You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Risk-averse but deep-pocked institutional investors join the party.

When the Fusion Industry Association surveyed the sector earlier this month, it found that the industry’s 56 active companies had collectively raised more than $14.2 billion over the past five years. But an ever-larger share of that money is ending up in the hands of one startup: Commonwealth Fusion Systems.
With its latest $1 billion funding round, announced today, the MIT spinout now accounts for nearly 30% of all capital in the industry. The new financing, led by a wave of institutional investors entering the sector for the first time, will support construction of the company’s first commercial power plant in Chesterfield County, Virginia, which CEO Bob Mumgaard says is on track to come online in the early 2030s.
In a media briefing, Mumgaard noted that this latest raise marks “the largest single funding round among fusion energy companies since our last large round of $1.8 billion in 2021.” It brings the total capital raised by CFS to an even $4 billion as the company races to complete construction of SPARC, its demo reactor. If all goes according to plan, it should begin operating sometime next year, proving out the physics and engineering approach underpinning ARC, the planned commercial plant.
The new financing deviates from the typical venture capital round, as it brings in a broad but unnamed mix of “large pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, infrastructure funds doing project finance, and industrial corporates.” These risk-averse investors would typically steer clear of expensive, first-of-a-kind facilities, demonstrating the degree to which CFS has succeeded in building confidence in an industry long critiqued for overpromising and underdelivering.
The company credits the trust it built to its extensive peer-reviewed research as well as its decision to build a tokamak — widely regarded as the most mature fusion reactor design. “I don’t think there’s any other company that’s been as transparent and open with their physics and how it actually works,” Katie Rae, CEO and managing partner at Engine Ventures, told me. Rae has participated in every one of CFS’s funding rounds, and while she says her firm has evaluated virtually every startup in the sector, the company remains its only fusion investment.
But even flush with institutional capital, Mumgaard is clear that the company will need billions more to fully finance ARC and the numerous reactors to follow. It’s unclear where exactly that money will come from, though he’s pushing for government involvement. Alongside the Fusion Industry Association, Mumgaard is advocating for a one-time, roughly $10 billion federal infusion of cash into the broader industry to expand public-private partnerships, build shared research infrastructure, and help finance first-of-a-kind plants in an effort to keep pace with China’s rapidly growing fusion program.
According to reporting from Politico, a Department of Energy official told CFS and other fusion companies that such a level of federal funding is “unrealistic in this environment.” But though insiders argue it’s what the industry needs to scale, Rae says CFS doesn’t depend on it. “I think it is the right kind of investment to make, but we didn’t count on it from an investor perspective,” she told me.
One obvious alternative is the public markets. The IPO window for climate tech has reopened, with geothermal giant Fervo and nuclear fission startup X-energy both completing successful public offerings in recent months. SPACs have also made a comeback, as numerous nuclear companies are opting for this faster, though riskier, path to the public markets. But CFS’s newly appointed CFO, Lorence Kim, said during the briefing that this latest round proves “that the private markets have a lot of capital to deploy toward our mission.” Whether an IPO is in the company’s near future remains an open question, though he cautioned against interpreting his hiring as any indication of “IPO prep in a specific way.”
For what it’s worth though, Kim has taken another high-profile, pre-revenue startup public before: Moderna. As CFO from 2014 to 2020, he helped the company scale its mRNA platform and lead its blockbuster $600 million IPO in late 2018 — the largest ever in the biotech industry at the time. Notably, this all happened before Moderna had an approved product or the Covid pandemic made its signature vaccine a household name, similar to where Commonwealth finds itself today.
“Moderna was in this moment in time where the science worked, and the strategy was focused on execution and scale and deploying capital in a way that could enable real impact on the world,” Kim explained. CFS is now at the same juncture, he said. “And so in the same way that Moderna industrialized mRNA and made it inevitable and made it ubiquitous, it was really clear to me that CFS could do the same for fusion.”
Of course, CFS is not alone in its confidence — other fusion companies are equally bullish on their own approach. Take Inertia Enterprises, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory spinout, which last week unveiled its own commercial roadmap for a laser-driven fusion reactor. The company emphasized it’s the only one to have definitively demonstrated the viability of its underlying physics in a real-world experiment, rather than through theoretical work or simulations.
Or take Helion, which has raised $1.5 billion and secured a highly ambitious power purchase agreement with Microsoft to supply electricity to the tech giant by 2028. Or Pacific Fusion, which netted a staggering $900 million Series A to be doled out in milestone-based tranches. There are dozens of others — many with hundreds of millions in funding — pursuing a range of approaches that some of the field’s brightest minds consider technically feasible.
But when I mused to Rae about how exciting it is that institutional investors now appear willing to back an industry once viewed as bordering on science fiction, she was quick to correct me.
“They’re willing to bet on Commonwealth Fusion — that’s what you mean.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
At least one hyperscaler’s big bets seem to be paying off.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Good evening. Let’s start with the news. Meta and Microsoft released their most recent quarterly earnings this evening, and Wall Street was watching to figure out if their enormous AI spending plans are paying off. We were watching because those proposals are shaping one of the most important energy stories today: the data center boom and the sharp return of electricity demand.
The returns were … mixed. Meta missed analysts’ estimates, and its profit fell 14% from the same quarter a year earlier. It increased the lower bound of how much it plans to spend on capital expenditures such as data centers this year, from $125 billion to $130 billion, but left the upper bound of $145 billion unchanged.
Microsoft, meanwhile, said its AI investments are starting to pay off. Revenue at its cloud business, which uses its data center space, increased by 43%, more than analysts expected. It spent $41 billion on capital expenses in the three months ending in June.
Meta’s stock was down 7% in after-hours trading, while Microsoft is up 8%. When Heatmap surveyed climate insiders last year, they ranked Microsoft as among the most decarbonization-friendly hyperscaler and Meta as among the worst.
Permitting odds up — thanks to Shift Key?
I do not regularly follow such things, but this afternoon I was told that the Kalshi market for “Will permitting reform become law this year?” surged to 77% today after trading for days around 50%:
I have no idea why it budged today, but perhaps what moved the market was our new episode of the Shift Key podcast (Apple, Spotify). On today’s show, I spoke with Daniel Palken, a former Capitol Hill policy staffer now at Arnold Ventures, about the current state of permitting reform negotiations in Congress. While we don’t know the exact shape of a deal yet, permitting reform is likely to be the biggest new policy for clean energy that we could get by the end of the year.
Daniel is a fantastic guide to the negotiations, and if you’re curious about the policy at all, I recommend that you listen. Here are few of my takeaways from the conversation:
1. A permitting reform deal will probably have six buckets.
They are (1) changes to the National Environmental Policy Act and the judicial review process that environmental studies face after completion; (2) reforms to the transmission process; (3) changes to the Clean Water Act; (4) a deal to make it harder for presidents to yank permits from approved projects; (5) changes to the National Historic Preservation Act, and (6) “everything else,” a grab bag of smaller fixes including to geothermal energy.
2. Wonky committee politics are shaping the deal.
The National Historic Preservation Act, for instance, is an archeological law that hasn’t been in the mix for previous reform proposals. It’s up for discussion now because Senator Mike Lee of Utah chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee — and the NHPA is the major environmental bill under his jurisdiction. Likewise, observers think that a permitting deal has a much better shot of passing during this Congress (as compared to next year) because of an expected series of changes to committee chairs.
3. It’s way, way better to hook data centers to the power grid than run them off behind-the-meter power plants — even if they run off 100% natural gas.
Any permitting reform proposal will seek to expand the transmission system. That could have big benefits for the emissions intensity of data centers. Why? I’ll let Daniel explain:
If you look at the data centers that are hooking up off grid — when they’re not using repurposed jet engines, they’re using 20% thermally efficient gas plants. Whereas if you’re hooked up to the grid, there’s really two types of gas plants that live on the grid. There’s like 60% efficient combined-cycle gas turbines, which are most of the gas power that’s generated, and then there’s peaker [plants], which have low efficiency, but are run at capacity factors of like 5% — so from an emissions perspective, they don’t matter all that much.
So even if solar and wind didn’t exist at all, and nuclear didn’t exist, and hydro didn’t exist, it would still be a much, much cleaner option [to connect data centers to the power grid]. Like we’re talking factors of three in efficiency to connect your data center to the grid if it was purely powered by gas, which is, I think, an important point to understand.
I thought that was an interesting point, and while I’d seen some of those ideas in isolation, I’d never seen them laid out in one place. (And even if grid-scale gas plants are much more efficient than behind-the-meter plants, it’s still even better to power data centers with solar, batteries, and other clean firm power plants — which is also easier when they’re hooked up to the grid.)
I’ll stop glossing the episode and just link to it one more time. Thanks for reading.
On nuclear waste, a Nevada solar farm, and lithium-harvesting nanorobots
Current conditions: France just ordered 4,000 more people to evacuate the wildfires that have now displaced a third of a million people across southwestern Europe • The heat dome in the southwestern United States is driving temperatures in Phoenix up to 113 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the week • Temperatures in Tuscany are topping 100 degrees this week as Europe’s latest heat wave takes hold.
Just yesterday, I told you that China’s dominance over the manufacturing of the inverters needed to patch solar panels and batteries onto the grid and into data centers had peaked two years ago as Europe’s factories began booming. Hours after the newsletter landed in your inbox, the Trump administration unveiled plans to ban imports of Chinese power inverters in a bid to protect the U.S. buildout of artificial intelligence from sabotage and competition. On Tuesday, the Federal Communications Commission told CNBC its new restrictions aimed to safeguard the AI supply chain “from Chinese threats of disruption, data threat, and cyber attacks.” The measures also bar imports of Chinese-made humanoid and quadruped robots. As you may recall, Reuters broke news in May 2025 that the U.S. government had discovered rogue communications devices in the Chinese-made inverters. The story came out just a month after a frequency problem that stemmed from Spain’s struggle to sufficiently patch all of its solar generation on the grid triggered a blackout across Iberia, highlighting the sort of scenario a compromised “killswitch” device could set off in a bid to attack energy systems.
The ban is good news for America’s beleaguered solar manufacturing industry, which the Trump administration has championed with tariffs but hobbled by axing key federal tax credits that included bonuses for projects using domestically produced panels. T1 Energy, shares of which nosedived this week after the latest quarterly earnings showed losses far outpacing revenue, just spent another $135 million on patents from a rival in Singapore in a bid to vertically integrate production of a more efficient type of photovoltaic technology. Tesla, meanwhile, is promising to “multiply” American solar production by “an order of magnitude.” Yet Elon Musk’s behemoth is cutting long-term deals to buy other people’s solar power. The company just inked an agreement with a KKR-backed solar and battery project in Arizona to buy 90% of its output.

Reasonable people debate just how much electricity is needed to satisfy the demands of the data center boom — and the bears are likely to get a boost amid this week’s selloff of AI stocks. But the latest projections from the Rhodium Group forecast U.S. electricity demand growth to accelerate over the next 15 years, “growing faster than it has since the turn of the century.” Data centers will account for between 62% and 77% of the growth in 2030, and between 59% and 66% in 2040, ultimately reaching 17% of total electricity demand that year. Electric vehicles will make up the second-largest source of new demand growth in the low- and mid-emissions scenarios the consultancy outlined through 2040. In the high-emissions scenario, heavy industry will account for a quarter of the demand growth between 2025 and 2040. Overall, the findings show divergent pathways in the 2030s. By 2040, the U.S. will either reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 41% below 2005 levels — or just 27%. Across all three scenarios, the “historic influx of renewables” coming online between now and 2030 keeps emissions declining. After 2030, however, the grid’s trajectory either continues to deploy nearly 53 gigawatts of renewables per year through 2040 in a low-emissions scenario or drops to 3 gigawatts per year in a high-emissions scenario where cheap natural gas dominates.
For months now, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, the nonprofit behind a voluntary but widely used corporate standard for carbon accounting rules, has been revising its approach. Last year, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo explained the stakes of the revision process as an “obscure philosophical battle that could reshape the clean energy economy. In April, she broke news from whistleblowers that the changes underway were drumming up controversy. This morning she’s out with a new story on Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s plans to marry its standard to those by the International Organization for Standardization. The short of it is this: the changes are getting a lot of pushback, and credibility of the forthcoming new standard remains an open question.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
For decades, the U.S. plan to deal with nuclear waste has focused on building a highly controversial repository in the Nevada desert. But that effort, as I explained yesterday, was put on indefinite hiatus in 2010 when the Obama administration canceled funding on behalf of then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. In the meantime, states such as Texas and New Mexico have demonstrated that both Republican and Democratic governments are still willing to fight efforts to build intermediate-term storage facilities for nuclear waste in their states. On Tuesday, five states officially stepped up and made bids to host what the Department of Energy is calling its Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, which will house startups that recycle spent nuclear waste into fresh fuel and medical isotopes. The Energy Department named Utah, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Idaho as finalists for the facilities. “I’m pleased to announce that after reviewing 28 applications from 26 states, the Energy Department has selected five initial contenders to further explore building Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a statement. “These campuses will be massive generators of economic growth, create thousands of high-paying jobs, and be crucial to unleashing America’s nuclear renaissance.”
Just last week, the Energy Department opened the door to nuclear projects sited on floating offshore platforms. It’s a novel idea for the U.S., but Russia launched its Akademik Lomonosov, a floating nuclear station, in 2019 in what is widely recognized as the world’s first real small modular reactor and only operating non-land nuclear plant. A new peer-reviewed study the World Nuclear Association conducted on the Rosatom-owned plant ranked it “on par with Russia’s top units,” World Nuclear News reported.
Trump’s permitting freeze for renewables projects started to thaw for solar in particular earlier this year as the administration faced mounting pressure to stop thwarting the fastest-growing source of power in a country increasingly starved for new and swiftly available sources of electricity. The easing, as my colleague Jael Holzman wrote, was also part of a legal strategy. Regardless of the reasoning, the thaw is continuing — and not just because of the literal heat dome pushing temperatures in the Southwest into the triple digits. On Tuesday, the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management announced plans to advance a solar project in the Nevada desert. The Mosey solar farm, which would produce enough power at maximum output for 200,000 homes, is now under evaluation at the agency’s Nevada office, the agency notified the Federal Register. The regulator plans to conduct an environmental analysis and a resource management plan tweak needed for a project in a utility corridor. E&E News credited the administration’s shift on this particular project to lobbying by the state’s Republican governor, Joe Lombardo.
The project is part of developer Clearway’s larger efforts in Nevada. Separately, the company has volunteered to scrap one of its other solar projects in favor of building a gas plant, Jael reported this week.
Yesterday, I told you the board of PJM Interconnection had scheduled an emergency auction to drum up 7 gigawatts of additional capacity to supply the electricity demand from data centers starting in 2028. It’s just one incremental way the nation’s largest grid system is “lurching toward reforms,” as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote. It’s also inching toward more actual power infrastructure. On Wednesday, the developer Eolian Energy started construction on Flint Grid, a 1 gigawatt-hour storage project outside Columbus, Ohio. Located near a hub of data center and industrial power users, the Flint Grid project is “the first large-scale battery energy storage system to qualify for the PJM capacity market.” If it comes online in spring 2027 as promised on the project’s new website, it will represent more than half the new battery storage capacity in PJM’s line up for 2027 to 2028. The project is also the first grid-scale battery project permitted by the Ohio Power Siting Board and the largest in the PJM territory to date.
“There’s growing consternation about how the US can rapidly scale infrastructure to support America’s growing electricity demand, but not nearly enough conversation about how to use existing technology to unlock the wasted capacity that already exists on the grid,” Eolian founder and CEO Aaron Zubaty said in a statement. “This project requires hundreds of millions of dollars to construct, and we committed the necessary capital and resources years before today’s demand forecasts became headline news. As policymakers consider changes to competitive electricity markets, it’s critical that they avoid undermining the long-term investments already.”
Lithium production typically involves either mining hard rocks or extracting salts through brines. Both are water intensive processes with considerable environmental tolls. Scientists at Texas A&M University are now developing a new approach involving the deployment of tiny, fish-like swimming nanorobots that capture lithium ions from seawater. Backed by a $1 million Energy Department grant, it’s among more than a dozen projects the agency is supporting in a bid to bolster domestic critical mineral supplies. “Unlike traditional mining that digs up land or pumps brine from underground and requires massive amounts of energy, these autonomous micro/nanorobots move freely through seawater to harvest lithium with virtually zero infrastructure footprint,” Jingjing Qiu, one of the mechanical engineers leading the research, said in a statement.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol released updates on its looming new emissions accounting rules. Here’s what they mean.
The world’s most important climate standard-setting group released a spate of updates on Wednesday about two controversial and hotly anticipated projects: its effort to revise guidance for measuring electricity emissions and its new partnership with a competing standards organization.
The nonprofit Greenhouse Gas Protocol sets voluntary carbon accounting rules for companies, which it has been in the process of revising for the past two years. It released the first product of this effort — new rules for accounting for the clean energy purchases that companies make — for public comment last fall.
Around the same time, it also announced it was planning to “harmonize” its standards with those developed by the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO, a much larger entity that sets rules for measurement, safety, and quality across a wide range of industries and products. The two organizations operate under very different governance structures, and it was unclear how the marriage would work.
While it’s voluntary for companies to adhere to either group’s standards, most do, as it legitimizes their environmental claims. Soon, though, larger corporations operating in Europe and California will be required to abide by one of the two accounting rules under new emissions disclosure rules. Today, the Protocol has a far larger userbase, but the existence of the two standards is awkward, and business groups have been asking for reconciliation.
Now the Protocol says the merger will have the two organizations consolidate their disparate workstreams into a single corporate carbon accounting standard that will be put out for public comment next year. Meanwhile, the public feedback on the clean energy proposal is out — and the response was overwhelmingly negative.
Here’s what we know so far about what’s next on both fronts.
Companies hate the electricity proposal
About 70% of the nearly 1,100 respondents to the public consultation opposed criteria that would require companies to match their electricity consumption with purchases of clean energy generated in the same hour if they wanted to claim they used that clean power. A smaller majority, at 59%, opposed a rule to require that the clean energy be generated in the same regional electric grid, a strategy known as “deliverability.”
These results aren’t exactly a surprise given who participated. More than 60% of responses came from the companies that would be subject to these rules and the industry groups and consultants who represent them. They weren’t the only opponents, however. There also proved to be a pretty even split of opinion within the nonprofits and researchers who engaged.

The experts who drafted these rules were trying to improve the status quo, where companies can inaccurately claim they are fully powered by solar panels, even at night, or say they are using wind power that’s generated halfway across the world. Now the authors will have to go back to the drawing board, this time with more explicit direction to find “common ground that the plurality can see themselves in,” Tim Mohin, the CEO of the Greenhouse Gas Protocol, told me.
I’ve written in the past about how the debate over how to measure electricity emissions is just as philosophical as it is technical. Proponents of hourly matching and deliverability argue that these features make for more accurate claims that also incentivize investment in the wider range of resources that will be needed to fully decarbonize the grid, such as geothermal power plants and batteries. Detractors argue such rules will make corporate clean energy procurement more complicated and costly and deter companies from doing it at all.
Both views are present in the results of the consultation — the latter just has more voices behind it. Interestingly, about only about 20% of the government institutions that participated supported the hourly matching requirement, but all of them were either supportive or neutral on deliverability. The majority of opponents were okay with the Protocol giving companies the option to report their emissions using the hourly matching and deliverability requirements, however.

The new CEO’s philosophy
I asked Mohin, who joined the Protocol as CEO in April, about the imbalance in who participated in the public consultation process, and how the organization would take that into account. He said the Protocol’s job as a standard setter was to find common ground, and that “clearly, with what we got back in the consultation draft, we haven’t gotten there yet.”
Did he see the Protocol’s job as facilitating climate action, I then asked, or ensuring accurate reporting and comparable data?
“Our vision is decarbonization. That's why we do what we do,” he told me. “There is a difference between accuracy and precision. Accuracy is good enough to make a decision to lead to decarbonization. Precision is trying to tweak it all the way down to some more precise number. We are focused on accuracy so that we can get to decarbonization.”
Mohin noted that one commonality across all sides of the debate is a desire to make the electricity emissions accounting standard more rigorous — the disagreement comes from how to do it. He said the staff has been “working on solutions that could feed into the technical working group,” which will “restart the process” in an in-person meeting this fall.
Merging four workstreams into one
When the electricity working group reconvenes this fall, it will be under the Protocol’s new plan to join forces with the ISO.
Originally, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol had convened four separate expert groups to work on different aspects of its standard. While the “scope 2” group was updating the method for estimating electricity emissions, a “corporate standard” group was revising the underlying bible guiding corporate carbon accounting. A “scope 3” group was also tightening the rules for tallying indirect emissions, such as those resulting from when customers use a company’s product. Lastly, an “actions and market instruments” group was developing a new framework for companies to report their purchases of low-carbon fuel, carbon removal, and other types of carbon credits.
Each of these workstreams was set to assemble their own draft proposals, put them out for public comment, and then finalize them separately. To date, only the scope 2 group has reached the public consultation phase.
Now, the Protocol is scrapping that plan. ISO experts have joined the Protocol’s working groups and are already contributing to their proposals. Once all are ready for public comment, they will be combined and released as one, consensus-based draft standard.
After the public consultation and any further revisions, the two organizations will each vote to ratify the new standard separately through their distinct governance processes. Assuming they both approve it, the end product will be a single, co-branded standard.
On the Protocol’s side, the group’s independent standards board will vote on the proposal. If approved, a steering committee will assess it to ensure that it meets all pre-established goals and requirements, then ratify it.
The ISO is structured differently. It’s a membership organization made up of national standards bodies from nearly every country in the world, and it is ultimately the members that get to vote to approve new or revised standards.
I asked Mohin what would happen if one group voted to ratify the standard and the other rejected it.
“I haven’t really thought about that, but it’s a really good question,” he said. “I don’t believe that’s going to be an outcome.”
Tensions remain
There are other reasons this is an awkward marriage.
In some ways, the ISO is the more authoritative organization, having set more than 25,000 international standards adopted by countries around the world. But when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, it’s lagged behind. By the time the ISO created a carbon accounting standard in 2006, the Greenhouse Gas Protocol was already established, and contained much more detail. The ISO standard also costs hundreds of dollars to access, while Protocol standards are freely available.
Michael Gillenwater, the executive director of the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, which is engaged in standards development at both the ISO and the Protocol, told me the two were not that different. Still, most companies have followed the Protocol’s standard, he said, because it’s free and has a longer track record.
The Greenhouse Gas Protocol has also taken strides to embed transparency and accountability into its process. Its technical working groups are made up of a diverse range of experts from industry, academia, and NGOs. The names and affiliations of everyone involved in the process are published on the group’s website, and most of their meeting minutes and working drafts are shared publicly.
The Protocol has come under fire recently for not totally adhering to its governance principles. A member of its independent board resigned in protest last month, accusing the organization of covering up a complaint he filed about misconduct in the development of a standard for forest carbon accounting.
Still, it’s more transparent than the ISO. There, the technical committees that draft the standards are staffed by experts appointed by members. The focus is much more on geographical representation than diversity of expertise. Additional stakeholders can get involved in the drafting process as "liaisons,” but they cannot vote. The ISO also does not disclose the names of the experts staffing its technical committees, nor does it publish any of the documents they produce.
For the consolidation of the corporate emissions standard, these differences may not matter as much, as it appears that the Greenhouse Gas Protocol is simply integrating ISO members into its existing processes. The Protocol has already added the names of the ISO experts joining its working groups to its website.
The two organizations also plan to work together on additional standards, however, and transparency has already been an issue. A new, joint working group convened to develop an accounting standard for the emissions embedded in individual products has already begun meeting, but the ISO has not disclosed who it has appointed to the group, and the meeting minutes are going to be stored on the ISO’s repository, which is not accessible to the public. Only high-level summaries will be shared broadly.
When I raised these concerns with Mohin and how they might affect the Protocol’s reputation, he acknowledged there were differences in how the two organizations operated, but said he was not worried. “I think those differences are small compared to the benefits that we are accomplishing with this,” he said, adding that this is “really what the world wants, to have a single global common language.”