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

You’d be forgiven for assuming that wind energy is a technologically stagnant field. After all, the sleek, three-blade turbine has defined the industry for nearly half a century. But even with over 1,000 gigawatts of wind generating capacity installed worldwide, there’s a group of innovators who still see substantial room for improvement.
The problems are myriad. There are places in the world where the conditions are too windy and too volatile for conventional turbines to handle. Wind farms must be sited near existing transportation networks, accessible to the trucks delivering the massive components, leaving vast areas with fantastic wind resources underdeveloped. Today’s turbines have around 1,500 unique parts, and the infrastructure needed to assemble and stand up a turbine’s multi-hundred-foot tower and blades is expensive— giant cranes don’t come cheap.
“We’ve only really ever tried one type of technology,” Neal Rickner, the CEO of the wind power startup Airloom Energy, told me. Now, he’s one of a few entrepreneurs trying a new approach.
Airloom’s system uses much-shorter vertical blades attached to an oval track that resembles a flat rollercoaster — no climbs or drops, just a horizontal loop composed of 58 unique parts. Wind propels the blades around the track, turning a vertical shaft that’s connected to an electricity-producing generator. That differs from conventional turbines, which spin on a vertical plane around a horizontal shaft, like a ferris wheel.
The system is significantly lower to the ground than today’s turbines and has the ability to capture wind from any direction, unlike conventional turbines, allowing for deployment in areas with shifting wind patterns. It promises to be mass manufacturable, cheap, and simple to transport and install, opening up the potential to build systems in a wider variety of geographies — everywhere from airports to remote or even mountainous regions.
Airloom’s CTO, Andrew Streett, brings a background in drone tech that Rickner said helped shape the architecture of Airloom’s blades. “It’s all known tech. And it’s not completely off the shelf, but Andrew’s done it on 17 other platforms,” he told me. Rickner himself spent years at GoogleX working on Makani, a now-defunct wind energy project that attempted to commercialize an airborne wind energy system. The concept involved attaching rotors to autonomous kites, which flew in high-altitude loops to capture wind energy.
That system ultimately proved too complicated, something Airloom’s founder Robert Lumley warned Rickner about a decade ago at an industry conference. As Rickner recalls, he essentially told him, “all of that flying stuff is too complicated. Put all that physics — which is great — put it on the ground, on a rail.” Rickner took the lesson to heart, and when Lumley recruited him to join Airloom’s team a few years ago, he said it felt like an ideal chance to apply all the knowledge he’d accumulated “around what it takes to bring a novel wind technology to a very stodgy market.”
Indeed, the industry has proven difficult to disrupt. While Airloom was founded in 2014, the startup is still in its early stages, though it’s attracted backing from some climate sector heavyweights. Lowercarbon Capital led its $7.5 million seed round in 2024, which also included participation from Breakthrough Energy Ventures. The company also secured $5 million in matching funds from the state of Wyoming, where it’s based, and a $1.25 million contract with the Department of Defense.
Things are moving now. In the coming months, Airloom is preparing to bring its pilot plant online in Wyoming, closely followed by a commercial demo. Rickner told me the plan is to begin construction on a commercial facility by July 4, the deadline for wind to receive federal tax credits.
“If you could just build wind without gigantic or heavy industrial infrastructure — cranes and the like —- you will open up huge parts of the world,” Rickner told me, citing both the Global South and vast stretches of rural America as places where the roads, bridges, cranes, and port infrastructure may be insufficient for transporting and assembling conventional turbines. While modern onshore installations can exceed 600 feet from the tower’s base to the blade’s tip, Airloom’s system is about a fifth that height. Its nimble assembly would also allow turbines to be sited farther from highways, potentially enabling a more “out of sight, out of mind” attitude among residents and passersby who might otherwise resist such developments.
The company expects some of its first installations to be co-located with — you guessed it — data centers, as tech giants are increasingly looking to circumvent lengthy grid interconnection queues by sourcing power directly from onsite renewables, an option Rickner said wasn’t seriously discussed until recently.
Even considering Trump’s cuts to federal incentives for wind, “I’d much rather be doing Airloom today than even a year ago,” Rickner told me. “Now, with behind-the-meter, you’ve got different financing options. You’ve got faster buildout timelines that actually meet a venture company, like Airloom. You can see it’s still a tough road, don’t get me wrong. But a year ago, if you said we’re just going to wait around seven years for the interconnection queue, no venture company is going to survive that.”
It’s certainly not the only company in the sector looking to benefit from the data center boom. But I was still surprised when Rickner pointed out that Airloom’s fundamental value proposition — enabling wind energy in more geographies — is similar to a company that at first glance appears to be in a different category altogether: Radia.
Valued at $1 billion, this startup plans to make a plane as long as a football field to carry blades roughly 30% to 40% longer than today’s largest onshore models. Because larger blades mean more power, Radia’s strategy could make wind energy feasible in low-wind regions or simply boost output where winds are strong. And while the company isn’t looking to become a wind developer itself, “if you look at their pitch, it is the Airloom pitch,” Rickner told me.
Will Athol, Radia’s director of business development, told me that by the time the company was founded in 2016, “it was becoming clear that ground-based infrastructure — bridges, tunnels, roads, that kind of thing — was increasingly limiting where you can deploy the best turbines,” echoing Airloom’s sentiments. So competitors in the wind industry teamed up, requesting logistics input from the aviation industry. Radia responded, and has since raised over $100 million as it works to achieve its first flight by 2030.
Hopefully by that point, the federal war on wind will be a thing of the past. “We see ourselves and wind energy as a longer term play,” Athol told me. Though he acknowledged that these have certainly been “eventful times for the wind industry” in the U.S., there’s also a global market eager for this tech. He sees potential in regions such as India and North Africa, where infrastructure challenges have made it tough to deploy large-scale turbines.
Neither Radia nor Airloom thinks its approach will render today’s turbines obsolete, or that other renewable resources will be completely displaced. “I think if you look at most utilities, they want a mix,” Rickner said. But he’s still pretty confident in Airloom’s potential to seriously alter an industry that’s long been considered mature and constrained to incremental gains.
“When Airloom is 100% successful,” he told me, “we will take a huge chunk of market share.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The state is poised to join California and Quebec in North America’s largest carbon market.
Washington State’s carbon market is about to get much bigger — and much cheaper.
In June, the state signed an historic agreement to link its cap-and-invest program with the California-Quebec market, which has operated jointly since 2014. The deal will further expand what’s already the world’s largest subnational carbon market, a move climate advocates are celebrating even as they expect it to lower Washington’s carbon price, and in turn the revenue it generates for statewide climate-related initiatives.
“Climate pollution does not stop at state borders or national borders, and so the more jurisdictions can work together, this is only a benefit for the climate,” Katelyn Roedner Sutter, California’s senior director at the Environmental Defense Fund, told me. “When you have a larger market, it is much more stable, it’s much more efficient, and you can achieve emission reductions at lower prices.”
At a moment when the Trump administration is actively rolling back federal climate policy, the linkage offers a glimpse of what states and regional governments can accomplish via cooperation. The newly expanded market is set to go live next year, once the jurisdictions complete a series of regulatory steps that will enable joint auctions. This involves regulators from all three regions selling an ever-declining number of emissions allowances — i.e. permits to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas — at a single price to a shared pool of bidders spanning the U.S.-Canada border. Ultimately, the Western Climate Initiative — a name that’s stuck even as it’s expanded geographically — will cover 80% to 85% of each market’s total emissions, including those from transportation, heating, power plants, and industrial facilities.
While emitters aren’t thrilled by the idea of carbon pricing, Dallas Burtraw, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank Resources for the Future, told me businesses in these regions are generally enthused by the market stability linkage provides. “They want reduced oscillations, reduced variability in what’s happening in climate policy,” he told me. “And I think linking with Washington adds a degree of credibility and certainty also to the California program.”
The idea is that the larger and more deeply integrated the markets become, the more durable they’ll be. Or as Burtraw put it, “it’s like joining rafts together in a storm.” Once businesses begin making long-term investments and building compliance strategies around a shared market — and state budgets come to depend on its expected revenue — it becomes much more difficult for a new leader to simply pull out.
Such a thing is not unprecedented — Ontario pulled out of the California-Quebec market at the beginning of 2018 after joining just six months earlier when a new conservative government took office and scrapped the program. But that type of political flip-flopping is unlikely in staunchly liberal Washington state, and the longer any jurisdiction remains part of a linked market, the more difficult it will become to unwind.
That’s proven true for the country’s only other major carbon market, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which covers fossil fuel power plant emissions across 11 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states. The initiative, which has been in place since 2009, has weathered multiple gubernatorial transitions and party turnovers, as well as state exits and reentries. New Jersey and Virginia, for example, have each left only to later rejoin. But through all the churn, the core market has remained intact.
For its part, Washington has been ideologically committed to a regionally linked carbon market since it passed the Climate Commitment Act, its cap-and-invest law, in 2021. The legislation explicitly directed the state’s Department of Ecology to “seek to enter into linkage agreements with other jurisdictions” to expand emission-reduction opportunities and lower compliance costs. But because the market didn’t formally launch until 2023, after which the state spent years modeling the effects of linkage and gathering community input, the agency wasn’t ready to formalize the linkage agreement until this summer.
“We’ve never thought that Washington was a big enough economy on its own to sustain the kind of greenhouse gas reductions that our statute calls for,” Washington State Representative Joe Fitzgibbon told me. Those ambitious goals include complete decarbonization of the electricity sector by 2045 and a 95% cut in economy-wide emissions by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. “That was really only going to be possible in a linked market.”
Fitzgibbon, like most climate advocates in Washington, has been a vocal supporter of market linkage — even though it will mean less revenue for Washington. Analysts expect the state’s relatively high carbon price, which currently hovers around $60 to $70 per metric ton of greenhouse gas emissions, to converge with the much lower price in the California-Quebec market, which sits at around $28. Since the latter market is roughly five times larger than Washington’s, modeling indicates the combined price will settle far closer to California and Quebec’s current level than Washington’s.
Whatever the final figure, it is sure to be strikingly different from Resources for the Future’s estimate of the true social cost of carbon: $185 per metric ton. But while climate advocates might theoretically favor higher energy prices to incentivize emissions reductions, Burtraw argues that achieving climate targets as cheaply as possible is critical, particularly at a time when affordability concerns dominate the political conversation.
“Linking will help identify the most cost-effective way to achieve emission reductions, and that’s going to reduce the cost for households,” he told me.
Legislators like Fitzgibbon knew Washington’s model wasn’t tenable in the long run, which was why the state planned to link its market from the beginning. But in the meantime, it’s certainly enjoyed the revenue generated by these costly allowances, which have helped fund billions of dollars in clean energy and electrification projects, public transit, EV incentives, and targeted investments in the low-income communities hit hardest by pollution. Once linkage takes effect, a report by Resources for the Future indicates that Washington’s cap-and-invest revenue could fall by as much as $25 billion cumulatively by 2045, compared with a scenario in which the markets remained separate.
That’s something the state has long anticipated. “The goal of the program was always to be first and foremost an emissions reducing program, not a revenue generator,” Fitzgibbon told me. “We expected that the windfall that the state of Washington received in 2023 and 2024, when the program was new and when allowance prices were really high was a temporary thing, and we tried to spend the money on one-time expenditures.”
While he interprets the loss in revenue as a sign that the program is working as intended, he does acknowledge it will force some difficult decisions, likely involving cuts to the state’s Department of Transportation, which he told me has been the single largest beneficiary of allowance auction revenue.
The linkage tradeoff also extends to regional emissions. RFF projects Washington will emit an additional 8 million to 14 million metric tons by 2045 compared with an unlinked market, as lower prices encourage businesses to buy allowances rather than funding long-term emissions reductions strategies. The think tank forecasts that the state’s emissions will still decline overall, however. And because higher prices in California will drive deeper emissions cuts there, RFF estimates the linked markets will ultimately deliver more than 50 million additional tons of reductions overall, producing a substantial net climate benefit.
“Anything that one jurisdiction does by itself as an island will be important, will be valuable, but it will be insufficient to achieve the goal that motivates Washingtonians or Californians to take this policy initiative in the first place,” Burtraw told me, referring to slowing climate change overall. Progress on this front, he said, “can only be successful if these leadership jurisdictions are successful in propagating climate policy to other jurisdictions.” When I asked people which states they thought would be next to join, the most common answers were Oregon and New York.
Not all climate advocates are fully onboard with the linked market, though. Some environmental justice advocates argue it does little for the air pollution burdening their communities — because while regional CO2 emissions may improve overall, merging markets doesn’t guarantee reductions in pollutants with more localized effects, such as PM2.5, sulfur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides. That’s especially true in Washington, where emitters will soon have the option to purchase cheaper out-of-state allowances instead of cutting local carbon emissions — and the co-pollutants released alongside them.
The Department of Ecology’s report laying out the legal and technical case for market linkage states that the agency “did not find evidence that carbon markets exacerbate air quality disparities generally, nor that linkage specifically would exacerbate air quality disparities.” It also points out that Washington’s Climate Commitment Act still requires that at least 35% of its revenue benefits vulnerable populations in the communities most affected by pollution — though as noted, that revenue is set to decline sharply under the combined market.
At any rate, now that Washington, California, and Quebec have all signed the formal linkage agreement, the focus has largely shifted to the remaining regulatory to-do list. Washington’s rulemaking, which will make its program technically compatible with the shared market, is expected to wrap up next month. California has a longer process ahead: The governor must first certify that the state meets the legal requirements for linkage, triggering a review and rulemaking process at the California Air Resources Board, which could stretch into 2027. Quebec, meanwhile, must complete its own regulatory steps to formally recognize Washington’s allowances.
Legislators aren’t saying exactly when in 2027 they expect the market to launch. Caroline Halter, a communications manager at the Department of Ecology, told me it should happen before November, the deadline for Washington emitters to submit their allowances and offset credits from the previous four-year compliance period.
But the finish line is coming into view. And while debate over details remains, there’s broad agreement among market economists and most climate advocates that a larger, linked system is a net win for the planet. And the case for cooperation is only getting stronger.
“States and provinces working together to address climate pollution when we have this complete lack of leadership at the federal level — it is more important than ever,” EDF California’s Roedner Sutter told me. “This is the time for climate ambitious states to be joining forces.”
On America’s Great Corridors of Commerce, Texas geothermal, and North Dakota carbon capture
Current conditions: Just a week after Tropical Storm Lala devastated the Big Island, a new tropical rainstorm is barreling toward Hawaii, threatening more flooding, strong winds, and choppy seas by this weekend • Forecasters reduced their estimates for the number of storms in this year’s Atlantic hurricane season as a particularly powerful El Niño’s effects ripple out from the Pacific and stir up winds that prevent hurricanes from forming • The air quality index in Kuching, Malaysia, hit 175, making the capital of Sarawak state the most polluted major city in the world this week as winds carry smoke from peatland and forests in neighboring Indonesian Borneo.
Data centers’ appetite for gas-fired electricity could, after years of flatlining and even declining, send emissions from the United States’ power sector soaring by at least 20%. That’s according to a new analysis by Bloomberg. Developers have proposed building at least 99 bespoke gas plants across the country that would, if run to industry-standard rates, emit about 318 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Given that the whole U.S. electric power sector emitted about 1,485 million metric tons of carbon last year, this one sliver of the data center industry’s infrastructure could spike the electrical industry’s emissions by as much as a third. Not every plant is likely to be built. But the scale is growing. Just weeks after Amazon confirmed plans to back construction of the nation’s largest power plant, an off-grid gas-fired facility to power a major data center complex in Pennsylvania, OpenAI and Nvidia backed a proposal for an even bigger station in Ohio. As my colleague Robinson Meyer put it earlier this week, we have entered the “era of the gas mega-plant.”
The new estimate comes as more candidates for statewide office build campaigns around opposing data centers. The latest is Aaron Ford, Nevada’s attorney general and a Democratic candidate for governor, who vowed Wednesday to “pause tax breaks” for data centers if elected.
The Trump administration has launched an effort to fast-track permitting of data centers and utility infrastructure along federal highway and railway corridors. This week, the Department of Transportation took the first step to establish what it dubbed America’s Great Corridors of Commerce, along which the agency “will build, in record time, a new backbone for the world’s strongest economy.” In a public notice posted to a federal website Tuesday, the Transportation Department said the potential policy changes would aim to “drastically accelerate the siting, permitting, and financing of linear utility infrastructure projects, including electrical transmission lines, water pipelines along highways, pipelines along railways, fiber optic, and rural broadband.” The zones will also “incentivize data centers, manufacturing facilities, and distribution hubs to locate close to” the corridors “to leverage a ‘plug and play’ model for easy connectivity to new utility corridors.” The proposal, which is currently only a request for information before a September 12 deadline, would also “reduce administrative burdens” for state transportation agencies and railroads “giving them the vital technology backbone — from Wi-Fi and safety systems to intelligent transportation systems — needed to build the connected, intelligent transportation networks of tomorrow.”
If you want proof things can in fact get built, look — perhaps counterintuitively — to clean energy. Despite the Trump administration’s best efforts to curtail development of renewables, new data from S&P Global Energy shows that clean power is booming in America. The U.S. is on track to add a record 45 gigawatts of clean power this year — equal to the average electricity demand of all of Turkey. “There was a campaign promise to go against renewables, but at the same time they’re realizing that you can’t do without it,” Izzet Bensusan, chief executive of the energy investment firm Captona, told the Financial Times. “I don’t see a world where power demand is flattening out.”
Next-generation geothermal technology first debuted in the U.S. in 2013, when Ormat — the company I once embarrassingly called the “unc” of geothermal — completed a 1.7-megawatt demonstration project at a site in western Nevada. A decade later, Fervo Energy — the hot rock sector’s hottest new stock — started up its 3.5-megawatt, Google-backed demonstration plant in northern Nevada. Now one of Fervo’s closest rivals, Sage Geosystems, has joined the list. On Wednesday, Canary Media reported that the company had begun producing power at its 3-megawatt Texas pilot plant in April. Like Fervo, Sage is using the same horizontal drilling and fracking technology that transformed America into the world’s top producer of both oil and gas. Cindhy Taff, the chief executive, spent decades at the helm of Royal Dutch Shell’s fracking division. For a refresher on how the technology works, I recommend this 101 explainer my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote last summer.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The Trump administration is doing all it can to keep coal-fired stations from retiring, even funding construction of the first U.S. new coal plants in over a decade. But an electrical cooperative in North Dakota is thinking about how to keep a coal-fired plant open even if a future White House looks to crack down once again on emissions. On Wednesday, the North Dakota Monitor reported Minnkota Power Cooperative had inked a deal to work with a carbon capture and storage developer to revive a long-stalled project. The state’s Clean Sustainable Energy Authority recommended approving a combined $205 million in loans for the partnership between Minnkota and Reliant Carbon Capture & Storage. The state industrial commission — to which the sustainability agency, established in 2021, reports — will have final approval.
Canada’s largest oil producers, meanwhile, told Reuters they plan to make a final investment decision on a sweeping carbon capture project called Pathways in Alberta by the end of next year.

Taiwan’s long-stalled offshore wind buildout was supposed to justify the self-governing island’s shutdown of its nuclear power stations. Yet the Taiwanese successfully constructed less than 5 gigawatts of offshore turbines before powering down the last reactor. That put the country at a deficit since the atomic stations once provided more than 5 gigawatts of power, and left a place widely considered to be at risk of a Chinese invasion in the coming years more reliant on imported fossil fuels. But Orsted is now stepping up to build more turbines. On Wednesday, the Danish giant announced plans to develop a new 2-gigawatt project off Taiwan. The project is the larger, second phase of the Dadu plant the company is already developing, according to offshoreWIND.biz.
Deforestation and aquaculture across Southeast Asia’s fast-growing economies have destroyed mangroves at an alarming rate. But here’s some good news: Even more new mangroves are growing back in other parts of the world. Global mangrove cover has increased over the past 40 years, with a net gain of 47,720 hectares, or about 185 square miles between 1985 and 2025. That’s according to a new tally by Global Mangrove Watch, a project at Aberystwyth University in Wales. Indonesia has lost nearly 800 square miles of mangrove since 1985, and Myanmar, Malaysia, and Nigeria record significant declines. Australia, India, and the Philippines, by contrast, saw growth. “The overall increase in mangrove cover is encouraging, but it also shows that progress is uneven, with some regions continuing to experience significant losses,” Pete Bunting, a researcher at Aberystwyth University whose work was part of the study, said in a press release. “The findings also highlight the complexity of mangrove change, with gains in some areas linked to both restoration efforts and natural processes.”
Rob digs into a new paper with a radical new idea to fix California’s economy with the Breakthrough Institute’s Lauren Teixeira.
California now has the most expensive electricity in the continental United States. It also has expensive housing … and an increasingly broken home insurance market.
Are the three phenomena linked? They might be. Due to a peculiarity in the state’s constitution, electricity utilities are incentivized to pay for a huge amount of wildfire prevention, above and beyond what would be seen as economically reasonable in another state. Fixing that constitutional peculiarity could help bring down energy costs and heal the home insurance market, but it will be complicated — and a number of policies will need to get passed at the same time.
That’s what Lauren Teixeira argues in her new report, “Rewiring Risk.” Teixeira, a senior climate and energy analyst at the Breakthrough Institute, joins Rob for today’s episode of Shift Key. They discuss how California found itself in this situation, how it might be fixed, and why the state treats utilities as a sin-eater for wildfire risk.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: How much of this is an issue of it’s very hard to raise tax revenue in California, but it’s very easy to raise electricity rates? Speaking of the prop system, right, it’s very hard to pay to increase the tax base in California. But the CPUC can raise electricity rates when the utility asks it to do so.
Lauren Teixeira: I think that’s a big part of it, yeah.
Meyer: And so to some degree, this is the public’s in California — not the public in the sense of the government, but the public in the sense of society’s easiest way of raising revenue in the California system. And so therefore, it’s the revenue that tends to get raised. Unfortunately, it’s very regressive and bad for climate policy.
Teixeira: Right. It’s a tax through a different system. It’s a regressive tax. And it’s rational to do that. But as I argue in my report, this is actually a really ineffective and inefficient way of reducing wildfire risk. And that, you know, say we weren’t parking all of this on the utilities,.I think it’s very possible we would get a lot more risk reduction for the same amount of money, in that when it’s all on the utilities, they could very expensively underground a power line or a local municipality or property owner could construct a fuel break or do mitigation much more cheaply, and reduce the same amount of risk. But with the status quo, we end up with the expensive power line instead of the fuel break.
And I think that’s a huge loss of opportunity because obviously wildfire is very dangerous and bad, and we want to get as much risk reduction for a certain sum of money as we can. So what we have right now is the politically convenient thing, but it’s not the most risk reducing thing. And the most risk reducing thing is not the politically convenient thing. But we may have to go toward it because electricity rates have also become politically unattainable.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Lauren’s report: Rewiring Risk
Rethinking Utility Wildfire Risk in California
Previously on Shift Key: How California Broke Its Electricity Bills
Previously on Shift Key: How Wildfires Destroyed California’s Insurance Market
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Discover the Yale Clean and Equitable Energy Development online certificate program at the Yale Center for Business and the Environment. In this fully online, 5-month program, you’ll learn from leading experts, develop practical skills, and grow a powerful network. Visit cbey.yale.edu to learn more and apply.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.