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:
Investors are piling into startups that promise to solve hard problems using little energy. But that doesn’t mean the answer is ‘yes.’

Physicists have spent decades trying to apply the laws of quantum mechanics to the physical world in the form of quantum computers, devices that promise to solve some of the hardest problems in biology, chemistry, and materials science at unfathomable speed. Many experts say this technology is finally on the cusp of commercial viability. Physicists and software engineers are understandably excited. But so, too, is another group that might raise eyebrows: climate investors.
Investment in quantum startups rose to $12.6 billion in 2025, six times the prior year’s total, according to McKinsey. The consultancy forecasts that the technology could drive up to $2.7 trillion in economic value by 2035 as it spurs efficiency and revenue gains across sectors. Climate tech venture capitalists understandably want a piece of that pie.
Examples abound. Lowercarbon Capital participated in the quantum startup Oratomic’s gigantic $300 million Series A, announced earlier this month. Just a few months prior, Breakthrough Energy Ventures led quantum pioneer Sygaldry’s $139 million Series A, which also included participation from Singapore-based climate-focused investor Earth Venture Capital. And earlier this year, Planet First Partners led a $200 million later-stage round for quantum company Photonic Inc., now valued at over $2 billion.
They’re hardly the first VCs to argue that the worlds of quantum and climate are closer than they might initially appear. Prelude Ventures has backed Atom Computing since its 2018 seed round, all the way through its $100 million Series C last month, while Berlin-based VC World Fund has supported IQM Quantum Computers — which went public via SPAC about three weeks ago — since 2022. All say that quantum computers will be dramatically more energy efficient than today’s so-called “classical computers,” reducing costs and electricity usage across applications ranging from artificial intelligence workloads and transportation logistics to power grid optimization.
That advantage stems from the fundamental nature of the system’s architecture. The physics is extraordinarily complex, but the basic idea is that unlike a standard computer, which encodes information as zeros and ones, quantum computers rely on units called “qubits.” Rather than representing a single binary value, qubits can “be both a zero and a one, or any state in between at the same time,” Idalia Friedson, Sygaldry’s co-founder, told me.
That mind-bending proposition totally changes the way computers problem-solve. Rather than sequentially testing one possible solution after another, quantum computers can evaluate many possibilities simultaneously, hopefully allowing them to solve challenges such as molecular simulation, materials discovery, and drug design exponentially faster than is currently possible.
This tech won’t replace today’s computers, which experts told me will almost certainly remain more practical for everyday tasks such as browsing the internet, making spreadsheets, and word processing. Rather, the future of computing will likely be a hybrid in which classical computers handle the bulk of the work while quantum computers address specific, complex problems.
For its part, Sygaldry is building quantum-powered AI servers that can plug directly into existing data center infrastructure, combining quantum processors with classical chips in the same machine to expedite both model training and inference. The startup is also unique in its effort to combine multiple types of qubits — yes, there is more than one kind — within the same system, matching each qubit type to the problem it’s best suited to solve.
“You can create a qubit by using photons, which are actually like light particles, by trapping ions, by creating artificial atoms,” Friedson told me, explaining that each type has its pros and cons. “Some are fast, some are less expensive, some are more manufacturable or scalable. But by and large, no single type of qubit meets all of the characteristics needed for commercial high-performance computing.” Thus, Sygaldry is taking a mix-and-match approach, pairing different types of qubits with the AI workloads they’re best adapted to handle, ultimately aiming to extract more from our existing data center infrastructure and curb the AI boom’s runaway energy demands.
But as with all breakthroughs that promise faster, better, cheaper AI, the spectre of Jevon’s paradox looms large. This is the observation that as technologies become more efficient and cheaper, total resource consumption often rises rather than falls as lower costs spur demand.
When I asked BEV’s Christian Garcia, who led the firm’s investment in Sygaldry, about whether he worries that quantum companies could contribute to an uptick in overall AI energy demand, he told me it seemed a little outside his remit. “I almost feel like it’s a question for a philosopher to answer,” he said, explaining that he has no way of knowing what the advanced computing industry will look like decades down the line. Instead, he’s focused on the shorter-term problem companies like Sygaldry purport to solve: Grid bottlenecks are constraining AI growth.
“Even as algorithms get more efficient, and even as GPUs get more efficient, the demand for tokens is outstripping the ability to bring power online,” Garcia explained. “And so we view investing in new computing platforms as a way to solve power challenges in a lot of ways, and I think that’s bread and butter for us.”
Mark Cupta, the Prelude investor who has backed Atom Computing since 2018, expressed a similar sentiment. “Regardless of what [quantum computing] is used for, it will use less energy as a baseline,” he told me. “Could it discover great things? Yes. Could it also break things? Absolutely. We’ve gotten comfortable with that.” Climate-positive applications that particularly excite Cupta include designing novel compounds to better capture carbon dioxide out of the air or industrial smokestacks, discovering more efficient catalysts for the energy intensive Haber-Bosch process used to produce ammonia-based fertilizer, and perfecting the chemistry behind solid-state batteries, which could be safer, longer-lasting, and far more energy dense than standard lithium-ion cells.
But quantum computing could also break many of today’s standard encryption methods, which secure everything from online banking systems and medical records to cryptocurrencies. It could help oil and gas companies with exploration, extraction, and petrochemical processing, helping to make fossil fuel production more efficient and cost competitive with renewables. Or maybe its greatest commercial value lies in, say, helping hedge funds optimize their trading strategies and portfolios — not necessarily a climate-negative application, but a far cry from the breakthroughs many sustainability-focused investors are hoping for.
The technology’s ultimate climate impact will always depend, to some degree, on how and where it’s deployed. Yet when Cupta looks at Prelude’s portfolio of climate tech solutions, he mainly sees the ways that quantum could help them move faster and build superior products. “If you think that the things we’re inventing are going to be better for the world than what came previously, you want to supercharge those things,” he told me.
He’s betting Atom’s platform will prove to be “the most energy-efficient and lowest footprint” approach in the industry. The company builds its qubits from neutral atoms, which have an equal number of protons and electrons and thus no net electrical charge. This system traps them in mid-air using tightly focused laser beams, a setup that allows the atoms to be packed far more densely than many competing designs, which often use micron-scale wires. And because the laser traps are movable, the system can rearrange qubits on the fly to optimize for different tasks.
Neutral atom-based systems are a relative newcomer to the quantum computing landscape, but Cupta believes they have the potential to leapfrog the industry’s dominant architecture: superconducting qubits. Often described as artificial atoms, these qubits are tiny electrical circuits engineered to mimic the quantum behavior of atoms. They underpin the quantum efforts of tech giants like Google and IBM, as well as startups such as Rigetti Computing — founded by Sygaldry’s other co-founder, Chad Rigetti — and IQM Quantum Computers.
But when Cupta was first exploring the idea of a quantum investment, he said nearly everyone he spoke with admitted that if they were “starting from scratch” they wouldn’t choose to work with superconducting qubits. That suggested to him that this approach had become a legacy technology, while Atom Computers’ neutral atoms represented the future. Other investors now appear to be buying that thesis. Last month, the startup announced a $100 million Series C, and is also set to receive $100 million from the U.S. Department of Commerce as part of a $2 billion CHIPS Act investment in quantum computing and manufacturing. For its part, Oratomic — a Lowercarbon portfolio company — is also working to build a neutral atoms-based quantum computer.
Prelude has been wrong about quantum before, as have plenty of other investors. The firm also co-led the Series A and B rounds for the quantum software company Zapata Computing, which went public via SPAC in 2024. The stock quickly collapsed, and within seven months the company had run out of cash and ceased operations. It eventually restructured and reemerged as Zapata Quantum, though its shares are still only worth around $1 on the lightly traded OTCQB market.
There’s also always the possibility that a climate-focused startup could simply reinvent itself, pivoting toward a more promising market opportunity. Consider the case of Crusoe. The AI data center builder and operator now valued at over $10 billion initially pitched itself at the beginning of the decade as a climate tech startup, using natural gas that would have otherwise been flared off to power cryptocurrency mining, thereby reducing emissions. While always an unconventional thesis, sustainability-focused VCs like Lowercarbon, G2 Venture Partners, and MCJ Collective piled in. Since then, the company has greatly expanded its natural gas footprint as it’s pivoted aggressively toward building AI data centers.
All of which is to say, there’s simply no guarantee that a climate tech startup will stay true to its original mission, or that the energy savings and efficiency gains it promises will ultimately materialize. The possibility of a paradoxical outcome is just a part of investing in energy efficiency technologies.
Investors seem to have gotten comfortable with the discomfort. But the public may not have to wait too much longer to see the first signs of what a quantum-powered future could look like. Sygaldry is aiming to “have some meaningful technology by the end of the decade,” Friedson said. “Over the next couple years I expect quantum is going to start reaching these really valuable inflection points that continue to drive adoption.”
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.