What Is the Future of Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)?

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is a multi-nation investment treaty which protects investors from the nationalization of assets and other arbitrary and discriminatory state conduct made at the expense of investments in the energy sector. Most importantly, it provides a means for investors to make claims against member states for breaches of their obligations through international arbitration. Until recent withdrawals, members included Japan, the EU and the European states, the UK, and the former Soviet states.

The ECT is perhaps best known in the context of the many (50+) arbitration claims made against Spain in recent years, including by Japanese investors. These claims came about due to Spanish legislation that was detrimental to renewable infrastructure investments. Essentially, the Spanish government reduced the tariffs paid to renewable projects for the electricity they produced, rendering many projects untenable. This example suggests that the ECT could be an important protection for investors in the coming years as huge investment is made into the energy and renewables sectors. With the ECT in place, investors will take comfort in knowing that governments cannot arbitrarily change the playing field.

However, despite the obvious benefits in supporting and therefore encouraging investment, many commentators see the treaty as having a chilling effect on regulation and as an obstacle to climate-friendly policymaking. They argue that the ECT restricts legislators tackling climate change. As a result, many European countries, frustrated at efforts to negotiate and update the treaty, have recently withdrawn, or indicated they intend to withdraw. This includes, most recently, the UK. 

Sunset provisions in the treaty mean these withdrawals will not be effective for another 20 years. But the future of the treaty remains troubled and its relevance is diminishing. There is every chance the ECT will not exist in 20 years.  

This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

What Is the Future of Energy Charter Treaty (ECT)?

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is a multi-nation investment treaty which protects investors from the nationalization of assets and other arbitrary and discriminatory state conduct made at the expense of investments in the energy sector. Most importantly, it provides a means for investors to make claims against member states for breaches of their obligations through international arbitration. Until recent withdrawals, members included Japan, the EU and the European states, the UK, and the former Soviet states.

The ECT is perhaps best known in the context of the many (50+) arbitration claims made against Spain in recent years, including by Japanese investors. These claims came about due to Spanish legislation that was detrimental to renewable infrastructure investments. Essentially, the Spanish government reduced the tariffs paid to renewable projects for the electricity they produced, rendering many projects untenable. This example suggests that the ECT could be an important protection for investors in the coming years as huge investment is made into the energy and renewables sectors. With the ECT in place, investors will take comfort in knowing that governments cannot arbitrarily change the playing field.

However, despite the obvious benefits in supporting and therefore encouraging investment, many commentators see the treaty as having a chilling effect on regulation and as an obstacle to climate-friendly policymaking. They argue that the ECT restricts legislators tackling climate change. As a result, many European countries, frustrated at efforts to negotiate and update the treaty, have recently withdrawn, or indicated they intend to withdraw. This includes, most recently, the UK. 

Sunset provisions in the treaty mean these withdrawals will not be effective for another 20 years. But the future of the treaty remains troubled and its relevance is diminishing. There is every chance the ECT will not exist in 20 years.  

This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

News and Insights

Event

Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar

As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.

October 14, 2026

Publications

Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill

Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.

October 2026

Event

Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”

On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.

October 8, 2026

Event

Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference

On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.

October 7, 2026

Publications

The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine

Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.

October 5, 2026