

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Sierra Club analysis reveals banks continue to provide funding to coal utility parent companies, despite policies to restrict project-level loans to coal plants.
A new report by the Sierra Club’s Fossil-Free Finance campaign reveals that major global banks are propping up deadly coal plants across the US by financing the parent companies that own them. This financing comes despite the fact that many banks have climate commitments that restrict them from providing project-level loans to coal plants. The analysis reveals a massive loophole in the banks’ climate commitments through their continued lending and underwriting for companies operating deadly coal-fired power plants in the United States.
The analysis follows the release of the Sierra Club’s Out of Control report, which revealed there are approximately 3,800 premature deaths annually from soot released by US coal plants with no firm retirement plans prior to the end of the decade. By financing the parent companies of these coal utilities, major global banks are channeling billions of dollars into the very companies responsible for keeping these deadly coal plants operational and poisoning nearby communities with toxic air pollution.
“Despite their high-profile climate pledges, major banks like Barclays and Citi are continuing to funnel billions of dollars into deadly coal plants. With their flimsy financing policies and half-finished net zero targets, these banks have left billions of dollars on the table for major polluters to continue to operate and even expand the coal plants killing thousands of people in the United States every year,” said Adele Shraiman, Senior Campaign Strategist, Fossil-Free Finance, Sierra Club. “Experts have repeatedly warned that fossil fuel expansion will make it impossible to meet our global climate goals, and coal power is the worst of the bunch. By continuing to pour money into coal, these banks are telling their shareholders, clients, and regulators they aren’t serious about meeting their own climate commitments.”
TOPLINES FROM THE REPORT
The report reveals that since 2016, major global banks have poured $166 billion into 10 of the most deadly publicly traded and federally owned coal utility parent companies in the US: Tennessee Valley Authority, PPL Corporation, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Ameren Corporation, Vistra Corporation, FirstEnergy Corporation, Duke Energy Corporation, NRG Energy Inc, American Electric Power, and The Southern Company. These 10 coal utility parent companies operate coal plants in 16 states with no firm plans to close by 2030. Each year, the coal plants owned by these 10 companies cause an additional 1,719 premature deaths from air pollution exposure.
Six major banks — Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, Wells Fargo, and Mitsubishi UFJ (MUFG) — make up 50%, or $83.8 billion, of the total financing provided to these 10 coal utility parent companies since 2016. Other banks that round out the top 10 include Mizuho, Goldman Sachs, RBC, and Credit Suisse.
Barclays and the five US banks are all signatories of banking industry pledges to reach net zero by 2050 by reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from their financing activities. When it comes to providing financing to the coal sector, most banks won’t directly offer funds specifically for coal plants (project-level financing). However, banks freely lend to the coal utility parent companies (corporate-level financing), which allows them to operate those coal plants. Of the top 6 banks in the report, only Barclays has a policy that prohibits corporate-level financing to some companies operating coal plants, either through general purpose loans or underwriting the sale of bonds or shares. However, even Barclays’ policy makes several exceptions, which still allow financing for companies developing coal power.
The Sierra Club is calling on banks to expand their climate commitments to include additional restrictions on corporate-level lending and underwriting services to utility companies prolonging the use of coal in the power sector.
QUOTES FROM STATES
“Our planet can’t afford the billions of dollars funneled into dirty, deadly fossil fuels. Berkshire Hathaway Energy continues to poison and pollute our communities with their burning of fossil fuels. MidAmerican Energy, one of its subsidiaries, is the largest carbon polluter in Iowa. When clean energy alternatives are more affordable and reliable than ever, there’s simply no excuse to finance coal plants that play a significant role in serious public health issues,” said Emma Colman, Organizing Representative, Iowa Sierra Club.
"Bank financing enables monopoly utilities like Ameren to pursue climate-wrecking projects that pollute our air and water — all while insurance companies quietly retreat from covering homeowners in coastal areas because of a quickly changing climate. We need investments in renewable energy, efficiency, and storage, not new investments to prop up coal plants or build new gas power plants," said Jenn DeRose, Campaign Representative, Missouri Sierra Club.
“In Utah, Berkshire Hathaway owns the Hunter and Huntington coal plants, some of the worst polluters in the West. These coal plants significantly impact public health, contributing to increased asthma attacks, hospital visits, and even premature death. Berkshire Hathaway and other major banks are financing the poisoning of our communities, and these investments are increasingly threatening our ability to breathe clean air,” said Hunter Warren, Volunteer with Sierra Club’s Utah Needs Clean Energy group.
“Just last summer, environmental advocates united in Jackson Hole for its annual banking conference to call on the Federal Reserve to shift away from fossil fuels, and to stop the destructive funding that keep coal plants like the Berkshire Hathaway-owned Jim Bridger coal plant — the nation's third largest source of haze pollution that continues to be able to side-step pollution reduction measures — in operation. The investments made to utilities that prolong the livelihoods of dirty coal plants carry significant public health concerns that make all the difference in whether our communities can enjoy the outdoors safely," said Anna Kerr, member, Sunrise Movement Jackson Hole.
The Sierra Club is the most enduring and influential grassroots environmental organization in the United States. We amplify the power of our 3.8 million members and supporters to defend everyone's right to a healthy world.
(415) 977-5500Iran has been insisting on a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon as a precondition for continuing negotiations about ending the war with the US.
US President Donald Trump announced in a Thursday social media post that the governments of Israel and Lebanon have agreed to a 10-day ceasefire that will begin on Thursday evening.
The president also said that he would be inviting Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House to establish a more lasting truce between the two countries.
Israel has for weeks has been conducting a relentless bombing campaign and ground invasion in Lebanon that has killed and wounded thousands of people while displacing over 1 million.
The ceasefire announcement does not mean that lasting peace has been achieved, given that the deal was between the Israeli and Lebanese governments but not the political and militant group Hezbollah.
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, said that a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon is "a weird thing to tout, since Lebanon isn't a combatant" and "there is no Lebanese fire for the Lebanese government to cease."
Amichai Stein, diplomatic correspondent for Israel's i24News, reported that members of Netanyahu's Cabinet were "outraged" during a meeting because Trump announced "Israel’s consent to a ceasefire before Security Cabinet approval."
Iran has been insisting on a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon as a precondition for continuing negotiations about ending the war with the US, which Trump launched illegally in late February without any authorization from Congress.
"It is deeply disappointing that Rep. Golden joined Republicans in opposing efforts to stop further escalation," said one peace advocate. "Democratic leadership’s handling of this moment is also concerning."
With the decisive support of one Democrat—Rep. Jared Golden of Maine—the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Thursday voted down a war powers resolution aimed at ending President Donald Trump's illegal assault on Iran, over six weeks after it began.
The final vote was 213-214, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) joining nearly every House Democrat in supporting the resolution, which would have forced Trump to withdraw American troops from hostilities in Iran absent congressional authorization. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) voted present and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) didn't vote, despite criticizing the war and telling reporters last month that she would "most likely" support the Democratic resolution.
In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, Democratic leaders—including the resolution's chief sponsor, Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York—faced backlash for slowwalking the legislative effort to end the war even as it appeared that momentum was on their side. Earlier this month, the House Democratic leadership opted to punt the war powers vote until after spring recess, during which the Trump administration and Iran's government reached a tenuous ceasefire deal.
Three of the four House Democrats who voted against an Iran war powers resolution in early March flipped their votes on Thursday: Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Greg Landsman of Ohio, and Juan Vargas of California. Golden, who also voted against the earlier resolution, is not running for reelection.
"While we are encouraged to see growing support," said Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian, "it is deeply disappointing that Rep. Golden joined Republicans in opposing efforts to stop further escalation, casting a decisive vote against the resolution."
"Democratic leadership’s handling of this moment is also concerning," said Kharrazian. "They previously declined to force a war powers vote before a critical period of escalation before recess, citing a lack of votes. Now they have moved forward under less favorable conditions, including during sensitive ceasefire negotiations, but still without the votes they previously claimed were necessary before proceeding, and with a changed balance in the House. That inconsistency raises a serious question about what is driving leadership’s priorities: strategy or politics."
"We urge members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, to support sustained diplomatic efforts to resolve this conflict," Kharrazian added. "The American people overwhelmingly reject this war and want a diplomatic end to it.”
The House voted marked the sixth time an Iran-related war powers resolution has failed in the House or Senate since Trump started bombing on February 28.
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said Thursday that he supported the war powers effort on Thursday because "Trump’s war of choice was not authorized by Congress, was started without a plan or an exit strategy, and has achieved none of the contradictory objectives used to justify it."
"Trump’s war in Iran is deeply unpopular," Pocan added, "and it’s time to end what never should have started."
Ryan Costello, policy director with the National Iranian American Council, said in a statement that "the narrow defeat of a resolution to definitively end the war on Iran is another tragic missed opportunity, but the gap between public opposition to the war and votes to end it is narrowing."
"All but one House Democrat voted unanimously in support of the resolution but were joined by just one Republican," said Costello. "Golden will need to answer to his Maine constituents, many of whom are veterans and pro-peace Americans who question why Washington so consistently sends brave servicemembers into ill-advised, disastrous wars of choice that kill civilians and sabotage the global economy. So too do all of the Republicans who chose again not to use their power to convince President Trump to take an off-ramp and end this disastrous war that puts Benjamin Netanyahu’s dreams, not the American people and American security, first."
In a video posted online, US Senate candidate Graham Platner read a letter sent by a donor who had enclosed a $35 check for his campaign.
For the second consecutive quarter, US Senate candidate Graham Platner's campaign reported Wednesday, he's out-raised both his top Democratic primary opponent, Gov. Janet Mills, and Republican Sen. Susan Collins, and the political newcomer emphasized in a video posted online that his fundraising haul has largely been powered by "working people" who "are willing to send what they can to support this campaign."
Platner, a combat veteran and oyster farmer who is running on proposals including Medicare for All and a billionaire minimum tax, read part of a letter from one of the 88,000 supporters who were able to send donations to his campaign in the first quarter of 2026—amounting to a total of $4.1 million.
"My wife and I have very little reserved assets, living now largely on our combined Social Security checks," Platner read. "But I want to make this small gesture of my support for your candidacy. My check for $35 is enclosed. Thank you so much for what you're doing. Keep up the good work. Respectfully, Jim Bishop."
Platner said in the video that his campaign is not taking money from large corporations or super political action committees (PACs), which are able to raise unlimited amounts of money for candidates.
"These are people who are going to miss the money they sent to us," said Platner. "When you spend your time sinking it into just trying to make ends meet, every dollar counts... It actually makes me feel a deep responsibility to not let you down."
Platner has $2.7 million on hand, while Mills brought in $2.6 million and has just over $1 million in the bank.
Collins' seat, the only one held by a Republican in a state won by former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024, is a top target for the Democratic Party as it tries to win back control of the Senate. The senator, whom Platner has attacked over her donations from Wall Street, raised just over $3 million this quarter and has over $10 million on hand. A super PAC that is supporting her, Pine Tree Results, also has more than $11 million, according to Politico.
Platner also led in fundraising in the last quarter of 2025, bringing in $4.6 million in a haul that he said was also powered by donors who gave less than $200. More than $3 million of those funds came from small-dollar contributors—about three times the amount Mills and Collins collected from small donors combined.
The first-time candidate has led by wide margins in several recent polls as Mills' campaign has attacked him over controversies that broke last fall regarding a tattoo he got that resembled a skull and crossbones that appeared on the uniforms of Nazi guards during World War II, and posts he wrote years ago on the message board site Reddit.
After Mills released an ad regarding comments he made in 2013 about sexual assault, 55% of respondents to an Emerson College poll said they supported Platner, while 28% backed Mills.
Mills' campaign said last week it would drop the attack ads on Platner's Reddit posts, while Platner has begun shifting his attention to Collins in some of his advertising. The primary is set for June 9.