Over the past decade, India has undergone one of the most rapid renewable energy transformations in the world. Solar capacity has grown from approximately 9 GW in 2016 to more than 168 GW today, establishing India as one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing solar markets.

During New York Climate Week, ORF America, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the International Solar Alliance (ISA) convened India to the World: From a Solar Decade to the Next Terawatt, bringing together policymakers, industry leaders, investors, and energy experts to examine what enabled India’s solar expansion, what the next phase of the transition will require, and what lessons India’s experience can offer the wider world.

The discussion reflected a broader shift in the energy transition. Renewable energy is increasingly linked not only to climate goals, but also to energy security, economic growth, industrial development, and resilience. The challenge now is moving from rapid deployment to building the systems, institutions, and investment conditions needed to sustain that scale.

Participants also explored how India’s experience could inform renewable-energy deployment elsewhere, particularly in countries seeking to expand affordable and reliable power while reducing exposure to imported fuels.

Key takeaways included:

• India’s challenge is shifting from adding renewable capacity to integrating it into a more complex electricity system. India’s rapid solar expansion has made it the world’s third-largest solar market and one of the largest markets for annual installations. The next phase will depend increasingly on grid modernization, transmission, distribution, storage, and system flexibility so that growing volumes of renewable power can be absorbed and delivered reliably.

• India’s solar decade demonstrates the importance of combining long-term ambition with institutions that make projects investable. Rising national targets, a unified electricity grid, and transmission-charge waivers created strong market signals, while the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI) helped aggregate demand, run competitive auctions, and provide credible counterparties. India’s experience shows that ambitious targets work best when institutions can translate them into predictable and financeable markets.

• For the next terawatt, policy certainty and bankable pipelines may matter as much as the availability of capital itself. Participants emphasized that capital can move quickly where regulation is stable, counterparties are credible, returns are transparent, and project pipelines are sufficiently large. The harder constraints often arise earlier — around land, permitting, transmission, project preparation, and institutional capacity — making de-risking, blended finance, and stronger domestic institutions critical.

• Distributed renewable energy can extend the economic benefits of the solar transition beyond utility-scale generation. Rooftop and distributed systems can support jobs, rural livelihoods, small businesses, agriculture, and greater local energy resilience. India’s experience also highlights the need for flexible policy design, including community and shared-solar models where conventional rooftop deployment is difficult.

• Energy security increasingly depends on resilient clean-technology supply chains as well as access to fuel. While renewables reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, key parts of the solar supply chain remain highly concentrated. Diversification therefore requires deeper capabilities across minerals, processing, cells, batteries, equipment, testing, R&D, and emerging technologies, not simply expanding module assembly.

• The next phase of renewable deployment must be planned alongside the new forms of electricity demand it will enable. Electrification of transport, industry, and digital infrastructure will reshape both the scale and profile of electricity demand. If designed well, electric mobility and other flexible loads can support — not only strain — the power system, making it increasingly important to plan generation, storage, grids, and electrification as one integrated system.

• India can increasingly serve as an implementation partner for the wider world. Its experience in competitive procurement, market aggregation, grid development, energy access, digital systems, distributed energy, and institutional design provides approaches that can be adapted to different national contexts. Platforms such as the International Solar Alliance can help translate these domestic lessons into practical international cooperation, technical expertise, supply-chain diversification, and institutional partnerships.

One clear message from the discussion was that the next terawatt of solar will be about much more than adding generation capacity. It will depend on whether countries can build the grids, storage, manufacturing capacity, effective institutions, financing models and strong partnerships needed to turn cheaper solar technology into reliable and affordable power.

Speakers

Welcome Remarks: Manish Bapna, President & CEO, NRDC

Fireside Chat

• Ashish Khanna, Director General, International Solar Alliance

• Sumant Sinha, Chairman and CEO, ReNew

• Moderator: Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director, ORF America

Closed-Door Roundtable: From Ambition to Investable Implementation

• Vikas Mehta, Executive Director, Sustainability, Equity and Diversity Fund

• Dipa Singh Bagai, Country Head, NRDC India

• Paul Butarbatar, Executive Director, Indonesia Climate and Growth Dialogue

• Andrei Covatariu, Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council

• Moderator: Piyush Verma, Senior Fellow, ORF America, and Vyoma Jha, India Clean Energy Senior Advocate, NRDC

Participants

• Nitin Akhade, President, Clean Energy Access Network - India

• Gabriela Artavia, Senior Director, Foundation Strategies, NRDC

• William Brent, CMO, Husk Power

• Shirish Dhale, Journalist, ANI

• Kanv Garg, Chief of Unit - Resource Mobilization & Private Sector Engagement, ISA

• Meera Gopal, Independent Climate Policy Consultant

• Sim Grewal, Program Associate, Bloomberg Philanthropies

• Zhuli Hess, Programme Officer, Hewlett Foundation

• Vijeta Jangra, Program Manager, ClimateWorks Foundation

• Nisha Jayaram, Head-Partnership and Engagement, CII

• Shishir Joshi, CEO & Co-founder, Project Mumbai

• Sameer Kwatra, Senior Director, India Program, NRDC

• Kate Larsen, Partner, Rhodium Group

• Karan Mangotra, Chief of Strategy and New Initiatives, ISA

• Udit Mathur, Assistant Vice President - Chairman Office, ReNew

• Shailesh Mishra, Climate Justice Fellow, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority

• Anukriti Pathak, Portfolio Lead, Assemble Alliance

• Hannah Pitt, Director in Energy & Climate Practice, Rhodium Group

• Aditya Ranade, Director of Utility Solutions, Rhizome

• Shreyas Shende, Senior Research Associate & India Lead, Net Zero Industrial Policy Lab, Johns Hopkins

• Vikash Sinha, Global Lead-Climate Change and Sustainability, MicroSave Consulting

• Holly Stevens, Director, Energy & Critical Minerals, McLarty Associates

• Khem Raj Upadhyay, News Editor & Journalist, Paschim Today Media House

• Uma Vatsa, Head of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science, Nelumbium Capital

Photo Credits: Radhika Chalasani for NRDC

On September 17, ORF America convened the sixth edition of its Future of Energy Breakfast series, bringing together senior leaders from government, industry, technology, finance, and policy for a closed-door dialogue. The discussion examined what the current AI build-out is teaching us about the relationship between energy and computing; how the infrastructure requirements of quantum may differ; and what governments and industry should be thinking about today as they prepare for the next frontier of advanced computing.

In just a few years, AI and data centers have become an increasingly important driver of electricity-demand growth, grid investment, and generation planning. Quantum computing presents a very different, and much earlier-stage, energy question. Its electricity footprint today is far smaller than that of hyperscale AI infrastructure, but some leading quantum architectures depend on continuous cryogenic cooling, specialized control equipment, and highly specific supply chains. As these systems scale, quantum could become a distinct kind of energy and infrastructure customer, with implications for facility design, siting, power requirements, and grid planning. The infrastructure now being built for AI could help accelerate the next generation of computing — or concentrate capital and capacity in ways that make it harder for other emerging technologies to compete.

The discussion made clear that these are not two points on the same curve. The energy questions raised by quantum are different in kind from those raised by hyperscale AI, and the approaches now being developed for large AI and data-center loads may not map neatly onto the next generation of computing.

Key takeaways included:

• Quantum inverts the AI energy problem: quantity of power versus quality and continuity. The constraint on hyperscale AI is how much power can be delivered and how quickly. For quantum, the challenge may increasingly be how stable and uninterrupted that power is. AI and quantum are symbiotic technologies, with distinct energy needs. In many quantum architectures, particularly superconducting systems, much of the electricity draw comes from keeping the supporting infrastructure running, including cryogenic cooling and control electronics. This makes quantum a more rigid energy customer, prioritising conditioned, stable, and uninterrupted power. A disruption can require recalibration and lengthy cooling and restart processes. This rigidity means that scaling quantum could require new infrastructure and reliability standards to accommodate its highly specific operating conditions. The closest existing parallel may not be the data center but semiconductor fabrication, which has long required highly reliable power and specialised equipment to protect sensitive processes. Future computing will likely adopt a hybrid approach, incorporating both AI and quantum. Power standards will therefore need to accommodate facilities with very different operating requirements, creating challenges that do not exist at scale today. Notably, quantum’s energy requirements have received far less attention in policy debates than its research, security, and commercial potential, suggesting that governments and other stakeholders may not yet be fully prepared for its infrastructure needs.

• Quantum is a relatively rigid energy consumer, arriving just as the grid is placing greater value on flexibility from large users. One emerging approach between large consumers and grid operators is faster connection in exchange for a commitment to reduce grid withdrawals when the system is under stress. Flexible interconnection, pre-arranged switching to backup power, and shifting demand into periods of spare capacity are among the approaches being explored to make better use of existing infrastructure. Quantum facilities may have much less room to provide that flexibility, particularly where continuous cooling and tightly controlled operating conditions are required. A consumer that cannot readily reduce its load has less ability to offer the flexibility grid operators increasingly value and may instead need to invest in additional resilience: on-site generation, backup power, batteries, power-conditioning equipment, or redundant supply. Reliability that the grid cannot guarantee therefore has to be secured elsewhere, and that can be expensive.

• Quantum becomes an energy security issue before it becomes a power-demand issue. Long before quantum facilities become material loads on the grid, quantum computing could affect the security of the grid itself. Many grid assets being built today are designed to run for the next 30–60 years. The cryptography protecting those systems has a much shorter transition timeline. The federal government has set 2035 as the deadline for completing migration to post-quantum cryptography, while newer guidance calls for prioritized migration by 2030 and broader transition thereafter. The infrastructure now being approved will therefore still be operating long after its cybersecurity architecture needs to change. Energy infrastructure that is not designed for cryptographic agility could require costly retrofits or replacement later, creating both operational and security risks. These considerations should therefore be built into infrastructure planning decisions today.

• The grid is becoming a gatekeeper to AI scale and potentially a new source of digital inequality. Access to abundant and reliable electricity is increasingly becoming a prerequisite for large-scale AI deployment. The uneven geographic concentration of data centers makes this particularly important: the United States and China account for around 70% of data-center electricity consumption today and nearly 80% of projected global growth to 2030. Europe remains another major center, while Africa currently has the lowest data-center electricity consumption per capita. This raises an important question for emerging economies, including India and countries across Africa: could access to reliable, scalable electricity become a determinant of where AI investment and capability concentrate? Without sufficient energy infrastructure to accommodate large new loads, existing technological inequalities could widen. As quantum moves toward commercial deployment, it could add a different set of infrastructure requirements to this divide.

• Large-load growth has elevated the social-license question amid growing community pushback. Communities have raised concerns about environmental impacts, electricity costs, noise, and whether the local benefits justify the burden of hosting large facilities. Participants noted that some backlash also reflects the role of third-party developers, whose incentives may favor speed to power over sustained community engagement. Backup diesel generation can add further concerns around local noise and air pollution. At the same time, attribution is difficult: grid costs associated with resilience, storms, wildfires, and new large-load connections can appear on the same electricity bill, making it hard for consumers to distinguish what is driving increases. This makes technically accurate explanations about individual facilities politically insufficient. Participants emphasized the importance of concrete local benefits and trusted messengers rather than technical explanations alone, noting that quantum technologies already underpin applications such as medical imaging and satellite navigation. The underlying question remains: who pays for integrating large loads into the grid? Clear cost allocation, community benefit agreements, and better communication were seen as essential to maintaining public confidence.

• Supply chain exposure is a critical bottleneck alongside the grid, and AI and quantum are constrained by different inputs. U.S. policy has increasingly prioritised domestic manufacturing and friend-shoring, while Foreign Entity of Concern (FEOC) rules restrict certain suppliers in battery supply chains linked to federal incentives. The practical difficulty is traceability: companies may not always know their supply chains down to the component or material level. Similar challenges under forced-labour enforcement have delayed solar imports while companies and customs authorities worked through documentation requirements. Quantum faces a narrower but potentially critical constraint. Conventional critical minerals may not be the immediate bottleneck at current volumes; for some superconducting systems, helium-3 used in dilution refrigeration could be. Helium-3 is extraordinarily scarce, its supply is concentrated, and scaling quantum could put increasing pressure on availability even as researchers pursue alternative cooling technologies and new sources.

• Efficiency gains are emerging at two levels: the grid and the compute stack. AI can improve load forecasting and demand management, while flexible data-center loads, storage, and onsite generation could enable a more dynamic relationship between data centers and the grid. At the compute level, the next frontier may include hybrid systems in which classical AI and quantum processors work together on particularly computationally demanding problems. Participants differed, however, on whether these efficiency gains will ultimately reduce energy demand. One view held that every efficiency improvement enables a harder problem, creating a loop in which demand keeps expanding. Another pointed to rapidly falling energy use per AI task, narrower domain-specific models, and edge computing as evidence that demand could become more efficient. A third argued that forecasts may still be understated as AI expands into robotics and automation at scale.

Underlying all of this is a mismatch of timescales that remains unresolved. AI capability advances in months, while generation, transmission, and permitting move in years, sometimes decades. Data centers can take roughly three to four years to build; the transmission infrastructure needed to serve them often takes far longer. Whether the energy system can adapt quickly enough to serve the next generation of computing — and on whose terms, and at whose cost — remains the central open question.

Speakers: 

• Opening Remarks: Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director, ORF America 

• Andrei Covatariu, Co-Chair, Task Force on Digitalization in Energy, UN Economic Commission for Europe

• Corey Stambaugh, Director, Capital of Quantum; Former Senior Policy Advisor, National Quantum Coordination Office, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

• Sanjeev Kumar, CEO, Eficens System; Former CTO, Dell Technologies

• Kyle Davis, Senior Director, Policy Research & Strategic Insights, Corporate Energy Buyers Association

• Fatima Ahmad, Founder and CEO, AI for Energy 

• Moderator: Piyush Verma, Senior Fellow, ORF America

Participants:

• Edgar Aguilar, Principal Energy Specialist, Potencia Honduras

• Raul Alfaro-Pelico, Non-Resident Fellow, ORF America

• Caroline Arkalji, Junior Fellow, ORF America

• Jeffrey Bean, Fellow, ORF America

• Abhishek Chhikara, Attorney (CA, DC, SCOTUS), Advocate (India), Independent

• Lara Defterios, Junior Policy and Advocacy Specialist, Eni

• Anvesh Jain, National Security Law Scholar, Georgetown University Law Center

• Suhani Jaggi, Energy and Climate Intern, ORF America

• Sanjeev Kumar, CEO, Eficens System

• Ajay Kumar, Minister (Commerce), Embassy of India, Washington DC

• Vikrum Mathur, Senior Director, Tata Group

• Anamika Mishra, Counsellor (Science & Technology), Embassy of India, Washington DC

• Lucas Myers, Assistant Director, CUSP, University of Maryland

• Anit Mukherjee, Senior Fellow, ORF America

• Satvik Pendyala, Research Associate, American Enterprise Institute

• Shuting Pomerleau, Director of Energy and Environmental Policy, American Action Forum

• Medha Prasanna, Program Coordinator, ORF America

• Siddharth Sharma, Associate, McLarty Associates

• Corey Stambaugh, Director, Capital of Quantum

• Deric Tilson, Senior Nuclear Analyst, The Breakthrough Institute

• Seaver Wang, Director, Climate and Energy, The Breakthrough Institute

• Pietro Zecca, Graduate Student, American University

• Shresht Venkatraman, World Bank

On August 27, ORF America launched the IBSA+Indonesia Intergovernmental Advisory Group (IAG) with an inaugural virtual convening. The strategic group brings together serving and former officials, diplomats, and senior experts from India, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia to move beyond high-level dialogue and shape practical, actionable pathways for Global South cooperation across the clean energy landscape.

The convening builds on more than a year of research and international workshops in Washington, D.C., Cape Town, and Jakarta under ORF America's IBSA+Indonesia Energy Transitions Initiative. Together, the four countries represent over 1.9 billion people and consecutive G20 presidencies, positioning them to help shape global consensus while ensuring that the developmental priorities of the Global South remain central to international policymaking. At the same time, all four face the shared challenge of expanding their economies and energy systems while decarbonizing, and bring complementary strengths across clean manufacturing, biofuels, critical minerals, renewable energy deployment, and procurement.

Key takeaways from the discussion included:

• IBSA+Indonesia cooperation should advance on two mutually reinforcing fronts: collaboration among the four countries and coordination on the global stage. The IAG members emphasized the importance of strengthening cooperation among India, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia by sharing policy experiences, implementation challenges, and national strategies, while also building greater coordination in international forums such as the G20, COP, and BRICS. This could enable the four countries to develop stronger collective approaches to issues including trade, carbon markets, standards, climate finance, and the broader governance of the global energy transition.

• High financing costs and weak offtake remain two of the most significant barriers to scaling clean energy investment. Clean energy projects in emerging economies continue to face substantially higher costs of capital than comparable projects in advanced economies. At the same time, participants noted that project execution itself is often not the principal constraint; instead, uncertainty around demand, off-takers, and market integration can prevent otherwise viable projects from advancing. Cooperation could therefore focus on innovative financing and de-risking mechanisms while also developing stronger demand aggregation, flexible contracts, and business models that provide investors with greater certainty.

• Standards, procurement, certification, and trade offer immediate pathways for cooperation. The IAG members identified four areas where the countries could begin working together: harmonizing technical standards across sectors such as EVs, batteries, hydrogen, and green steel; coordinating procurement to aggregate demand and reduce costs; developing interoperable certification, traceability, carbon-accounting, and sustainable taxonomy frameworks; and exploring preferential trade arrangements that can facilitate cross-border investment and strengthen collective bargaining power.

• Technical working groups and greater private-sector engagement will be critical to translating dialogue into action. The IAG members supported establishing focused working groups that could advance industry-to-industry and policy-to-policy cooperation in areas such as critical minerals, industrial decarbonization, standards, and clean technology deployment. The discussion also highlighted the importance of connecting governments with companies, industry associations, research institutions, and academia, while facilitating greater cross-border investment among firms from the four countries.

• The group should define measurable objectives that can provide a clear “north star” for cooperation. Participants stressed that the initiative should ultimately produce tangible outcomes rather than remain primarily a forum for dialogue. One proposal was to develop a 2028 action agenda with measurable objectives around energy transition performance, investment, technology cooperation, and implementation. Such an agenda could provide a common framework for technical working groups and help translate recommendations into proposals that governments can take forward.

• Energy cooperation should be designed for a changing global economy, not only today’s transition. Participants placed the energy transition within a broader set of structural shifts including AI and data centers, biotechnology, critical minerals, financial systems, and geopolitics. They argued that cooperation should therefore incorporate strategic foresight and be guided by three shared values, sovereignty, resilience, and democratic sustainable development. Greater interoperability across standards, taxonomies, carbon markets, and potentially Digital Public Infrastructure could also help the four countries create new cross-border value chains and strengthen their collective position in the emerging global economy.

On August 1, ORF America and the Foreign Policy Community of Indonesia (FPCI) convened Building the Clean-Tech Corridor: An IBSA+Indonesia Roundtable on Clean Trade and Supply Chain Collaboration in Jakarta, on the sidelines of the Indonesia Net Zero Summit 2026. The session brought together ambassadors, government officials, industry leaders, researchers and non-profit organizations at a moment when supply chain diversification, trade rules, and technology standards are reshaping the economics of the global energy transition.

As critical minerals, batteries, solar and wind manufacturing, and green hydrogen increasingly move across borders, the four countries hold complementary but currently disconnected strengths. Against this backdrop, the roundtable, the fourth convening of ORF America's IBSA+Indonesia Green Transitions Initiative, examined how the grouping can move from parallel national strategies toward a coordinated clean-tech corridor built on harmonized standards, mutual certification, and coordinated procurement.

Among others, speakers included:

• Welcome Remarks: Piyush Verma, Senior Fellow, Energy and Climate Program, ORF America 

• Keynote Remarks: H.E. Sandeep Chakravorty, Ambassador of India to Indonesia; and H.E. George Monteiro Prata, Ambassador of Brazil to Indonesia

• Presentation: Medha Prasanna, Junior Fellow and Program Coordinator, Energy & Climate, ORF America

• Special Remarks: Anindita Satria Surya, Vice President of Transition Energy and Climate Change, PT PLN (Persero)

• Panel Perspectives by Satya Widya Yudha, Member of the Board, National Energy Council of the Republic of Indonesia; Moekti Handajani (Kuki) Soejachmoen, Executive Director, Indonesia Research Institute for Decarbonization (IRID); Paul Butarbutar, Executive Director, Indonesia Climate and Growth Dialogue (ICGD); Kaustubh Deshpande, Founding Partner, Imoto; Chairul Hudaya, Director of the Directorate of Innovation and High-Impact Research, University of Indonesia; and Michael Abimanyu, Executive Director, Indonesia Data Center Provider Organization (IDPRO)

• Closing Remarks: Dr. Dino Patti Djalal, Founder and Chairman, Foreign Policy Community of Indonesia (FPCI)

Key Takeaways

Why a Clean-Tech Corridor?

• An Industrial Transition, Not Just an Energy One: Speakers framed the energy transition as a fundamentally industrial question. The key issues are who manufactures clean technologies, under what standards, with what financing, and under whose trading rules. If left to national strategies alone, India, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia risk developing in parallel rather than combining their complementary strengths into a connected clean technology value chain.

• Moving Beyond Extraction: Multiple speakers, warned against repeating the extractive pattern of exporting raw minerals and feedstock while importing higher-value finished technology. A clean-tech corridor was framed as a vehicle for local processing, manufacturing, jobs, and innovation rather than continued raw-material dependence.

• The Cost of Fragmentation: New data presented by ORF America identified three structural traps working against the grouping: a cost-of-capital penalty, where identical projects finance at two to three times the rate of Europe and North America; high concentration, with a single country dominating critical segments of the battery and clean-tech manufacturing chain; and an offtake gap, where projects with committed buyers execute at high rates while those without buyers stall — meaning demand certainty, not execution capacity, is the binding constraint.

• Trade Measures Cut Both Ways: Participants noted that new and shifting trade barriers, including carbon border adjustments and recently imposed US tariffs that affected a nearly US$500 million Indonesian solar export market, show why the four countries need a coordinated response to external measures. Rather than absorbing compliance costs individually, IBSA+Indonesia countries can work together on standards, certification, market access, and trade diplomacy.

What Would the Corridor Look Like?

• Four Pillars of a Shared Architecture: Indonesian stakeholders proposed a policy framework built on regulatory interoperability (shared definitions and mutual recognition of standards), strategic industrial coordination (complementary value chains rather than resource competition), collective market creation (joint procurement and demand aggregation), and a coordinated response to external trade measures.

• Leadership Already in Place: The grouping does not need to build clean-tech leadership from scratch because it already holds significant strengths. Beyond China and the United States, India is emerging as a major player in solar cell and wind manufacturing and is positioned to become a leading EV market by 2030. Indonesia supplies the majority of the world’s mined nickel and has one of the largest geothermal capacities globally. Brazil is the world’s second-largest biofuels producer, while South Africa holds the world’s largest platinum reserves, which are critical for fuel cells. The task ahead is to connect this leadership, not create it.

• An Advisory Group to Carry the Work Forward: ORF America announced the launch of an IBSA+Indonesia Intergovernmental Advisory Group — twelve serving and former officials, three from each country — designed to translate the corridor concept from analysis into government-level action, with an initial opportunity map intended to feed into upcoming G20, COP, and other multilateral processes.

• The Grid as the Binding Constraint: PLN’s remarks underscored that generation alone is not the hardest part of energy transitions. The grid is equally critical. In Indonesia, where renewable resources are often located far from demand centers, PLN outlined plans for a super grid build-out involving tens of thousands of circuit-kilometers of new transmission by 2034, alongside a US$200 billion investment plan. This grid infrastructure will form the physical backbone on which any clean-tech corridor will depend.

How Can IBSA+Indonesia Make It Real?

• Closing the Financing Gap: Industry speakers argued that capital for cross-border clean-tech ventures in the region is not absent, but intermittent and unpredictable. This uncertainty often forces companies to use scarce engineering and R&D budgets simply to survive financing gaps rather than to scale. A corridor financing facility, supported by the four governments or development banks, was proposed as a way to provide more continuous funding for innovation, project development, and early-stage growth.

• Redefining "Local": Local content rules often treat corridor partners as foreign suppliers, which weakens the case for IBSA+Indonesia as a genuine cooperation bloc. They proposed defining “local” based on where engineering capabilities, manufacturing value, and technical know-how are developed, rather than only by ownership nationality. This definitional shift was seen as central to whether incentive regimes strengthen the corridor or fragment it.

• Common Standards for Trade to Flow: Speakers noted that as the EU battery passport mandate takes effect in February 2027, IBSA+Indonesia countries should not wait for external markets to define compliance requirements. They called for the four countries to agree on shared data standards covering battery state of health reporting, traceability, and lifecycle emissions, so that clean-tech trade within the corridor can grow on the basis of rules shaped by its own members.

• Bridging Research and Market: Indonesia’s university sector highlighted a persistent gap between invention and commercialization, with tens of thousands of registered IP rights but limited pathways to market. Speakers proposed expanding university led technology transfer, startup incubation, and shared testing infrastructure to help regional partners reduce commercialization risks and lower the cost of market entry.

• Aggregating Capital at Scale: Industry voices closed the session with a direct appeal: the four countries already have the technical capability to build a clean-tech corridor; what is missing is capital deployed at the scale China and the US are investing. A jointly backed fund targeting long-term mineral processing and manufacturing investment was proposed as the next concrete step.

• A Test of Middle-Power Cooperation: The discussion closed by framing the corridor as a practical test of whether global middle powers can move from shared interests to sustained cooperation. Participants emphasized that IBSA+Indonesia will need a clear driver, political commitment, and a focused starting point to become operational.

On June 11, ORF America convened the fifth edition of its Future of Energy Breakfast series, bringing together senior leaders from government, industry, finance, and policy for a closed-door dialogue on how global disruptions, new energy powers, and shifting geopolitical strategies are reshaping energy diplomacy and the global energy order. 

The global energy system is no longer organized primarily around access to oil and gas resources. A new generation of energy powers is emerging across both fossil and non‑fossil energy systems. At the same time, the relationship between ‘the West and the Rest’ is becoming significantly more complex and fragmented. Advanced economies are not responding uniformly to these shifts. Similarly, ‘the Rest’ is far from a single bloc. Emerging economies across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East are pursuing increasingly diverse energy and geopolitical strategies. These shifts are unfolding alongside renewed concerns over maritime chokepoints, strategic infrastructure, and supply chain vulnerabilities. The implications extend far beyond energy markets alone. The emerging energy order will shape global trade, industrial competitiveness, technological leadership, investment flows, economic resilience, and geopolitical influence for decades to come. 

Key takeaways included:

• The assumptions underpinning the global energy system for three decades are being fundamentally reassessed. What was once organized around globalization, efficiency, and market integration is increasingly shaped by geopolitics, industrial strategy, and national security. The IEA estimated roughly $3.4 trillion in global energy investment in 2026, with nearly two-thirds flowing to renewables, efficiency, grids and other low-carbon sources and around 60% of new global energy demand now being met by clean energy. The shale revolution in the United States and the rise of Chinese renewable manufacturing have already redrawn the map of energy power — and the transition is accelerating. 

• China's dominance in the emerging electron economy is structural and far-reaching. Its total solar capacity is five times that of the United States and around ten times that of India, with similar dominance in wind, hydro, and solar manufacturing. On rare earths, China controls approximately 70% of mining production and roughly 90% of processing and refining capacity, while it controls approximately 90% of the world’s processing capacity for critical minerals. Beijing has demonstrated its willingness to deploy this leverage through export controls, with far-reaching consequences for the entire clean energy supply chain. 

• The shift from molecules to electrons is reordering the strategic logic of energy. Electrons are far less tradable than molecules, and renewables are inherently local, creating a natural tendency toward energy independence. Storage (batteries and grid infrastructure) is becoming the new strategic reserve, replacing oil stockpiles as the measure of energy resilience. These dynamics are pushing the world toward multipolarity faster than geopolitics alone, and a potential nuclear revival alongside early-stage thorium breakthroughs could further reshape long-run assumptions about fuel supply. 

• Traditional chokepoints have not been superseded; they have been joined by new ones. Recent disruptions in the Red Sea and around the Strait of Hormuz have demonstrated that shipping lanes and hard energy infrastructure remain as geopolitically consequential as ever, echoing the 1973 oil shock. At the same time, critical minerals, computing infrastructure, and electricity grids are emerging as a new layer of chokepoints — and with global data center electricity consumption expected to roughly double between 2024 and 2030, firm clean electricity is becoming the binding constraint on AI development and a source of decisive strategic advantage for countries such as Canada that can offer it at scale.

• These converging pressures are prompting a fundamental reframing of energy security itself. Participants questioned whether the concept remains adequate, or whether "industrial systems security" — including manufacturing, semiconductors, digital infrastructure, and electricity as an integrated whole — is now the more accurate lens. The migration of power from barrels to electrons and computing powers, participants noted, constitutes the largest supply chain disruption in history. 

• The West and the Rest are each more fragmented than the binary suggests. Advanced economies are pursuing overlapping but distinct approaches on LNG, critical minerals, and technology leadership, while emerging economies like India, Vietnam, the UAE, Brazil, and Indonesia seek strategic autonomy rather than alignment with any single camp. Several states are practicing "variable geometry": for instance, the UAE is managing relationships with Washington and Beijing simultaneously while signing an AI and quantum investment agreement with Canada. Trade, once a foundation of cooperation, has been reframed as a risk — a trust deficit participants identified as one of the defining challenges of the new energy order. 

• Corporations have emerged as major non-state actors in energy diplomacy, alongside NGOs, civil society, and new threat vectors. U.S. firms have procured over 150 GW of clean energy over the past decade, de-risking renewable projects in ways government policy alone has not. In Asia, the prospect of attracting corporate investment is generating competitive pressure to accelerate clean energy deployment, thus fostering a potential race to the top. Meanwhile, cyber threats and state-sponsored infrastructure attacks have expanded the definition of energy security well beyond supply alone. 

• Access to cooling has become as existential as access to heating, and the efficiency agenda has slowed down. Although four billion new air conditioning units are projected to be sold between 2018 and 2050, this is still insufficient to meet total need. Inefficient units displaced in advanced economies are routinely exported to lower-income markets in Africa and Asia, a problem that existing efficiency standards could address. The barrier is political will, not technical capacity. Energy efficiency more broadly represents the most accessible near-term gains available, yet has quietly vanished from diplomatic and policy conversations. 

• Private capital and household savings remain underutilized levers in the transition. Households in major economies collectively hold trillions of dollars in low‑yield savings instruments that are only intermittently connected to low‑carbon investment opportunities. Mobilizing a larger share of that capita l —alongside the corporate off‑taker models that have already proven effective in scaling clean energy — represents a significant, still underdeveloped opportunity. At the same time, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities must remain central to climate‑finance frameworks, so that transition costs are allocated in line with historical responsibility and capacity rather than falling disproportionately on those least responsible for the problem.

• The world remains in the middle of a hard transition, and today’s institutions are poorly equipped for what comes next. Roughly four‑fifths of global primary energy still comes from fossil fuels, even as power shifts toward electrons, minerals, storage, and compute. The next great energy shock may not come from an oil chokepoint, but from a disruption to mineral processing, electricity grids, or digital infrastructure. The diplomacy of the coming decade will be shaped not only by the largest powers, but by hedging states, middle‑power coalitions and non‑state actors already filling the void left by a post‑1945 architecture that is struggling to adapt. In a world where a billion people are present at every negotiating table, the new energy diplomacy will be judged by whether it delivers affordable, reliable, and clean energy to the global majority.

Speakers:

• Opening Remarks: Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director, ORF America 

• Ambassador Robert F. Cekuta, Former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan; Former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Energy Resources, U.S. Department of State

• Mohinder Gulati, Former Chief Operating Officer, UN-Sustainable Energy for All and Former Energy Advisor - Europe and Central Asia Region, World Bank

• Michael Paramathasan, Former Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs to Canada's Minister of Artificial Intelligence; Former Director, Office of the President of the Treasury Board of Canada

• Moderator: Piyush Verma, Senior Fellow, ORF America

Participants:

• Dr. Raul Alfaro-Pelico, Non-Resident Fellow, ORF America

• Caroline Arkalji, Junior Fellow, ORF America

• Parth Sarthi Bajaj, Research Associate, The Johns Hopkins University

• Kurt Donnelly, Adjunct Professor, American University

• Eric Gibbs, SVP, Global Programs, CEBA

• Jamie Kern, Policy Officer - Energy, European Union

• Maximo Miccinilli, Senior Partner, FleishmanHillard EU

• Medha Prasanna, Program Coordinator and Junior Fellow, ORF America

• Stephen Rahaim, Director, Datamuse LLC

• Avishkar Sabharwal, CEO, Satya Carbon

• Sharad Sharma, Climate Change Specialist, World Bank

• Ricardo Smith, External Advisor, Georgetown University

• Bishal Thapa, Chief Strategy and Impacts Officer, CLASP

• Shohei Yoshida, Director, Sumitomo

The steel industry accounts for 7–9% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making it central to mitigation efforts worldwide. While low-emissions steel technologies are advancing, progress remains uneven due to challenges related to financing, policy support, energy infrastructure, and evolving trade environments.

On the eve of World Environment Day, ORF America and WRI India hosted the virtual webinar, “Forging the Future of Low-Emissions Steel”, which brought together experts and stakeholders to discuss pathways for accelerating steel decarbonization across the value chain. In addition to a panel discussion, insights from two recent publications were presented:

• Greening Steel in a Fragmented World: Aligning Markets, Technology, and Finance Special Report by ORF America

• Navigating Industrial Decarbonization in India: Learnings from Different Approaches and Best Practices
  Issue Brief by WRI India 

The webinar explored pathways for low-emissions steel production, financing and infrastructure needs, the role of industrial policy and market creation, and the impact of evolving trade and regulatory environments on investment decisions and collaboration.

Speakers:

• Dr. Aruna Sharma, Former Secretary, Ministry of Steel, Government of India

• Ajay Kumar Rastogi, Chairman, Task Force on Sustainable Just Transition & Green Hydrogen, Government of Jharkhand

• Rachel Howard, Director, Asia Pacific, Mission Possible Partnership

• João Irineu Medeiros, Vice President Regulatory Affairs, Stellantis South America

• Moderator: Tirthankar Mandal, Associate Program Director, Energy, WRI India

• Moderator: Piyush Verma, Senior Fellow & Head, Energy, ORF America

On April 22, ORF America convened an EU–Global South policy dialogue in Brussels on Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships (CTIPs) for the Energy Transition. The day-long conference brought together policymakers, industry leaders, and experts at a moment when trade policy is rapidly becoming central to how countries pursue clean energy, industrial growth, and economic competitiveness.

As clean technologies, from renewable power and hydrogen to batteries and critical minerals, become deeply embedded in global value chains, CTIPs are emerging as a new model that links trade, industrial cooperation, and investment in a more integrated way. Against this backdrop, the dialogue examined how CTIPs can strengthen supply chain resilience, unlock investment in clean industries, and enable more effective and mutually beneficial clean technology partnerships between Europe and Global South economies.

Among others, speakers included: 

• Keynote: Tomas Baert, Member of Cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen, EU Commission

• Special Remarks: Sifiso Mangali, First Secretary, Political, The Embassy of the Republic of South Africa to the Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and the Mission to the European Union

• Special Remarks on the Energy-Security Nexus: Dominik P. Jankowski, Deputy Secretary General for Policy and Outreach, NATO Parliamentary Assembly

• Special Remarks on Climate and Trade Governance: Aik Hoe Lim, Director, Trade and Environment Division, World Trade Organization

• Parliamentary Perspectives by Baroness Denise Kingsmill, Member, NATO Parliamentary Assembly and UK House of Lords; Hildegard Bentele, Member, European Parliament; and Udo Bullmann, Member, European Parliament

Key Takeaways

Why CTIPs?

• Shift from Extractive Models: CTIPs offer a pathway to move beyond traditional extractive approaches toward partnerships that prioritize local value creation. Discussions highlighted their potential to position the energy transition as an engine of industrialization in the Global South, supporting domestic processing, manufacturing, and job creation rather than continued reliance on raw material exports.

• Addressing Green Protectionism: Mechanisms such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) were widely viewed by Global South stakeholders as potential constraints on competitiveness and market access. In this context, CTIPs can provide a structured platform for transparency, regulatory cooperation, and targeted support —through finance and capacity building — to help partner countries meet compliance requirements without undermining industrial development and growth.

• The Energy–Security Nexus: As energy becomes increasingly intertwined with national security and geopolitical stability, CTIPs can help diversify and strengthen clean energy supply chains. Participants discussed their role in reducing overdependence on concentrated sources, enhancing resilience, and fostering more balanced and secure partnerships across regions.

What are CTIPs?

• CTIPs as a New Policy Instrument: CTIPs are emerging as a flexible and targeted tool within the EU’s broader green industrial and cooperation strategy. Unlike traditional instruments such as free trade agreements or development assistance, CTIPs are designed to be faster, more focused, and capable of addressing specific bottlenecks across clean industrial value chains.

• Integration of Trade, Investment, and Industry: CTIPs go beyond conventional trade policy by linking trade to investment, industrial cooperation, regulatory alignment, and technology partnerships. This integrated approach reflects a broader shift toward aligning trade, climate, and industrial objectives in a more coordinated and strategic manner.

• Targeted and Sector-Focused Approach: Rather than broad, economy-wide agreements, CTIPs are structured to focus on specific sectors and value chains — such as clean energy technologies, critical minerals, or industrial decarbonization — allowing for more practical and tailored cooperation.

• Flexible and Time-Bound Implementation: CTIPs are designed to operate through flexible, modular arrangements that can deliver targeted outcomes within shorter political and industrial timelines, enabling faster implementation compared to traditional trade or cooperation frameworks.

How can CTIPs deliver for the Global South?

• Addressing Execution and Bankability Constraints: CTIPs can help tackle core implementation bottlenecks, such as permitting delays, grid readiness, and weak industrial ecosystems, by aligning policy support, technical assistance, and investment frameworks to make projects more bankable and investment-ready.

• Reducing the Cost of Capital: By leveraging blended finance, risk-sharing instruments, and coordinated public–private investment platforms, CTIPs can help lower the cost of capital in emerging economies and unlock large-scale clean energy deployment.

• Creating Demand Certainty: CTIPs can support the development of demand-side mechanisms, such as offtake agreements and green public procurement, that provide long-term market signals and reduce investment risk for clean technologies and products.

• Advancing Regulatory Alignment and Standards: By promoting alignment with international standards and supporting regulatory cooperation, CTIPs can reduce trade frictions, enhance market access, and enable Global South producers to integrate into global clean value chains.

• Enabling Green Comparative Advantage: CTIPs can facilitate the strategic development of industries based on clean energy availability and low-emissions production, helping partner countries build competitive advantage in emerging green sectors.

• Strengthening Technology Partnerships: CTIPs can go beyond commercial transactions to support more accessible and affordable technology transfer, fostering domestic manufacturing capacity and innovation ecosystems in partner economies.

• Building Skills and Institutional Capacity: By investing in workforce development, institutional strengthening, and shared frameworks, CTIPs can address foundational gaps that often constrain effective implementation and long-term scalability.

• Supporting Layered and Complementary Cooperation: CTIPs can function alongside multilateral and plurilateral frameworks, providing a flexible platform for targeted bilateral action while reinforcing broader international cooperation.

• Ensuring Inclusive and Accountable Implementation: Through transparency, democratic oversight, and engagement with civil society, industry, and labor groups, CTIPs can build political legitimacy and ensure that partnerships are both effective and sustainable.

Photography Credit: ©www.agencephotographique.com

The systemic vulnerabilities underscored by the rising tension in the Middle East are no longer theoretical but widely recognized. This edition of our Future of Energy Breakfasts focused on global oil and gas markets in the context of rising geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, with particular attention to the strategic role of the Strait of Hormuz. As one of the world’s most critical energy corridors, carrying nearly one-fifth of global oil and a similar share of LNG, the Strait of Hormuz is both a lifeline for energy markets and a point of acute vulnerability.

Key takeaways included:

• The effective disruption of the Strait of Hormuz has had reverberating effects on global supply chains beyond the oil and gas industries. Participants underscored that the near-total halt of transit through the Strait has removed approximately 20 million barrels per day from global supply, constituting one of the largest energy disruptions in modern history. However, the impact is not confined to crude oil and LNG. Essential commodities such as helium, petrochemical feedstocks such as methanol and ethylene, aluminum, and pharmaceutical precursors are also experiencing supply chain disruptions that are already being felt. As a result, the blockage is reverberating across agriculture, manufacturing, healthcare, and food systems. Even in the event of a reopening, elevated insurance costs, reduced risk tolerance, and damaged infrastructure are expected to delay a return to normal shipping flows, highlighting the fragility of globalized supply chains for these products, an issue the world can no longer ignore.

• East Asia’s energy system dependency on exports from the Gulf reveals sharp asymmetries, producing clear winners and highlighting acute vulnerabilities across the region. Participants noted that the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz disproportionately impacts East Asia, where dependence on Gulf energy flows is high. Around 84% of crude oil and 90% of LNG imports into Asia transit through the Strait, exposing the region to severe supply shocks. Within this context, China emerges as comparatively resilient. Years of strategic stockpiling have created substantial buffers, while diversified supply channels, including overland pipelines and continued access to discounted Iranian, Russian, and Venezuelan crude via shadow fleets enable greater resilience. China’s industrial system can also substitute feedstocks for petrochemicals, further cushioning the shock. In contrast, Japan and South Korea face acute structural vulnerabilities. Japan relies on the Middle East for roughly 94% of its oil imports. Japan currently holds 4 million tonnes of LNG reserves which is equivalent to only three weeks of consumption leaving limited room to absorb prolonged disruption. South Korea, with a similarly high dependence on Gulf supplies, is even more exposed due to its large domestic manufacturing base. The shutdowns of petrochemical facilities and risks to semiconductor production, particularly given constraints on inputs such as helium, underscore the cascading industrial impact. Both countries have already been forced to reactivate higher-emission coal capacity to stabilize supply.

• Energy security, affordability, and development are increasingly strained, particularly in emerging economies. The crisis is amplifying difficult trade-offs for governments, especially in developing countries. Rising fuel and commodity prices are placing pressure on public finances and subsidy regimes, with knock-on effects on poverty reduction and economic stability. Speakers highlighted how domestic policy choices, rather than global market structure alone, can drive fragmentation in how the crisis is experienced at the national level, even as oil markets remain globally integrated. For instance, Indonesia’s subsidized energy system is cushioning consumers from immediate price shocks but placing increasing strain on government budgets, while Singapore’s market-based pricing model, with no broad energy subsidies, is transmitting global price increases directly to consumers and industry. Countries such as India are forced to balance energy access with fiscal sustainability, while smaller economies face acute shortages in essential fuels such as liquefied petroleum gas. These pressures are even more pronounced in smaller and more vulnerable economies. Participants pointed to rising cooking gas prices in countries like Nepal and broader affordability challenges across South Asia, where energy costs directly affect food security, agricultural inputs, and basic living standards. These pressures are compounding existing inflationary dynamics, making poverty alleviation and middle-class expansion significantly more difficult.

• Geopolitical leverage over critical chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz is reshaping energy security and global trade dynamics. During the recent crisis, the Strait effectively became a tool of strategic coercion, as Iran demonstrated its ability to exert significant pressure on the global economy through controlled disruptions and selective access. Participants highlighted the emergence of new mechanisms, including bilateral safe-passage arrangements for limited volumes of oil tankers, the use of vetted or coordinated transits, and Iran’s push for maritime tolling — with reported fees reaching up to $2 million per vessel in some cases. These developments signal a potential erosion of long-standing norms on freedom of navigation, raising serious implications for international maritime law and naval security. Existing infrastructure, such as Saudi Arabia’s East-West Crude Oil Pipeline, provides a partial alternative to reduce dependency on the Strait. However, such bypass routes remain limited in scope and cannot fully offset the massive volumes of oil and LNG traditionally transported by tankers through Hormuz.

• The crisis is driving shifts in energy systems, with mixed implications for the energy transition. Participants highlighted a growing divergence between short-term energy security imperatives and long-term decarbonization goals. On one hand, alongside renewed investment in domestic renewable capacity, the disruption is catalyzing what participants described as a “nuclear renaissance,” particularly in Northeast Asia. On the other hand, coal is experiencing a near-term resurgence as countries prioritize reliability and affordability over emissions targets. Even LNG, previously positioned as a transition fuel, has seen its role undermined by supply insecurity and infrastructure risks, particularly in Qatar.

Looking ahead, the crisis may leave a lasting imprint on how energy systems are designed and governed. Investment in alternative supply routes, domestic production, and storage capacity is likely to accelerate, alongside increased scrutiny of critical chokepoints worldwide. At the same time, the potential normalization of economic coercion, through tolling, disruption, or resource control, raises concerns about precedent and the stability of global trade frameworks. While energy markets themselves remain structurally global, national policies, subsidies, and geopolitical alignments are introducing new layers of complexity. Participants also underscored the need to move beyond reactive responses toward more resilient energy systems, built on diversification, flexibility, and reduced exposure to single points of failure.

Speakers:

• Opening Remarks and Moderator: Piyush Verma, Senior Fellow, ORF America

• Peter R. Lavoy, Senior Director, International Government Relations, ExxonMobil

• Matt Schubert, Managing Director, FGS Global

• Adam Sieminski, Senior Advisor to the Board of Trustees, King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC) 

• Closing Remarks: Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director, ORF America 

Participants

• Raul Alfaro-Pelico, Lancaster University

• Telmen Altanshagai, NXT Conclave

• Caroline Arkalji, ORF America

• Travis Brubaker, E3G

• Amb. Robert Cekuta, American University

• Kyle Disselkoen, Bloomberg NEF

• Damian Doyle, Embassy of Australia

• Andrew Fishbein, Climeworks

• Gilberto Garcia-Vazquez, NZIPL

• Akshobh Giridharadas, US-India Strategic Partnership Forum

• Anvesh Jain, Georgetown University Law Center

• Hamna Khan, U.S. Department of Energy

• Parag Nathaney, Exelon

• Sarah Otte, Deloitte

• Satvik Pendyala, American Enterprise Institute

• Medha Prasanna, ORF America

• Tejasvi Raghuveer, Energy Aspects

• Sarah Salah, ORF America

• Mary Sagatelova, Third Way

• Sara Schonhardt, E&E News

• Abhik Sengupta, Confederation of Indian Industry

• Nayan Seth, Independent Consultant

• Siddharth Sharma, McLarty Associates

• Scott Shaw, The Cohen Group

• Sarang Shidore, Quincy Institute

• Elena Thomas-Kerr, US Department of Energy

• Naoki Tsuji, Japan Bank for International Cooperation

• Marshall Williams, NewFront 

On February 25, ORF America convened policymakers, industry leaders, investors, analysts, and civil society representatives for a roundtable on the future of low-carbon steel in Seoul, Republic of Korea. The small-group convening included participants from 7 countries and 18 organizations, spanning government, heavy industry, finance, multilateral institutions, and research bodies. Discussions focused on the practical barriers and strategic opportunities shaping steel’s transition, ranging from technology readiness and infrastructure constraints to demand creation, trade alignment, standards development, and the role of finance in scaling early-stage projects. Participants examined how industrial policy, energy systems, and global markets must move in coordination to accelerate credible pathways toward lower-emissions steel production.

The day-long event unfolded across four sessions: Market Reality Checks: Policies, Standards, and Shared Bottlenecks; Technology Readiness and Pathways – What Can Scale, and When?; Making Green Steel Bankable: Finance, Risks, and the Green Premium; and From Fragmentation to Coordination: Enabling Infrastructure, Trusted Supply Chains, and Actionable Recommendations. Across these discussions, five central recommendations emerged:

1. Reframe the Challenge: Decarbonize Ironmaking and Sequence Pathways Strategically
   A key insight is that most emissions in steel production come from ironmaking, not the final steelmaking stage. The debate should therefore focus on how to decarbonize iron production first. Rather than treating technologies as competing silver bullets, governments and firms need practical, country-specific transition roadmaps that compare options across cost, emissions reduction potential, scalability, and infrastructure readiness. This allows decision-makers to prioritize the most cost-effective abatement measures, identify where public support is truly needed, and sequence investments rationally over time. Such an approach recognizes geographic realities. Scrap availability, hydrogen infrastructure, carbon storage capacity, and energy costs differ widely across regions. Effective policy must reflect these differences, not impose uniform solutions.

2. Scale Demand Through Green Public Procurement
   Participants emphasized that demand must lead supply, but demand must also be coordinated. Expanding green public procurement across infrastructure, transport, and construction can create predictable, bankable markets for lower-emissions steel. However, unilateral national action will not shift global markets at scale. Collective adoption of procurement standards, across governments, provinces, and major buyers, was identified as critical. Governments and leading offtakers must act together, sending credible multi-year signals that reduce risk and unlock investment, much as structured procurement frameworks did for renewable energy and LNG markets.

3. Make Offtakers and Governments Co-Architects of Market Creation
   The primary bottleneck is no longer technological — it is commercial. Steel producers face high capital costs and uncertain returns if the green premium is not supported by predictable demand. Without bankable buyers, investment decisions stall. The solution is to work backwards from the buyer. What makes a green steel contract viable — regulatory compliance, brand value, supply security, or decarbonization commitments? These drivers must translate into enforceable, long-term offtake agreements supported by credible certification, transparent emissions accounting, and, where needed, price-stabilization tools such as contracts for difference or price floors. Governments must pair standards with incentives and risk-sharing mechanisms, while major industrial buyers integrate low-emission steel into mainstream procurement strategies. Market creation cannot be assumed — it must be intentionally designed and scaled.

4. Align Stakeholder Signals to Reduce Fragmentation
   Fragmentation across standards, infrastructure planning, regulatory systems, and financing frameworks remains a structural barrier. Investors seek policy clarity; producers seek demand certainty; governments seek emissions reductions without unsustainable fiscal exposure. When these signals are misaligned, projects stall. Participants emphasized the need for interoperable monitoring, reporting, and verification systems, credible and harmonized green certification, coordinated procurement standards, and blended finance tools that reduce risk across the value chain. Digital infrastructure and AI can further accelerate alignment by improving transparency, operational optimization, and energy management, thereby strengthening confidence among stakeholders. Reducing administrative and bureaucratic bottlenecks, both domestically and across bilateral partnerships, is equally critical to improving project bankability and moving from intent to execution.

5. Lead with Ambition and Prepare for an Inflection Point
   Steel decarbonization is no longer solely a climate issue — it is a question of competitiveness, energy security, and long-term industrial positioning. Elevating it to that level requires political clarity and policy ambition strong enough to justify early and coordinated intervention. At the same time, the transition must be managed deliberately to avoid disorder. Steel remains a nation-building sector, deeply linked to coal-dependent regions and established industrial workforces. Workforce reskilling, labor transition planning, and alignment with just transition principles must be embedded within decarbonization strategies rather than treated as afterthoughts. While green steel was described as inevitable, history shows that industrial transitions can accelerate abruptly once economic and policy tipping points are reached. Proactive coordination and sustained executive-level commitment will determine whether countries emerge as leaders in the next industrial cycle — or struggle as displaced incumbents.

Welcome Remarks and Keynote Speakers:

• Piyush Verma, Senior Fellow, ORF America

• Amb. Gourangalal Das, Ambassador of India to the Republic of Korea, Embassy of India, Seoul, Republic of Korea

• Amb. Hyoeun Jenny Kim, CEO, Global Industry Hub

Participants

• Caroline Arkalji, Research Assistant, ORF America

• Sanjana Arya, First Secretary (Commerce & Investment), Embassy of India, Seoul, Republic of Korea

• Anurag Bajpai, Director and Co-founder, GreenTree Global

• Parul Bakshi, Non-Resident Fellow – Climate and Energy, ORF Middle East

• Hayli Chiu, Analyst, Stewardship, Asia Investor Group on Climate Change

• Eun Ko Rachel, Chief Strategy Officer and Director of the Industrial Decarbonization Program, NEXT Group

• Lauren Huleatt, Head of Impact, Transition Asia

• Eileen Hur, Technical Officer, Global Green Growth Institute

• Samuel Hwang, Counsellor (Industry, Science and Resources), Australian Embassy in Seoul

• Juna Hwang, Program Officer, Solutions for Our Climate

• Soyi Hyun, Commercial Lead for Korea, BloombergNEF

• Chang Sun Jang, Deputy Director, Global Green Growth Institute

• Huntae Kim, Vice President, ESG Bureau, POSCO Holdings

• Gyoorie Kim, Diplomacy Lead, Solutions for Our Climate

• Jacob Kim, Account Manager, BloombergNEF

• Jieun Kim, Commercial Division, Embassy of India, Seoul, Republic of Korea

• James Kneebone, PhD Researcher, ETH Zürich

• Heather Lee, Steel Team Lead, Solutions for Our Climate

• Piljin Moon, Carbon Neutral Strategy Team Lead, POSCO Holdings

• Medha Prasanna, Program Coordinator, ORF America

• Tom Quinn, Managing Director, Springmount Advisory

• Umer Sadiq, Associate, BloombergNEF

• Anna Song, Korea Engagement Lead, Mission Possible Partnership

• Shigeaki Tanaka, Executive Officer, Environmental Planning and Green Transformation, Nippon Steel

• Wonho Yeon, Head of Economic Security Group, Hyundai Motors Group

• Mielle Yoo, Korea Program Lead, Mission Possible Partnership

• Sejong Youn, Director, Plan 1.5

On February 20, ORF America convened a roundtable in collaboration with the Brazilian Embassy in Washington, DC to launch and present the findings of a special report outlining key action priorities and concrete pathways for IBSA+Indonesia coordination on green transitions. The discussion was part of the IBSA+ Indonesia Green Transitions Initiative, an effort launched in March 2025 to strengthen collaboration among India, Brazil, South Africa (IBSA), and Indonesia on clean energy transitions. Building on the momentum of consecutive IBSA+Indonesia G20 presidencies, this initiative seeks to embed Global South priorities in the global energy transition agenda and advance practical cooperation across climate finance, technology development, and industrial competitiveness.

The discussion brought together policymakers, industry leaders, and experts to explore how four large democracies, representing a combined GDP of nearly $8 trillion and approximately 25% of global output, can move from parallel national strategies to coordinated action. Participants emphasized that South–South cooperation is not optional but strategic, particularly as electricity demand across these economies is projected to increase by up to 55% over the next decade. Energy transition was framed not as a standalone climate track, but as a central driver of modernization, competitiveness, energy security, and industrial transformation.

The roundtable built on earlier IBSA+Indonesia dialogues on technology, supply chains, and skills gaps, while addressing key structural challenges — including high capital costs, fragmented diplomacy, supply chain vulnerabilities, and the risk of remaining raw-material exporters while importing higher-value clean technologies. Participants underscored the importance of diplomatic harmonization, financial architecture reform, coordinated trade instruments, and innovation partnerships to ensure that the Global South emerges as a co-architect of the global energy future. Some of the key highlights from the discussion are:

Climate and energy policy cannot be decoupled from trade architecture. Several speakers underscored that rules governing tariffs, subsidies, carbon standards, and local content are increasingly shaping clean energy competitiveness. Brazil’s COP30 ambition to link climate leadership with trade and green industrial policy was highlighted as a model of this integration. There was broad agreement that IBSA+Indonesia should explore preferential clean tech trading arrangements among the four countries, while also engaging proactively in global trade discussions to ensure that emerging frameworks support industrial upgrading in the Global South rather than constrain it. There was strong agreement that energy transition diplomacy must extend beyond climate negotiations into trade and economic institutions such as the WTO. 

Public procurement as one of the most powerful yet underleveraged tools for accelerating clean industrialization. Given that public procurement can represent 13–20% of GDP in some member countries, participants noted its potential to create early demand for green steel, green concrete, battery storage, and other clean technologies. The discussion underscored that coordinated procurement standards across IBSA+Indonesia could send strong market signals, de-risk private investment, and anchor domestic manufacturing ecosystems.

Disproportionately high cost of capital across emerging economies, often estimated to be up to three times higher than in advanced markets. Participants emphasized that inflated country risk premiums and fragmented financial architecture trap projects in a cycle of delayed deployment and higher hurdle rates. Several speakers noted that finance debates often occur in isolation from implementation realities, such as grid expansion, permitting processes, and storage deployment. There was consensus that aggregated project pipelines, bundled MSME initiatives, and innovative instruments — including domestic currency financing mechanisms and the strategic use of carbon pricing revenues — could help reprice perceived risk and unlock scalable investment.

Fragmented data standards and inconsistent reporting undermine investor confidence and complicate cross-border coordination. Reliable, interoperable energy data, alongside harmonized certification and carbon accounting frameworks, was seen as essential for accurate risk assessment, benchmarking, and market access. Speakers underscored that without aligned green taxonomies and common standards for hydrogen, batteries, clean steel, and responsibly sourced critical minerals, even competitive manufacturers struggle to scale regionally. Greater transparency and coordinated standards would lower transaction costs, strengthen credibility, and position IBSA+Indonesia as a trusted bloc in global clean energy markets.

Transition should be framed around building clean industries rather than solely around phasing out fossil fuels. Speakers emphasized that renewable scale-up, geothermal expansion, green hydrogen, and resilient grids represent engines of economic modernization. India’s renewable expansion, Indonesia’s geothermal leadership, South Africa’s REIPPP mobilization, and Brazil’s integration of climate with trade policy were cited as evidence that clean energy strengthens energy security, reduces import dependence, and enhances long-term competitiveness. The consensus was clear: a development-first, industry-building approach offers a more affirmative and politically durable pathway for the Global South.

Speakers

• Welcome Remarks: Fernando Perdigão, Counselor, Energy, Environment, and Critical Minerals, Embassy of Brazil in Washington, D.C.

• Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director, ORF America

• Ashutosh Jindal, Embassy of India, Washington D.C.

• Laird Treiber, Corporate Council on Africa

• Maiara Folly, Plataforma CIPÓ

• Kate Logan, Asia Society

• Medha Prasanna, Program Coordinator and Junior Fellow, ORF America

• Caroline Arkalji, Research Assistant, ORF America

• Moderator: Piyush Verma, Senior Fellow, ORF America 

Participants

• Edgar Aguilar, Energy Futures Initiative Foundation

• Raul Alfaro-Pelico, Lancaster University

• Tatiana Bruce da Silva, Energy Futures Initiative Foundation

• Kaysie Brown, Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G)

• Christina Cilento, Resources for the Future

• Kalina Gibson, Center for American Progress

• Arya Harsono, World Resources Institute

• Melissa J. Kopolow, Albright Stonebridge Group

• Anamika Mishra, Embassy of India, Washington D.C.

• Amin Mohseni, American University

• Anit Mukherjee, ORF America

• Sarah Salah, ORF America

• Abhinav Subramaniam, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

• Fabio Veras Soares, Institute for Applied Economic Research

• Courtney Weatherby, Stimson Center

The Future of Energy Breakfasts series brings together senior leaders from government, industry, and technology for candid, closed-door discussions on the forces reshaping the global energy landscape. This edition focused on nuclear fusion, examining its technological readiness, policy, and regulatory environment, and the role of public–private collaboration in advancing fusion from long-term research to early commercialization.

Key takeaways included:

• From laboratory science to early pilots and commercialization, fusion is entering a pivotal phase. Participants noted that nuclear fusion has moved beyond purely experimental research and is now navigating the complex transition toward commercial viability. While significant scientific milestones have been achieved, the pathway to grid-connected systems requires clarity around engineering scalability, cost reduction, and operational reliability. Discussion outlined the importance of achieving sustained net energy gain at the systems level, reducing recirculating power requirements, and designing reactors that can operate efficiently in extreme physical environments. Although several companies anticipate proof-of-concept demonstrations within this decade, participants stressed that commercial readiness will ultimately depend as much on systems integration and cost competitiveness as on plasma physics breakthroughs.

• Public–private collaboration has become the central driver of progress in fusion development. The public sector has increasingly shifted from basic scientific exploration toward enabling commercialization through milestone-based partnerships and structured funding models. Participants highlighted the growing integration of artificial intelligence and high-performance computing into plasma modeling, control systems, materials research, and reactor design optimization. These technological accelerators are compressing development timelines and improving predictability. At the same time, collaboration between national laboratories, startups, utilities, and regulators is helping to align scientific ambition with market realities. The consensus view was that sustained coordination across institutions will determine whether fusion transitions from demonstration to deployment.

• Capital formation is reshaping fusion from a research domain into an emerging industrial sector. Venture capital and private investment have expanded significantly in recent years, supported by industry organizations representing a growing ecosystem of companies and affiliates. Participants observed that investor interest is not solely tied to long-term electricity generation but also to near-term commercial applications emerging from fusion research. High-temperature superconducting magnets, medical isotope production, advanced materials, and power management technologies are emerging as adjacent commercial applications that could provide parallel revenue pathways and strengthen the sector’s financial resilience over time. Nonetheless, participants emphasized that long-term capital confidence will depend on credible timelines, regulatory clarity, risk-sharing, and demonstrable progress toward reducing levelized cost projections.

• Supply-chain resilience and geopolitical realities present structural challenges for the fusion ecosystem. Fusion systems rely on highly specialized components, including advanced semiconductors, rare earth materials, superconducting materials, and high-performance alloys. Participants noted that concentration in certain segments of global supply chains introduces vulnerabilities, particularly given current geopolitical tensions. While multinational collaboration continues through large-scale initiatives and research platforms, broader strategic competition complicates deeper technological exchange among major powers. Strengthening domestic manufacturing capabilities, diversifying trusted supply chains, and fostering international partnerships were identified as necessary steps to mitigate long-term risk for nuclear fusion.

• Safety frameworks and public transparency will shape the long-term legitimacy of fusion energy. Fusion reactors operate under extreme conditions characterized by high-energy neutrons, intense heat flux, and powerful magnetic fields. Participants underscored the importance of regulatory clarity that both safeguards public welfare and provides certainty for developers. Building public trust will require proactive communication about how materials are managed throughout the lifecycle, and how regulatory oversight evolves alongside technological progress. Transparent governance, rather than reactive reassurance, was viewed as essential to maintaining social license.

• Finally, fusion is emerging not only as an energy innovation but as a strategic technology with implications for national competitiveness and long-term energy security. Participants emphasized that the coming decade will be decisive. Continued public–private R&D collaboration, scalable financing mechanisms, resilient supply chains, and international cooperation will determine whether fusion remains a scientific milestone or becomes operational infrastructure. The trajectory of fusion development will reflect not only advances in physics, but also the strength of policy alignment, industrial strategy, and institutional coordination.

Speakers

• Welcome Remarks: Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director, ORF America 

• Matthew Lanctot, Acting Director, Research Division - Fusion Energy Sciences,
  U.S. Department of Energy

• Andrew Holland, CEO, Fusion Industry Association

• Dhananjay Ravikumar, Director, Thermofluids Engineering, Type One Energy

• Moderator: Piyush Verma, Senior Fellow, ORF America

Participants

• Edgar Aguilar, Energy Futures Initiative Foundation

• Alan Ahn, Third Way

• Ryan Alimento, The Breakthrough Institute

• Caroline Arkalji, ORF America

• Donna Attanasio, GW Alliance for a Sustainable Future

• Isaac Edwards, Fusion Industry Association

• Jennifer Fioretti, Arlington County Government

• Stephen Greene, Nuclear Innovation Alliance

• Jonathan Lane, Third Way

• Satvik Pendyala, American Enterprise Institute

• Sarah Salah, ORF America

• Nayan Seth, Independent Consultant

• Naoki  Tsuji, Japan Bank for International Cooperation

On January 12, ORF America, in collaboration with the National Solar Energy Federation of India and BlueKraft Digital Foundation, hosted the New Delhi launch of Energy for Billions: India’s Turnaround and the World’s Future at the India International Centre.

Authored by Senior Fellow Piyush Verma, the book traces India’s extraordinary journey from widespread energy poverty to emerging global leadership in clean energy and climate governance. Blending personal narrative with policy insight, Energy for Billions offers a deeply human account of how energy access, institutional reform, and technological scale-up have reshaped India’s development trajectory — while also looking ahead to the country’s 2047 energy independence and 2070 net-zero goals, and the lessons this journey offers for the Global South and the world.

Published by BlueKraft Digital Foundation under the Viksit Bharat Fellowship, Energy for Billions features a foreword by Shri Piyush Goyal, Hon’ble Minister of Commerce and Industry, Government of India, and has been widely endorsed by leaders in India and globally.

The launch discussion reflected on India’s clean energy transformation over the past decade, the governance and institutional choices that enabled scale, and the lessons India’s experience offers to other developing economies navigating energy transitions amid growth, equity, and climate constraints.

Opening remarks featured:

• Subrahmanyam Pulipaka, CEO, National Solar Energy Federation of India

• Shrutkeerti Khurana, Senior Vice President and Head – Publications & Knowledge Center, BlueKraft Digital Foundation

and a panel discussion with:

• Deepak Gupta, IAS (Retd.), Director General, National Solar Energy Federation of India; Former Secretary, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy; Former Chairman, Union Public Service Commission  

• Ajay Mathur, Professor of Practice, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi; Former Director General, Bureau of Energy Efficiency; Former Director General, International Solar Alliance

• Arvinn Gadgil, Deputy Ambassador, Royal Norwegian Embassy, New Delhi

• Anita George, Chief Executive Officer, ProsperETE; Former Senior Director – Energy, World Bank

The Future of Energy Breakfasts series brings together senior leaders from government, industry, and technology for candid, closed-door discussions on the forces reshaping the global energy landscape. This edition examined the future of heavy industry, spotlighting innovation, competitiveness, and resilience — and how emerging technologies and new partnerships can transform the world’s most essential sectors.

The discussion examined the key drivers of global heavy-industry competitiveness, including policy, technology, markets, and emerging risks. 

Key takeaways included:

• On the policy front, participants noted that the biggest impediment to long-term industrial transformation is policy instability, especially given that heavy-industry investments operate on longer horizons. While instruments such as Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), carbon contracts for difference (CCfDs), and a range of other carbon pricing schemes worldwide offer important signals, they remain insufficient on their own to catalyze investment at the scale required. Participants also underscored the challenges of establishing reliable product standards and carbon-accounting mechanisms. Concerns around double counting, methodological inconsistency, and poor international alignment continue to create uncertainty for investors and industry alike.

• Market dynamics featured prominently in the discussion, underscoring competitiveness as a central concern for heavy industry. Participants noted that success ultimately depends on either achieving cost-competitive production or securing markets willing to absorb higher prices for low-carbon materials. Demand-side differentiation is already emerging: in some sectors, such as textiles, consumers are increasingly willing to pay a premium for cleaner products. On the supply side, participants highlighted new regional investment opportunities, particularly in areas with strong renewable energy resources and favorable production costs. These regions are well-positioned to become green-commodity hubs for steel, ammonia, and other industrial products. Competitive industrial decarbonization is no longer theoretical. Several developing economies now have operational projects in sectors like steel and ammonia, backed by secured offtake agreements that demonstrate real commercial traction. In other markets, participants pointed to the rising importance of voluntary credit mechanisms, where low-carbon producers generate and sell credits to corporate buyers. Early examples include green fertilizer and certain food and beverage supply chains, where companies are eager to demonstrate progress toward sustainability commitments.

• Technological progress in industrial decarbonization has been steady but uneven, often advancing through cycles of experimentation across biomass use, CCUS, and green hydrogen. Participants emphasized that no single technology will deliver the transition; instead, a portfolio of solutions tailored to regional resource endowments is essential. Sectorally, green procurement offtake agreements are accelerating, particularly in Europe for green steel, low-carbon ammonia, and emerging bioplastics. These agreements are helping de-risk early projects and signal growing market confidence. Participants also highlighted that energy efficiency remains one of the most undervalued opportunities. New efficiency and low-carbon production technologies, including early electrochemical cement processes that can dramatically reduce emissions, offer major cost-effective mitigation potential but are still far from widespread adoption. In the aluminium sector, participants noted that production is increasingly integrating wind and solar power, supported by battery storage. However, the sector remains grid-inflexible, highlighting the need for improved grid integration technologies and demand-response mechanisms. Across heavy industry, high-efficiency motors and motor-driven systems — which account for a substantial share of industrial electricity use — represent a major, immediate area for improvement. Digitalization is another critical enabler that can reduce energy losses, stabilize operations, and unlock system-wide efficiency gains across steel, cement, aluminium and other production.

• In discussing risks to green industrialization, participants highlighted the strong link between geopolitical uncertainty and rising financing costs. Investors remain cautious about committing capital to long-horizon industrial projects, particularly those involving emerging decarbonization technologies. Concerns about carbon leakage also persist. Participants noted that mechanisms such as CBAM help at the margin but do not fully address the competitiveness challenges faced by producers in many markets. Another emerging pressure point is the competition for clean energy and infrastructure capacity. The rapid expansion of energy-intensive sectors, especially data centers, is straining grids in several regions and in some cases displacing planned green industrial projects. This dynamic underscores the need for integrated planning across sectors that increasingly rely on the same limited energy and infrastructure resources.

Overall, the discussion emphasized that transforming heavy industry will require coordinated global policy, innovative and patient financing, robust risk-mitigation tools, and market mechanisms that support long-term investment and competitiveness. Participants also stressed that demand creation is essential. Without reliable markets for low-carbon materials, even well-designed technologies and financing structures will struggle to scale. Public procurement, corporate offtake commitments, and harmonized standards were highlighted as key levers to build early demand and give industry the confidence to invest in new production pathways.

Speakers

• Welcome Remarks: Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director, ORF America 

• Dolf Gielen, Senior Energy Economist and Hydrogen Lead, The World Bank

• Kyle Disselkoen, Senior Associate, Industrial Decarbonization, Bloomberg NEF  

• Moderator: Piyush Verma, Senior Fellow, ORF America

Participants

• Caroline Arkalji, ORF America

• Jeffrey D. Bean, ORF America

• Zachary Byrum, World Resources Institute (WRI)

• Sakshi Chandra, Sustainable Energy for All

• Milan Elkerbout, Resources for the Future (RFF)

• David Kelm, Silverado Policy Accelerator

• Minji Jeong, EFI Foundation

• Mahnaz Khan, Silverado Policy Accelerator

• Vikrum Mathur, Tata Group

• Colin McMillan, Industrious Labs

• Alan Mitchell, Clean Air Task Force

• Sheran Munasinghe, Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)

• Ed Nichols, RRPT

• Suyog Padgaonkar, Climate Imperative

• Satvik Pendyala, American Enterprise Institute

• Medha Prasanna, ORF America

• Priscila Putzulu, McLarty Associates

• Abigail Regitsky, Blue Horizons Foundation

• Nayan Seth, Independent Consultant

• Eliza Sheff, Clean Air Task Force

• Neelam Singh, World Resources Institute (WRI)

• Bishal Thapa, CLASP

• Nora Todd, Independent Consultant

• Naoki Tsuji, Japan Bank for International Cooperation

On December 4, ORF America, in partnership with Plataforma CIPÓ, held a high-level hybrid discussion about the outcomes of COP30 in Belém and the priorities for global climate and energy governance in 2026 and beyond. Speakers reflected on the unprecedented political momentum generated by Brazil’s presidency, which led to multiple substantive decisions and a renewed focus on justice, implementation, and rebuilding trust in the multilateral system.

The discussion identified seven key takeaways, reflecting the transition, challenges, and shifting dynamics emerging from COP30 and informing the path "Belém to Beyond."

1. The centrality of implementation and the shift from text to tools: The overarching takeaway is that COP30 marked a definitive turning point, shifting the focus from negotiations (text) to implementation (tools). The Brazilian presidency framed the outcomes within the context of a new "decade of implementation". This shift resulted in the establishment of several new cooperation instruments and commitments, including the Global Implementation Accelerator and the Belém Mission to 1.5°C. The aim is to move down the spectrum from defining "the what" to developing "the how," making instruments like the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) and the Technology Implementation Program (TIP) operational.

2. Adaptation and survival reached a new level of urgency: Adaptation issues rose significantly in prominence, moving from what was previously considered a "lower track" to a central agenda item. The most significant breakthrough for developing countries was the decision to work towards tripling adaptation finance. While this commitment provides a structural signal of scale and predictability, developing countries still need clarity regarding the baseline from which the finance will be tripled. For Small Island Developing States (SIDS), the message is clear: the 1.5°C limit remains a non-negotiable survival issue, as stated by "if we lose that 1.5, we're going to lose everything".

3. Geopolitical power is shifting towards the Global South: The COP took place amid turbulent multilateralism, where the process is "alive, but it needs to be resuscitated". The event showed a power shift from the Global North toward BRICS and the Global South. This shift means that future climate action is increasingly pursued outside the formal negotiating room in parallel forums such as the BRICS Summit, the G20, and "coalitions of the willing".

4. Justice, rights, and economic equity became key drivers of the agenda: The outcomes included the strongest rights-based language ever seen in a UNFCCC decision on just transition, recognizing the rights of Indigenous peoples, self-determination, and free prior and informed consent, and for the first time, recognizing the role of people of African descent. Furthermore, the conversation underscored that climate action is no longer solely an environmental issue but an economic, security, and equity discussion. This includes acknowledging the imperative of addressing energy poverty, particularly in Africa, where the 600 million people without electricity drive certain countries' interests in fossil fuel development.

5. Trade and fossil fuels were managed through voluntary roadmaps: Trade emerged as a formal and "big issue" for the first time in the negotiation process, leading to the launch of structured dialogues on climate and international trade. Countries like Brazil frame trade coordination as an opportunity for incentives and investment, arguing against protectionist measures (like the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) that hinder development. Although fossil fuel phase-out was not formally in the negotiated text, the COP30 president announced that Brazil will voluntarily lead two roadmaps: one to phase out fossil fuels and another to end deforestation by 2030. These roadmaps are seen as processes that can be conducted outside the rigid constraints of the UN, offering a flexible path forward on these contentious issues.

6. Private finance is becoming central — but barriers persist for the most vulnerable: The discussion highlighted that private finance is now at the core of the climate implementation agenda. While the new two-year work program will improve transparency of public finance, much of the real momentum is happening outside formal negotiations, driven by investors, DFIs, and corporate coalitions. Instruments like the TFFF reflect this shift, designed to mobilize private capital through investment-style mechanisms rather than traditional concessional flows. Yet challenges remain: vulnerable regions, especially SIDS, continue to struggle with limited investor appetite and inflated risk perceptions, resulting in higher premiums and fewer bankable projects. Unlocking private finance at scale will require stronger risk-sharing tools, better project pipelines, and governance reforms to ensure capital reaches those who need it most.

7. Pacific priorities will shape the road to COP31: The Pacific perspective underscored that COP31 will be a defining moment for implementation and accountability, especially for climate-vulnerable regions. Pacific leaders will push for clear timelines on adaptation finance, stronger global mitigation ambition to protect the 1.5°C goal, and an agenda that keeps resilience and just transition at the center of global climate action — working closely with Australia and other regional partners to shape outcomes. The interventions also highlighted broader geopolitical and economic concerns: the need for equitable, flexible trade measures that do not hinder climate action; growing interest in nature-based solutions, including blue carbon; and the importance of coalition-building beyond SIDS, even as Pacific and Caribbean voices remain naturally aligned. The message was clear: for the Pacific, survival depends on ambition, justice,  and fairness holding the international system accountable to the 1.5°C of the Paris Agreement. 

Agenda

Welcome and Opening Remarks:

• Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director, ORF America 

• Maiara Folly, Executive Director and Co-founder, Plataforma CIPÓ

Keynote Remarks:

• Counselor Fernando Perdigão, Energy, Environment, and Critical Minerals, Embassy of Brazil in Washington, D.C.

Panel 1 — Looking Back: Lessons and Insights from COP30 (Belém)

• Maria João C. P. Rolim, Partner, Rolim Goulart Cardoso; Deputy Coordinator, Energy Transition Committee, Brazilian Association of Basic Infrastructure (ABDIB)

• Sameer Kwatra, Senior Director, India Program, NRDC

• David Waskow, Director, International Climate Initiative, WRI

• Moderator: Piyush Verma, Senior Fellow, ORF America

Panel II — Looking Forward: From Belém to Beyond 

• Raul Alfaro-Pelico, Senior Research Fellow, Lancaster University

• Clarence Edwards, Executive Director, E3G

• Toiata Uili, Assistant Chief Executive Officer, Renewable Energy, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Samoa

• Moderator: Anit Mukherjee, Senior Fellow, ORF America

On November 24, ORF America convened a closed-door workshop on the sidelines of the Cape Town Conversation as part of the IBSA+ Indonesia Green Transitions Initiative, an effort launched in March 2025 to strengthen collaboration among India, Brazil, South Africa (IBSA), and Indonesia on clean energy transitions. Building on the momentum of consecutive IBSA+Indonesia G20 presidencies, this initiative seeks to embed Global South priorities in the global energy transition agenda and advance practical cooperation across climate finance, technology development, and industrial competitiveness.

The workshop brought together 25 senior policymakers, energy experts, civil society leaders, and government representatives from across the four countries. The discussion aimed to identify actionable strategies and pathways for institutional cooperation and long-term competitiveness. This workshop built on the takeaways from the initiative’s June 2025 convening in Washington, D.C., during which participants mapped shared ambitions, energy transition achievements, and identified key areas for cooperation. Insights from that convening were published in an ORF America report, IBSA+Indonesia Energy Transitions: Mapping Shared Ambitions and Challenges. The workshop at Cape Town marked a shift from identifying challenges to recommending practical pathways for cooperation. As the South African G20 presidency came to a close, IBSA+ Indonesia stakeholders gathered to articulate the need for continued coordination that can shape global standards, mobilize financing, and accelerate a more just and resilient green transition.

Participants agreed that the next phase of the IBSA+ Indonesia initiative must move beyond dialogue and towards sustained, coordinated implementation using existing tools and frameworks. A central priority emerged — balancing global commitments with the development of national needs. Attendees emphasized operationalizing existing mechanisms, such as multilateral development bank project pipelines, blended finance platforms, and relevant G20 workstreams, by aligning timelines, clarifying roles, and coordinating country-level action, rather than creating new structures. Strengthening trade and economic linkages across IBSA+ Indonesia was also highlighted, with practical steps including harmonizing standards, easing market access procedures, and consolidating investment promotion to reinforce emerging value chains and anchor longer-term collaborations. 

Another key theme was the need to set clear standards for technology and finance. Interoperable taxonomies, predictable ESG frameworks, and simplified certification processes were identified as essential to reducing transaction costs and unlocking affordable capital. Participants emphasized that IBSA+Indonesia could play a leading role by co-developing draft taxonomy modules aligned with common definitions of “green” activities, coordinating with stock exchanges to harmonize ESG disclosure standards, and piloting streamlined certification for renewable components across the four countries.

Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) inclusion emerged as a clear priority. Participants highlighted practical mechanisms such as pooled procurement systems, shared supplier databases, and simplified compliance pathways that allow small firms to meet standards without excessive administrative burdens. Integrating MSMEs into supply chains is essential for making the energy transition both equitable and scalable.

Finally, participants emphasized that genuine co-creation depends on access to people, knowledge, and resources. Expanding people-to-people exchanges, building shared knowledge platforms, and facilitating joint investment initiatives were seen as essential for deepening trust and accelerating learning. Operational steps discussed included launching fellowships and technical exchanges, while reducing visa and mobility barriers that remain a major constraint among these countries. Streamlined visa processes for researchers, engineers, and officials involved in green transition cooperation were strongly recommended. Coordinated R&D efforts and targeted skills development — such as joint testing facilities and cross-country vocational training — were also highlighted as important ways to translate these energy transition ambitions into concrete outcomes.

Taken together, these priorities create a clear roadmap for action — empowering IBSA+Indonesia to influence global standards, accelerate reforms at home, and lead a more just, competitive, and resilient green transition across the Global South.

Drawing on the insights from these workshops and complementary consultations, ORF America will release a special report in February 2026 outlining key action priorities and concrete pathways for IBSA+Indonesia coordination on green transitions.

Participants 

• A'aron Adah John, Center for Climate Action, Innovation and Engagement

• Raul Alfaro-Pelico, Lancaster University 

• Caroline Vecci Arkalji, ORF America

• Armando Ayala, Southern Transitions

• Jenitha Badul, South Africa Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE)

• Dimas Bangun Fiddiansyah, PLN - Indonesian Power Utility Company

• Tatiana Cymbalista, Manesco Law Firm

• Saliem Fakir, African Climate Foundation (ACF)

• Danielle Grave, African Climate Foundation (ACF)

• Lauren Hermanus, Southern Transitions 

• Adejoh Idoko Momoh, Kaduna State Government, Nigeria

• Prayank Jain, The Sustainability, Equity, and Diversity Fund (SED)

• Dhruva Jaishankar, ORF America

• Paul Katz, Jain Family Institute

• Tirthankar Mandal, World Resources Institute -India 

• Kenneth Milanzi, Absa Group

• Philani Mthembu, Institute for Global Dialogue (IGD)

• Medha Prasanna, ORF America

• Shuva Raha, Council on Energy, Environment, and Water (CEEW)

• Stefania Relva, E+ Energy Transition

• Mariana Rondon, Plataforma CIPÓ

• Nakul Sharma, Third Generation Environmentalism (E3G)

• Prabhat Upadhyaya, African Climate Foundation (ACF)

• Veda Vaidyanathan, Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP)

• Piyush Verma, ORF America

• Julia Wanjiru Nikiema, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

On October 23, ORF America launched its Future of Energy Breakfasts series with a roundtable discussion on the energy and artificial intelligence nexus. 

AI is rapidly transforming how energy is generated, delivered, and consumed. By improving forecasting, enhancing grid performance, and enabling smarter demand management, AI can strengthen the security, resilience, and affordability of energy systems. At the same time, AI’s growth presents new challenges. Expanding data centers, cloud services, and advanced computing applications are driving unprecedented electricity demand. Managing this demand — without compromising reliability, affordability, or security goals — has become a critical policy issue. Beyond U.S. borders, there is also an opportunity to forge strategic partnerships — sharing American strengths in AI-energy applications while learning from global experiences. Collaboration with allies such as India and with partners across the Global South can ensure that AI’s promise in energy strengthens resilience, competitiveness, and security worldwide.

Key takeaways included:

• Convergence of Sectors. There is growing convergence between the energy and AI industries — major energy companies are investing in AI capabilities, while big tech firms are entering the power generation and supply space.

• Surge in Electricity Demand. AI-driven data centers are emerging as major energy consumers, contributing to the next big surge in global electricity demand alongside the electrification of transport, cooling, and industry.

• Emerging Private Power Ecosystems. In regions with weak or slow-moving utilities, hyperscalers are creating parallel ecosystems — building their own generation, transmission, and data infrastructure to ensure reliability.

• Short-Term vs. Long-Term Solutions. While advanced nuclear and other power options are gaining interest for AI workloads, large-scale deployment remains at least 5–7 years away, leaving current supply gaps unresolved.

• Equity and Global Access. The rapid growth in AI-related power demand risks leaving behind countries with underdeveloped grids. Expanding equitable access to both reliable electricity and AI capabilities is crucial for inclusive growth.

• Operational Efficiency through AI. AI applications in grid operations are already improving efficiency, reducing peak loads, and enhancing the integration of renewable energy — proving the technology’s value beyond consumption.

• Capacity and Governance. Building AI literacy among grid engineers and embedding AI–energy equity in forums like the G20 and MDB agendas will be essential to align innovation with sustainability and fairness.

• Policy Coherence. Achieving the full potential of the AI–energy nexus will require greater policy coherence — aligning energy, AI, critical minerals, and industrial strategies so that innovation, infrastructure, and supply chains evolve in sync rather than in silos.

Speakers

• Welcome Remarks: Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director, ORF America

• Amb. Geoff Pyatt, Senior Managing Director, McLarty Associates and Former Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources

• Govind Shivkumar, Director, Omidyar Network

• Jennifer Schuch-Page, Managing Principal - Energy and Sustainability, The Asia Group

• Moderator: Piyush Verma, Senior Fellow, ORF America

Participants

• Jeffrey Bean, ORF America

• Gregory Bowman, Siemens Government Technologies

• Travis Brubaker, E3G

• Kashvi Chandok, Third Way

• Amy Conroy, Shell

• Trinisa Fung, FGS Global

• Noah Gordon, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• Douglas Hengel, Johns Hopkins University

• Abigail Hunter, SAFE

• Gabby Hyman, World Resources Institute

• Tina Jeffress, Panasonic

• Lorin Kavanaugh-Ulku, Global Energy Alliance

• Camorah King, Clean Energy Buyers Association

• Shashwat Kumar, Center for Strategic and International Studies

• Tony Lodge, Independent 

• Jiwan Malik, World Bank Group

• Alex Maranville, Energy Futures Initiative

• Doug Miller, Energy Peace Partners

• Anamika Mishra, Embassy of India 

• Anindya Mishra, FICCI

• Parth Mulay, Johns Hopkins (SAIS)

• Tanya Nagrath, ITI

• Satvik Pendyala, AEI

• Matt Piotrowski, Climate Adviser

• Medha Prasanna, ORF America

• Priscila Putzulu, McLarty Associates

• Megan Roberts, United Nations Development Programme

• Adrian Rouse, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

• Sara Schonhardt, E&E News

• Matt Schubert, FGS Global

• Jennifer Schuch-Page, The Asia Group

• Akshat Sogani, Johns Hopkins (SAIS)

• Holly Stevens, McLarty Associates

• Ashwini Thakare, World Bank Group

• Telmen Altanshagai, ORF America

On June 11, ORF America hosted a closed-door workshop on Mapping Clean Energy Commitments and Ambitions in IBSA+Indonesia. This workshop marked the launch of a year-long dialogue series that leverages the momentum of the consecutive G20 presidencies of India, Brazil, South Africa (IBSA), and Indonesia, for an equitable green transition beyond 2025.

Starting with Indonesia’s G20 presidency in 2022, followed by India, Brazil, and South Africa, there has been a significant window of opportunity for the Global South to use the G20 agenda to elevate its concerns, needs, and ambitions. Brazil’s COP30 and BRICS presidencies in 2025 present additional opportunities to cement Global South priorities and leadership for a more equitable energy transition, furthering the policy continuity attained over the G20 presidencies into the COP process and IBSA format as well.

Even beyond the chairmanship of the G20, these countries - Brazil, India, Indonesia, and South Africa - have the potential to ensure the priorities of the Global South remain a part of the agenda in Latin America, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Africa, respectively. IBSA+Indonesia holds great potential as a grouping not only because of G20 leadership, but also due to wider political acceptance, which allows for more flexibility and less pushback towards their agendas and initiatives.

The June 11th workshop gathered leaders in civil society, academia, the private sector, and international finance institutions to develop a roadmap for sustained Global South collaboration on clean energy transitions, climate finance, technological innovation, and diversification of clean energy supply chains, particularly in the lead-up to the 2026 U.S. G20 presidency. The discussion focused on:

• Mapping clean energy policies, commitments, and institutional synergies in IBSA+Indonesia

• Identifying opportunities and key challenges in current energy transitions

• Outlining actionable priorities to feed into solution-oriented dialogues later in the year

Participants identified common themes and narratives amongst the energy transitions in India, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia. In these countries, climate equity and justice across social groups and geographies are central to transition narratives. Meanwhile, Global North transition narratives are dominated by mitigation strategies that clash against Global South consensus that transitions must be integrated with development goals and energy access. Achieving these goals requires institutional harmony and a whole-of-government approach, which is difficult due to weak cross-ministerial alignment and federalism in some cases. As these Global South countries prepare to cede the G20 presidency to the United States in 2026, speakers argued for tactical implementation over reinvention—focusing on operationalizing and accelerating existing mechanisms like multilateral development bank pipelines and concessional loans, rather than pushing for new, politically non-viable commitments.   

Climate finance is increasingly understood not as aid, but as a geoeconomic tool intertwined with trade, security, and industrial transformation. In this context, participants agreed that the private sector actors are more important than ever, however, current climate finance mechanisms are too fragmented, conditionality-laden, and investor-averse to drive equitable transitions at scale. While country climate finance taxonomies are becoming increasingly available to investors, they are still lacking in clarity and interoperability—elements crucial for the participation of global investors. The politicization of corporate climate strategies is chilling private participation, especially where risk-adjusted returns are unclear. India, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia can do much more to set the agenda, shape ESG norms and define energy transitions on their own terms. Suggestions to counter this included setting up a joint IBSA+Indonesia sovereign fund to consolidate South-South financial sovereignty and climate investment.

To address challenges to secure low-cost climate technologies and diversify supply chains, participants recommended the following policy priorities for IBSA+Indonesia: 

1. Supply-Demand Alignment: Coordinated grid development, tariff design, and generation planning are essential to avoid stranded assets.

2. Regulatory Harmonization: Interoperable standards across countries are required to accelerate finance and reduce transaction costs.

3. Workforce Development: Technical training and local capacity must underpin technology diffusion.

4. Accessible Finance: Financial architectures must lower entry barriers, particularly for small firms and decentralized projects.

5. Strategic Industrial Policy: Countries must identify core value chains and deploy state capacity toward long-term competitive positioning.

Participants:

• Raul Alfaro-Pelico, Climate Investment Funds

• Himani Bhatt, Climate Policy Initiative 

• Travis Brubaker, E3G

• Alexander Csanadi, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• Aude Darnal, Stimson Center

• Maiara Folly, Plataforma CIPÓ

• Kalina Gibson, Center for American Progress

• Meera Gopal, Asia Society Policy Institute

• Akanksha Golchha, Center for Strategic & International Studies

• Amangul Hydyrova, McLarty Associates

• Dhruva Jaishankar, Observer Research Foundation America

• Sakshi Kataria, Center for Strategic & International Studies

• Kate Logan, Asia Society Policy Institute

• Anamika Mishra, Embassy of India, Washington, DC

• Anit Mukherjee, Observer Research Foundation America

• Amitaksha Nag, Datamuse LLC

• Andreyka Natalegawa, Center for Strategic & International Studies

• Jide Olutoke, Climate Policy Initiative

• Jennifer Schuch-Page, The Asia Group

• Shayak Sengupta, Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University

• Salvatore Serravalle, E3G

• Abidah Billah Setyowati, The World Bank 

• Yujie Shen, The World Bank

• Rahul Srinivasan, Sustainable Energy for All

• Carlos G. Sucre, Inter-American Development Bank

• Abhinav Subramaniam, Center for Strategic & International Studies

• Laird Treiber, Center for Strategic & International Studies

• Piyush Verma, United Nations Development Programme

• Emma Wong, Albright Stonebridge Group

• Courtney Weatherby, Stimson Center

On Monday, May 19, ORF America hosted a virtual launch of “A Blueprint to Advance the U.S.-India Energy Security Partnership”. This special report builds on the outcomes from closed-door workshops hosted by ORF America, which brought together Indian and American energy and climate experts, and proposes a U.S.-India Strategic Energy and Industrial Partnership.

To deepen bilateral collaboration on energy security, the report recommends:

• Research partnerships to leapfrog to next-generation technologies; 

• Trade missions and technology transfers in key sectors, such as automotive innovation and advanced battery manufacturing;

• Public-private partnerships to expand lithium-ion battery production and ancillary component industries; and

• Bilateral engagement between governments and financial institutions to fund and grow strategic sectors.

Drawing on the workshop outcomes, it is clear that the United States and India are best positioned to leverage their respective strengths and their bilateral relationship to: 1) develop and deploy energy technologies at scale at home and abroad; 2) reduce concentration in energy supply chains and manufacturing of new energy technologies of the future; and 3) continue to strengthen the both the domestic industrial base and the industrial corridor between the two countries.

Speakers:

• Opening Remarks: Medha Prasanna, Program Coordinator and Junior Fellow, ORF America

• Aditya Ramji, Director, Global South Clean Transportation Center, University of California, Davis

• Moderator: Anit Mukherjee, Senior Fellow, ORF America

On May 1, ORF America hosted policy experts for a discussion on critical minerals, whose expansive applications in defense, tech, and energy, impact national security and present some very pressing geopolitical questions. The conversation included insights on the U.S. Critical Minerals strategy, mineral processing streams, mineral categorization, and dual use minerals. 

This was the 13th convening of ORF America’s Briefings & Beer series, which offers young professionals in D.C. the opportunity to informally engage with distinguished foreign policy experts and network with peers.

Speakers: 

• Leilani Gonzalez, Chief of Staff and Policy Director, Zero Emissions Transportation Association

• John Jacobs, Senior Policy Analyst (Energy), Bipartisan Policy Center

• Mahnaz Khan, Vice President of Policy, Critical Mineral Supply Chains, Silverado Policy Accelerator and Nonresident Senior Fellow GeoTech Center, Atlantic Council 

• Moderator: Medha Prasanna, Program Coordinator and Junior Fellow, ORF America

Conference on “Advancing the Development Agenda in the Global South”

Hosted by ORF America and the Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP)

The 2025 World Bank-IMF Spring Meetings are taking place in uncertain times for the global economy. The sweeping tariffs announced by the U.S. government have upended one of the main pillars of globalization. In addition, the rising debt burden in both developed and developing economies, the cutback in development assistance by the United States and Europe, and the expanding gap between the need for resources to combat climate change and its availability all add to the sense of uncertainty that policymakers would need to navigate over the coming years. In this changed scenario, how can the developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia — loosely known as the Global South — find solutions to address issues of economic growth, equity and sustainability?

Keynote: Rethinking the Development Agenda amid Global Economic Turmoil

• Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Former Deputy Chairman of Planning Commission, Government of India and Distinguished Fellow, CSEP

Session 1: Institutional Reform and Debt Sustainability

• Auguste Tano Kouamé, Country Director for India, The World Bank

• Rakesh Mohan, President Emeritus and Distinguished Fellow, CSEP

• Moderator: Udaibir Das, Distinguished Senior Fellow, ORF America

Session 2: Advancing SDGs, Food and Health Security

• Eduardo Gonzalez-Pier, Former Deputy Minister for Health, Federal Government of Mexico

• Purnima Menon, Senior Director, Food and Nutrition Policy, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

• Moderator: Sandhya Venkateswaran, Senior Fellow, Human Development and Health Policy, CSEP

Session 3: Increasing Just and Equitable Climate Finance

• Rogério Studart, Senior Fellow, Brazilian Center of International Relations (CEBRI)

• Ridhika Batra, Vice President, Corporate Affairs (Americas), The Mahindra Group

• Moderator: Anit Mukherjee, Senior Fellow, ORF America

Event Summary

The keynote address delivered by Dr. Montek Singh Ahluwalia – one of the architects of India’s economic reforms in 1991 - focused on rethinking the debt, human development and climate challenges amidst the current global economic turmoil. His remarks underlined that these issues are not new. Instead, the pace of change is more intense than in the past, lending urgency to the calls for the reform multilateral organizations, global trade, development assistance and raising climate finance, in addition to confronting the challenges of labor displacement due to technological change.

The first session delved into institutional reform and debt sustainability. Over 60 countries are poor, fragile, and lack access to affordable capital. Coupled with issues of climate change, these countries are forced to choose between debt service or economic development. Speakers highlighted the fact that external aid can sometimes exacerbate debt problems through currency appreciation thereby handicapping exports from developing countries. Therefore, reform must focus more on proactive steps like redesigning public financial management, rebalancing risk, and shifting from reaction to resilience in economic policymaking. Additionally, both borrowers and lenders need to be more transparent to enable multilateral institutions to identify needs and priorities enabling them to bridge the gap.

The second session explored issues of SDGs, food, and health security. These continue to matter to the developing world and here indeed is the importance of developing countries or “South-South cooperation”. For example, countries in Latin America have addressed malnutrition through regional cooperation and can share this expertise with other countries and regions of the Global South. Going forward, developing countries should refine their capacity for more collective action in meeting the SDGs, creating platforms for knowledge exchange and access to resources that are becoming increasingly scare in the current global scenario.

The third session explored how to increase access to just and equitable climate finance. Key to addressing this issue is to define the respective roles of the public and private sectors. Sovereign financing through both domestic resource mobilization and access to external financing can send a positive signal to the private sector to invest at scale, focus on high-impact sectors and identify projects for collaboration. In the long run, this can drive innovation and accelerate adoption of new technologies. With the withdrawal of the United States from the COP process, the upcoming COP 30 meeting in Belém can drive more collective action from the Global South, especially Brazil, India, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, to mobilize climate finance and access to technology in an uncertain geopolitical environment.

On February 27, ORF America hosted a private roundtable to explore how the United States can cooperate with partners and allies to diversify and strengthen critical mineral supply chains. The discussion sought to address the effectiveness of alternative critical minerals supply solutions, the impact of China’s export controls on clean-tech markets and industries, and whether existing partnerships must be reevaluated to consider long-term goals and potential domestic contradictions.

Critical minerals are key inputs into advanced technology manufacturing and products, including crucial advances in emerging energy technology and electric vehicles. With friction and competition between the United States and China continuing in critical and emerging technologies advancement, export controls (as well as the threat of higher tariffs) have increased tensions. Over the same period, the People’s Republic of China initially implemented several soft licensing controls with an explicit ban on exports to the United States of gallium, germanium, and antimony, as well as restrictions on high-purity graphite exports, with further limits implemented in early 2025. 

The United States, allied governments, U.S. companies, and allied and partner companies, well aware of China’s chokehold over raw mining or processing of certain critical minerals, rare earths, and critical materials, established the Mineral Security Partnership to address these challenges through partners like Japan, Australia, the European Union, India, and many others as well as exploring domestic discovery, mining, and processing options. However, many large economies' medium-term needs for critical minerals in clean energy face supply risks (e.g., import dependence, availability to meet demand) for several minerals. 

The roundtable was attended by officials from the U.S. Department of State, members of the European Commission, representatives from the diplomatic corps, business groups, think tanks, and consultancy firms.

Speakers: 

• Moderator: Jeffrey D. Bean, Program Manager, ORF America

• Barbara Glowacka, Member of the Cabinet, Office of the Commissioner for Energy Kadri Simson, European Commission 

• Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director, ORF America

• Mahnaz Khan, Vice President of Policy, Critical Supply Chains, Silverado Policy Accelerator

• Eike Klapper, First Secretary - Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs/Trade and Agriculture Section, Delegation of the European Union to the United States 

• Michael Newbill, Senior Advisor, Critical Mineral Supply Chains, U.S. Department of State

• Amb. Geoffrey R. Pyatt, Former Assistant Secretary of State, ENR Bureau, U.S. Department of State

• Aditya Ramji, Director, India ZEV Center at UC Davis 

Michael Newbill, Senior Advisor, Critical Mineral Supply chains, U.S Department of State, delivered keynote remarks on the importance of fostering U.S.-India climate cooperation and the active engagement of emerging leaders on climate and energy issues.

Following his remarks, the cohort presented the volume's nine chapters, covering critical topics like capacity building for climate action, green hydrogen, methane emissions, urban planning, electric vehicles, rooftop solar, mineral supply chains, digital public infrastructure, and the intersection of climate and health.

During Climate Week NYC, ORF America partnered with Sequoia Climate Foundation and the Council on Foreign Relations to convene experts and practitioners for a dialogue on global decarbonization and its role in advancing a wide range of policy objectives.

Speakers:

• Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for the United Kingdom’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero

• Mari Elka Pangestu, Indonesia’s Special Envoy for Climate Finance

• John Podesta, Senior Advisor to the President for International Climate Policy and Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation

ORF America, in partnership with ClimateWorks Foundation, hosted a workshop to explore the current scope, role, and impacts of green technology and finance in the Global South. The event emphasized the role of the G20, particularly India's 2023 G20 presidency, and the potential for partnerships between the Global North and Global South to create secure, diversified clean energy supply chains. The Indian G20 presidency emphasized the need to boost emerging climate and clean energy technologies, expand energy manufacturing and supply chains, and attract private investment for climate change mitigation. The workshop addressed how partnerships with India, the Global North, and the Global South could overcome challenges identified during the G20 presidency amid geopolitical and geo-economic fragmentation. Discussions focused on the relevance of Indian G20 outcomes, the role of future G20 presidencies in climate finance and technology priorities, and the implications of partnerships on green technology, finance, and manufacturing in the Global South.

The workshop began with a discussion of outcomes of the Indian G20 presidency and their relevance for India’s role in diversifying clean energy supply chains in the hydrogen, solar and battery sectors. Discussions focused on the challenges of policy continuity between G20 presidencies and the need for mechanisms to track G20 declarations. In clean hydrogen energy, India needs a multipronged approach to reduce its green hydrogen production costs. In the area of battery and solar manufacturing discussions centered on the need for more concessional financing for capital-intensive facilities. Lastly, emphasis was placed on the varying levels of technology and experience among countries and the necessity for large-scale financing initiatives, highlighting differences in focus between the Global North and South.

In the second session, the focus shifted to sustainable economic development and climate resilience, highlighting the overlap between sustainable development goals and climate change mitigation. The importance of leveraging finance for infrastructure and integrating new technologies in emerging markets was addressed. The discussion touched on Brazil's renewable energy sectors and potential collaboration with India in green hydrogen efforts. Key takeaways included the necessity for affordable long-term financing and developing local capital markets to support climate initiatives.

The final session explored the dynamics of partnerships with the Global North. It focused on critical minerals and their development for extraction, highlighting the necessity of effective implementation, trust-building, and using the G20 as a platform. The importance of mobilizing investments through various mechanisms, including African countries, and addressing knowledge gaps in mineral extraction were addressed. The discussion also emphasized better regional representation in global supply chains, particularly in Southeast Asia and Latin America, and leveraging existing partnerships to drive investments in key areas such as infrastructure and technology in the Global South.

Overall, the workshop offered an overview of the current landscape of partnerships in green technology and finance in the Global South, outlining the challenges and opportunities to fostering greater cooperation and investment across diverse regions and sectors.

Speakers: 

• Siddarthan Balasubramania, Principal Strategist & Senior Director, International Engagement, ClimateWorks Foundation (Keynote Speaker)

• Pepukaye Bardouille, Director of Bridgetown Initiative and Special Advisor on Climate Resilience, Prime Minister’s Office, Government of Barbados

• Saliem Fakir, Executive Director, African Climate Foundation

• Mahnaz Khan, Vice President of Policy, Silverado Policy Accelerator

• Roberto Kishinami, Specialist Leader in Climate and Energy, Instituto Clima e Sociedade

• Anit Mukherjee, Senior Fellow, Global Economics & Development, ORF America

• Danae Pauli, Senior Advisor, Partnership of Global Infrastructure Investment, The White House

• Diego Rivera Rivota, Senior Research Associate, Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University

• Raj Sawhney, Chief Executive Officer, Clearview Strategic Partners

• Bella Tonkogony, Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury

• Prabhat Upadhyaya, Former Senior Policy Specialist, G20 Secretariat, Ministry of External Affairs, India

• Gregory Wischer, Principal, Dei Gratia Minerals

• Moderator: Shayak Sengupta, Fellow, Energy & Climate, ORF America

ORF America launched the inaugural cohort of the U.S. - India Emerging Climate Leaders Program, an effort to strengthen the energy and climate relationship between the United States and India in 2024. The network of 20 young leaders from the U.S. and India will raise awareness of climate challenges, propose and develop joint climate solutions, and identify and elevate diverse voices. The nine-month professional development program will include: seminars with notable experts, writing workshops, as well as a five-day in-person study tour to India.

In a virtual induction, ORF America Executive Director Dhruva Jaishankar welcomed the cohort by emphasizing that the U.S. - India Emerging Climate Leaders program is part of the bet on the long-term U.S. - India partnership. Deputy Assistant Secretary for India at the U.S. Department of State, Nancy Jackson, reflected on President Biden’s remarks calling the U.S. - India relationship “the defining partnership of the 21st century.” While recognizing the efforts between both countries on an intergovernmental level, she highlighted the importance of efforts such as the ECL to further secure the partnership through collaborative dialogues between stakeholders in non-policy circles such as media, finance, technology, and the private sector. Karthik Iyer, a Counselor at the Indian Embassy in Washington D.C. and the first Designated Officer for Climate Change, stressed the need for civil society and private sector partnerships to develop climate change solutions at scale.

Following speaker remarks and program overview, participants introduced themselves and shared the specific topics they wished to explore further over the next nine months. 

Speakers:

• Karthik Gurunanthan Iyer, Counselor (Political), U.S. Embassy of India, Washington D.C. 

• Nancy Izzo Jackson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for India, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Department of State

• Dhruva Jaishankar, Executive Director, ORF  America

• Moderator: Shayak Sengupta, Fellow, Energy & Climate, ORF America