence to back Britain’s energy sector.”