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:

Here’s a grim fact: The most destructive fires in recent American history swept over a state with the country’s strictest wildfire-specific building code, including in some of the neighborhoods that are now largely smoldering rubble.
California’s wildfire building code, Chapter 7A, went into effect in 2008, and it mandates fire-resistant siding, tempered glass, vegetation management, and vents for attics and crawlspaces designed to resist embers and flames. The code is the “most robust” in the nation, Lisa Dale, a lecturer at the Columbia Climate School and a former environmental policy advisor for the State of Colorado, told me. It applies to nearly any newly built structure in one of the zones mapped out by state and local officials as especially prone to fire hazard.
The adoption of 7A followed years of code development and mapping of hazardous areas, largely in response to devastating urban wildfires such as the Tunnel Fire, which claimed more than 3,000 structures and 25 lives in Oakland and Berkeley in 1991, and kicked off renewed efforts to harden Californian homes.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s report on the 1991 fire makes for familiar reading as the Palisades and Eaton fires still smolder. The wildland-urban interface, it says, was put at extreme risk by a combination of dry air, little rainfall, hot winds blowing east to west, built-up vegetation that was too close to homes, steep hills, and limited access to municipal water. The report also castigates the “unregulated use of wood shingles as roof and siding material.”
This was not the first time a destructive fire on the wildland-urban interface had been partially attributed to ignitable building materials. The 1961 Bel-Air fire, for instance, which claimed almost 200 homes, including that of Burt Lancaster, and the 1959 Laurel Canyon fire were both, FEMA said, evidence of “the wood roof and separation from natural fuels problems,” as were fires in 1970 and 1980 near where the Tunnel Fire eventually struck in 1970 and 1980.
But it was the sheer scale of the Tunnel Fire that prompted action by California lawmakers.
Throughout the 1990s, fire-resilient roofing requirements were ramped up, designating which materials were allowed in fire hazard areas and throughout the state. By all accounts, the building code works — but only when and where it’s in force. Dale told me that compliant homes were five times as likely to survive a wildfire. Research by economists Judson Boomhower and Patrick Baylis found that the code “reduced average structure loss risk during a wildfire by 16 percentage points, or about a 40% reduction.”
“The challenge from the perspective of wildfire vulnerability is that those codes are relatively recent, and the housing stock turns over really slowly, so we have this enormous stock of already built homes in dangerous places that are going to be out there for decades,” Boomhower told me.
The 7A building code applies only to new buildings, however. In long-settled areas of California like Pacific Palisades, which has little new housing construction or even existing home turnover due to high costs and permitting complications, especially in areas under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission, many houses are not just failing to comply with Chapter 7A, but also with any housing code at all.
Looking at which homes had survived past fires, Steve Quarles, who helped advise the California State Fire Marshal on developing 7A, told me, “What really mattered was if it was built under any building code.” Many homes destroyed by the fires in Los Angeles likely were not. In Pacific Palisades, fire management is a frequent topic of concern and discussion. But as late as 2018, local media in Pacific Palisades noted that the area still had some homes with wood shingle roofs.
While a complete inventory of homes lost in the Palisades and Eaton fires has yet to be taken, the neighborhoods were full of older homes. According to CalFire incident reports, of the almost 47,000 structures in the zone of the Palisades Fire, more than 8,000 were built before 1939, and 44,560 were built before 2009. For the Eaton Fire area, of the around 41,000 structures, almost 14,000 were built before 1939, and only around 1,000 were built since 2010.
A Pacific Palisades home designed by architect Greg Chasen and built in 2024, however, survived the fire and went viral on X after he posted a photo of it still standing after the flames had moved through. The home embodied some of the best practices for fire-safe building, according to Bloomberg, including keeping vegetation away from the building, a metal roof, tempered glass, and fire-resistant siding.
When Michael Wara, the director of Stanford University’s Climate and Energy Policy Program, spoke with firefighters and insurance industry officials in the process of drafting a 2021 report for the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment on strategies for mitigating wildfire risk, they told him that, from their perspective, wildfires are often a matter of “home ignition,” meaning that while building near forested areas puts any home at risk, the risk of a home itself igniting varies based on how it’s built and the vegetation clearance around it. “Existing homes in high fire threat areas” built before the implementation of California’s wildfire building codes, Wara wrote, “are a massive problem.” At the time he published the paper, there were somewhere between 700,000 and 1.3 million pre-building code homes still standing in “high or very high threat areas.”
The flipside of focusing on “home ignition” and the building code is that the building code works better over time, as more and more homes comply with it thanks to normal turnover, people extensively renovating, or even tearing down old homes — or rebuilding after fires. Homes that are close to homes that don’t ignite in a fire are more likely to survive.
One study that looked at the 2018 Camp Fire, which destroyed more than 18,000 structures and claimed more than 80 lives in the Northern California town of Paradise, sampled homes built before 1997, between 1997 and 2018, and from 2018 onwards, and found that only 11.5% of pre-1997 homes survived, compared to 38.5% from 1997 and after. The researchers also found that building survivability had a kind of magnifying effect, with distance from the nearest destroyed structure and the number structures destroyed in the immediate area among “the strongest predictors of survival.”
“The more homes that comply, the less chance you get those structural ignitions and the less chance you get those huge disasters like this,” Doug Green, who manages Headwaters Economics’ Community Assistance for Wildfire Program, told me. “It takes people doing the right thing to their own home — dealing with vegetation, making sure roofs are clean, having right roofing. It’s really a community-wide strategy to stop fires that happen like this.”
But just as any home hardening — or just building to code — is more effective the more the homes around you do it as well, it’s just as true in reverse. “If your next door neighbors don’t do that work, the effectiveness of your efforts will be less,” Dale said. “Building codes ultimately work best when we get an entire landscape or neighborhood to adopt them.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Before that can happen, though, we need megawatt chargers.
The electrification of semi trucks started with baby steps. First came EV semis for short-haul routes, those where the vehicle can do all its business on a single charge. We’re talking big rigs that make drayage runs to ferry shipping containers between ports and nearby warehouses, or delivery vans that spend their day puttering around the city.
It makes sense. Semis are huge and heavy; it takes a long time to charge a big enough battery to move one. That first batch of EV trucks could return to base and recharge their batteries overnight, with no rush to get them right back on the road. But for electric semis to make regional runs — and someday national ones — they need fast-charging truck stops that can deploy much more juice than an ordinary passenger EV requires.
That infrastructure is coming. At last week’s ACT Expo in Las Vegas — where trucking and fleet professionals trade notes on how electrification, advanced fuels, and AI — the conversation centered on the rise of megawatt charging, tech that will make it possible for electric trucks to make runs that are viable only for diesel-powered trucks today.
Most EV semi truck charging to date has been done at speeds of up to 350 kilowatts. That’s fast for a passenger vehicle. Hyundai, for example, claims that a car like the Ioniq 5 can go from 10% to 80% charge in around 15 minutes. But a semi’s energy requirements are a different ballgame. At those speeds, a truck needs hours to top off — unacceptable for a trucker on a tight schedule.
The next step, megawatt charging, is a misnomer. Technically, this category includes any charger over 600 kilowatts, though it stretches up to 1.2 megawatts. That is the theoretical maximum of the Tesla Megacharger, the high-speed charger built specifically for the Tesla Semi that has just gone into mass production. The 1.2-megawatt version is promised to fill about 60% of the truck battery in about half an hour (the duration of the mandated break a trucker must take after eight hours on the road). Henry Johnson of Alpitronic, a company building out high-powered charging in Europe, said even just 700 to 800 kilowatts is enough to charge trucks with all the juice they’ll need for the rest of their journey in about 45 minutes.
Indeed, megawatt charging has already taken root in Europe, which is ahead of the United States in EV trucking (one of the ACT panels was titled, “Megawatt Charging in Europe: Lessons for the U.S. Market”). The availability of such speeds will soon accelerate here, though. “Megawatt charging is coming this year,” said Patrick Macdonald-King, CEO of the Daimler-backed group Greenlane that is set to build a network of electric and hydrogen refueling stations for trucks in America. “We’re not building anything without it,” he says.
Greenlane has a flagship station open near San Bernardino, California, including a couple dozen plugs at around 400 kilowatts, but future stations planned to service trucks traveling between L.A. and Phoenix or Dallas and Houston will feature megawatt-speed plugs. Tesla has built Megachargers stations at its factories and opened one specifically for Pepsi, an early adopter client. Its first public megawatt charging station in the Inland Empire, the urban sprawl inland of Los Angeles, opened for business in March.
Part of what makes this leap possible is the plug. Existing EV trucks have used the CCS charging standard, but an increasing number of them are now equipped to work with MCS, the Megawatt Charging Standard, which can reach speeds beyond CCS. The MCS plug is not only fast, it’s also unique to big trucks, which negates current problems such as a semi truck pulling up to a charging station only to find that a CCS-using passenger car is hogging the plug.
The megawatt era could also lead to consolidation that makes it simpler to expand semi charging around the country. There’s a case to be made for both the CCS and MCS plugs to stay in use, with CCS serving the cheaper, slower kind of charging that some need. But just as passenger EVs have now almost universally coalesced around the NACS plug that Tesla invented, the same thing could happen for MCS. Tesla, for example, is offering a 125-kilowatt Basecharger for companies who want Tesla Semis but don’t need the power of a 1.2-megawatt Megacharger, with the less powerful option going for $40,000 rather than $188,000. But it, too, uses only MCS. John Smith, incoming CEO of the spun-off company FedEx Freight, called for as much during his conference keynote. “We need a universal standard,” he said. “Every truck must be able to go to every charger.”
It will be years before there is a nationwide patchwork of megawatt truck stops along all of America’s major highways, the kind that exists now to make it possible to drive nearly anywhere in this country in an electric car. The good thing about trucking, though, is that it’s predictable. You don’t need to build a whole network of chargers anywhere ordinary citizens might want to drive. You only need it where you already know trucks are destined to go.
Providing fast-charging on heavily used freight corridors in California and Texas can allow fleets to electrify those routes — and see a preview of life with the benefits of electrification, such as more predictable maintenance and the freedom from wartime diesel price shocks.
Invest in Our Future’s Peter Colavito on why funders and advocates should pay more attention to the solar farm down the road.
Up until last September, Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission had gone 14 years without approving a large-scale wind project. But when they met to review the 456 public comments submitted for Badger Hollow, a 118-megawatt project that would straddle Iowa and Grant counties, they found overwhelming support for the proposal. Approval followed.
This wasn’t by chance. For months, groups like the Rural Climate Partnership, Greenlight America, Farm-to-Power, Clean Wisconsin, CivicIQ, and Healthy Climate Wisconsin worked together to build support. They held roundtables with farmers and shot digital ads with testimonials from residents that ran online and at gas stations. They emphasized the nearly $600,000 the project would generate for cash-strapped towns and counties every year to fund things like roads, bridges, and emergency services. And they empowered trusted local voices to make a case grounded in their communities’ values.
The breakthrough in Wisconsin shows how investing in local interventions can accelerate the energy transition — and points the way forward for clean energy advocates trying to navigate federal headwinds.
As skyrocketing electricity demand and soaring costs draw attention to our power systems, clean energy offers a formidable solution. Wind, solar, and storage technologies have matured enough that they can be built quickly and cheaply virtually anywhere, for anyone, at any scale. And now, as the world contends with yet another conflict roiling fossil fuel markets, these energy sources offer a shield from volatility.
Given these clear advantages, it’s worth asking, “Why aren’t clean energy projects moving forward faster in more places?”
Our team at Invest in Our Future has learned a lot in the past three years about the answer.
Invest in Our Future’s creation marked a departure from philanthropy’s longstanding approach to climate and clean energy, which often focused on developing and passing policy to spur reductions in greenhouse gas pollution. Instead, with the Inflation Reduction Act on the books, my organization was formed with a singular focus: maximize the reach and impact of federal clean energy investments in the face of on-the-ground constraints.
Our remit was to ensure this ambitious policy advancing commercially-ready technology resulted in actual projects getting built and benefiting people. That meant mobilizing organizations to raise awareness of IRA programs and incentives and help communities access IRA dollars. It also meant finding a way around the significant barriers that stood in the way of deployment, even with historic levels of government support.
First, utility-scale projects were hit with organized, vocal opposition upset by the prospect of rapid changes to the local landscape and skeptical of out-of-town developers. That resistance often seized on siting and permitting processes to delay or altogether stop projects from being built. And too infrequently did countervailing forces try to speak to their concerns or organize support.
There were also funding problems for more community-oriented projects. In many cases, neither private investors nor public officials fully understood the opportunity or potential returns for projects like rooftop solar for schools, microgrids for hospitals and health centers, or electrified buses that double as mobile batteries during blackouts, leaving a sizable project pipeline struggling to pencil out.
Clean energy employers also struggled to hire, and workers couldn’t see a career path in the sector.
And as media habits changed, and national leaders spread disinformation, clean energy got more polarized.
For some, there was a political logic behind the IRA that suggested new projects would set off a self-reinforcing cycle of support for federal clean energy policy. But building support and real champions takes time. Consider that utility-scale solar projects, for example, need 24 months at minimum just to reach operational status. The work of connecting projects and benefits in the public mind extends further still. With barriers slowing deployment, the advantages of new projects needed time to take root.
Still, where projects did move forward, Invest in Our Future cultivated local validators who could share authentic stories about how clean energy improved their lives. When we mobilized local champions to engage with decisionmakers last year, they left a big impression. But we needed more of them — from more places, drawing value from more projects.
So after Congress repealed much of the IRA last summer, we developed new, interlocking strategies to address the major barriers to deployment and push as many projects forward in as many communities as possible.
By educating local decision-makers early and mobilizing active, vocal support from a wide range of perspectives — farmers and faith leaders, landowners and labor, educators and entrepreneurs — we can boost the number of projects that secure siting and permitting approvals.
By identifying high-potential, commercial-scale community projects with local lenders, packaging them into aggregated investments, and demonstrating low risk and reliable returns, we can draw institutional investors and lower-cost capital toward an otherwise underfunded but important segment.
Setting high and consistent job quality standards across clean energy industries will counter real and perceived concerns around safety, benefits, and wages, helping attract more workers who can go on to serve as advocates for new projects.
And deepening investment in storytelling by local champions will build the credibility of — and, in turn, support for — clean energy projects from the ground up.
Market forces are increasingly and irreversibly favoring clean energy. Influential allies of the president are coming around on solar, and longtime critics of renewables acknowledge that the transition is inevitable. What’s needed most now is a push from the ground up.
Our grantees are delivering it. Their work on siting and permitting, for example, helped gain approval for nearly 20 gigawatts of clean capacity in 2025. That included projects like Wisconsin’s Badger Hollow wind farm and Illinois’s 210-megawatt Glacier Moraine solar project — which was initially denied a permit but triumphed in a reconsideration vote after more than a dozen local residents mobilized to sway public opinion. Greenlight America and their partners managed to win eight permitting campaigns over one week last December alone.
Yet funding for these efforts is limited. Climate solutions receive less than 2% of total giving. Most funding within that segment has long flowed to regulatory and policy-focused work, which made sense while clean energy needed policy support to compete on economics. But today, with clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels in most parts of the country, there’s a real gap between our goals and on-the-ground success that we can bridge by focusing more on getting projects built.
Deploying clean energy at the community level happens to be one of our most effective tools for drawing down greenhouse gas pollution — with the added advantage of helping to lower costs, strengthen economic growth and community resilience, and generate good jobs. Through Invest in Our Future, I’ve met leaders driving progress often in the most challenging places in the country. Despite all the setbacks and discouraging headlines last year brought, these leaders have not lost their sense of urgency, or their resolve to build clean energy. That resolve — and their track record of success — should give us all hope. We should give them our support in return.
Current conditions: It’s pouring in Boston today, with temperatures that could feel as low as 47 degrees Fahrenheit • Severe flooding in Turkey’s Samsun province has sent a dozen people to the hospital • Bear season in Yellowstone has started earlier than usual, raising the risk of more violent encounters between hikers and grizzlies.
President Donald Trump formally began talks with Chinese president Xi Jinping today as the leaders of the world’s two largest economies seek some kind of rapprochement after more than a year of escalating battles over trade. The discussions are expected to cover a range of topics, including Taiwan’s sovereignty and the market dominance over critical minerals that Foreign Policy called Beijing’s “most potent” tool in the trade negotiations. Indeed, China’s control over critical minerals means Xi “will have the upperhand,” according to the Council on Foreign Relations, which noted that Trump folded last year in his trade battle with Xi once Beijing threatened to restrict flows of rare earths.
While Trump may have hoped that the prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz would put Beijing in a more desperate position by the time the summit started, China’s oil market has shown “signs of resilience” that “should concern U.S. officials” as efforts to prop up the domestic supply provide more buoyancy than expected, Semafor reported.
Fervo Energy, until now the hottest startup in the next-generation geothermal industry, is now the hottest stock on the market. On Wednesday, the Houston-based company’s stock began trading on the Nasdaq, where share prices surged nearly 40% by market close. “Geothermal is so hot right now,” Sarah Jewett, Fervo’s senior vice president of strategy, told me in a Q&A for Heatmap. “The IPO is not a finish line for Fervo. It is a financing milestone that facilitates the build out of more clean, firm, reliable, affordable energy. That is what we are most excited about as we ring the bell in Nasdaq. As we celebrate, we are more excited than anything to get back to work, to put clean megawatts in the grid.”
The company, she said, expects to start making overseas development deals soon, and indicated that Fervo may build its first geothermal plants on the East Coast, where hot rocks have historically been too deep to tap into, within a decade.
Nearly 16 years after it was first proposed, New York City’s biggest new source of clean energy has come online, meaning its 1,250 megawatts of capacity will be available to shore up the grid as summer heat waves roast the nation’s largest metropolis. Until recently, New York State regulators had planned for the Champlain Hudson Power Express to enter into service in August. But last weekend, the 339-mile project stretching from Lake Champlain down the Hudson River to the electrical substations in northwestern Queens managed to complete testing just before the state’s hard deadline of May 10 at 5 p.m. ET, after which the developer would have to wait two months before finishing the bureaucratic process to start the clock on the contract between the state and Hydro Quebec, the French-speaking Canadian province’s state-owned utility. That means if prices soar high enough between now and the end of May, Hydro Quebec could choose to bid into the market. But the real milestone is that, starting June 1, the utility’s contract will take effect.
“We didn’t think it was possible. The state didn’t think it was possible. We were counting on capacity coming online in August, but that’s way too late,” Peter Rose, the senior director of stakeholder relations for Hydro Quebec, told me on a call last night. “We have heat waves in July. It’ll be good for New York City to count on that 1,250 megawatts of capacity going into July.” Since the Blackstone-backed project’s inception, its proponents have suggested hydropower from Quebec would ultimately supply 20% of New York City’s power needs. But two weeks ago, when Hydro Quebec ran 13 hours of trial runs to stress test its equipment, the line provided more than 33% of the city’s power for a part of that duration. That, Rose cautioned, was probably due to relatively low load. Still, he said, “Unbeknownst to everybody during the testing regime, a third of our consumption in New York City was coming from this project. Those were specific conditions. But still pretty remarkable.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

Texas, newly-crowned the nation’s No. 1 solar market, has installed enough panels that the state is now generating more electricity from photovoltaics than coal for the first time. Solar generation is expected to reach 78 billion killowatt-hours in 2026 in the grid operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, according to the latest forecast from the Energy Information Administration. That comes to just 60 billion kilowatt-hours for coal. As Texas’ solar boom continues, the federal researchers projected that about 40% of all solar installations in the U.S. this year will occur in the Lone Star State. Among the developments poised to come online this year is the solar and battery megaproject Tehuacana Creek 1 Solar farm. The 837-megawatt project will be the largest solar facility of its kind to enter into service this year. Meanwhile, Texas has no current plans for new coal plants.
The U.S. is going to need a lot more projects coming online. New forecasts from the National Electrical Manufacturers Association project U.S. electricity demand to surge 55% by 2050. Data centers are the biggest source of near-term demand growth, with a projected 300% surge in electricity demand over the next 10 years. But electric vehicles of all kinds are on track to keep the party going by spiking power demand 2,000% by the middle of the century. To meet that demand, storage, wind, and solar generation are on track to increase by 300% as renewables start making up a majority of the generation in the American West, New York, and the Southeast.
As I told you two weeks ago, Belgium is not only abandoning its plans to phase out its remaining nuclear power stations, it’s nationalizing the fleet. Now Brussels is entering into a deal with the pro-nuclear neighboring Netherlands to work together on building new reactors. The memorandum of understanding — signed Wednesday at a binational summit by Belgium’s energy minister Mathieu Bihet and Dutch climate and green growth chief Jo-Annes de Bat — establishes periodic meetings between the two nations, where the Netherlands can tap into Belgium’s existing knowledge from operating a larger fleet of reactors, and the Belgians can in turn garner tips on building new reactors as the Dutch embark on a construction program.
Pakistan’s solar boom has so far insulated the country from the full effects of losing access to oil and gas through the Strait of Hormuz. Now Islamabad is going all in. Pakistan is now targeting 95% renewable electricity by 2040, and 60% by 2030, according to a document seen by the business news site ProPakistani.