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.
“We will not cease exports of U.S. diesel,” the Secretary of Energy told us at Heatmap House.
Secretary of Energy Chris Wright threw cold water on a potential diesel export ban, telling Heatmap executive editor Robinson Meyer that the president “didn’t endorse it.”
“We are open to any ideas to lower energy prices for Americans,” Wright said at our Heatmap House event at New York Climate Week. “We have a continual, thoughtful dialog based on the facts on the ground of what are the most practical steps moving forward, and it looks like right now we do need to grow the diesel supply in the United States.”
There could be some adjustments to the diesel industry, Wright told Rob, saying there may “be some tweak in where diesel flows out of U.S. refineries.” About a full-scale ban, however, he was unequivocal. “We will not cease exports of U.S. diesel.”
That stands in contrast to President Trump’s remarks Tuesday, when he told reporters, “I’ve said, ‘Let’s not send out the diesel.’ I’ve called for it. I’ve called for it within my people.” Politico reported Wednesday afternoon that the administration is “preparing” a 90-day export ban.
When asked if a diesel export ban would hurt America’s reputation as an energy superpower, Wright told Heatmap, “It certainly would have impacts.” But, he added, “I don’t think there’s serious consideration, although there’s always been a dialogue. I don’t think you will see a blanket ban on diesel. And yes, of course, we want to be the energy superpower supplying the whole world.”
Some Republicans in Congress have called for a diesel export ban, including Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who represents agriculture-heavy Iowa. High diesel prices impose a particularly large cost on two groups: farmers and New Englanders. Farmers need diesel to fuel equipment to harvest crops and trucks to move their goods, while millions of New Englanders rely on heating oil — which is virtually interchangeable with diesel — to heat their homes in the winter. Bills for heating oil may exceed $2,000 this winter, according to Mark Wolfe, the executive director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association
Diesel prices today are sitting at just over $6.50 per gallon, according to AAA, up from $3.69 a year ago and $5.60 just a month ago.
The former vice president joined us at Heatmap House at New York Climate Week to talk about electric vehicles, artificial intelligence, and why clean energy will ultimately win.
In front of a packed room at Heatmap House on Wednesday morning, former Vice President Al Gore made the case for optimism on climate change.
“There is a possibility we will look back on this year of 2026 as the positive tipping point on climate,” he said.
He started with some high water marks in renewable energy and electric vehicles. Last year was the first year that the production of energy from renewable sources exceeded the overall increase in global energy demand, for example. Whereas 20 years ago, when Gore’s landmark climate change film An Inconvenient Truth premiered, there were virtually no electric vehicles on the road, by the end of this year about 30% of all new cars sold globally will be EVs.
On top of that, he later added, “the war in Iran marks the second time in four years that the fossil fuel supply chain has been disrupted, and price volatility has returned, and people around the world have reacted to this and in a really dramatic way.” Just in the past six months, EV sales reached record levels in 50 countries; Korea’s president committed to speed its transition off fossil fuels; Thailand announced a shift from liquified natural gas to renewables; and solar is booming in Africa.
“These are signs that this thing is really moving into high gear,” he said. “The fossil fuel industry is losing, they know they’re losing, and they’re trying to slow down how quickly they lose.”
Gore was also surprisingly hopeful about artificial intelligence, arguing that data centers were a cause for concern but “not a justification for panic.” He’s not convinced that the carbon emissions from powering artificial intelligence will have a decisive impact on our climate trajectory, and is far more worried about “cognitive atrophy and the emergence of an intelligence that makes us no longer the apex intelligence on the planet.”
The conversation with Gore followed an interview with one of his climate champion descendents, so to speak. Mikie Sherrill, the governor of New Jersey, showed off her energy bona fides in a conversation about her approach to affordability and data centers. She talked up her administration’s swift approvals of solar and battery projects to ensure they made the deadline for federal tax credits, lifting the state’s moratorium on nuclear, and implementation of virtual power plants.
“There is a crisis going on, so you cannot simply say to people, ‘Sorry, your bills are just going to keep skyrocketing,’” she said. “That is not the answer, which is why we’ve acted so aggressively.”
Sherrill also criticized data center developers for the way they have frequently come into the state without engaging with communities. “I told a data center, I said, ‘You guys have been horrible at it. I’m just telling you, nobody knows what a data center is, and you need to explain why it's even important. Are you curing cancer? What are you doing? Why is this a societal benefit?’”
She encouraged future Democratic candidates for public office to make sure they have a deep understanding of the specific energy circumstances of their state, and to speak to that on the campaign trail. “The can has been kicked down the road on too many different issues, and if you were going to try to duck your head and say some mealy-mouthed thing like, ‘We’re going to do all of the above’ and ‘Everyone's welcome and we like business,’ that’s not going to cut it.”
On offshore wind lawsuits, transmission woes, and a nuclear IPO
Current conditions: A potential nor’easter is barreling toward New York City, potentially hitting the five boroughs just as world leaders gathered for the United Nations General Assembly get set to fly home • Hurricane Polo has rapidly strengthened into a Category 5 storm off Mexico’s Pacific coast, threatening flooding, winds, and storm surge • Yet another tropical storm is forming off the coast of Hawaii, risking mudslides and flooding.
The air is crisp here in Manhattan. UN representatives are grandstanding. And many of the biggest names in energy and climate are gathering alongside my colleagues at Heatmap House, our day-long summit for New York Climate Week. Some of the talks today include:
You can join the waitlist to come in person by registering here. And you can register to watch the livestream here.

In his opening address to the annual gathering of nearly all the world’s nations in New York, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres called for an end to what he desscribed as “the most profound intergenerational power imbalance of all.” Climate change, he said, has led to “one group profiting, while those least responsible suffer first and worst.” The former Portuguese prime minister from the Iberian country’s leading center-left party highlighted last month’s catastrophic flood in Nepal as an example of the unfair toll global warming is taking. “As tragic events have shown, impacts are arriving sooner, hitting harder, and spreading further than many anticipated. Now we face a near certain breach of the 1.5-degree limit, with a supersized El Niño speeding straight for humanity,” he said. “The dangers are real. But so is the hope.”
President Donald Trump struck a decidedly different tone in his remarks to the assembly. In a characteristically fiery speech defending the U.S. war with Iran, he vowed to “annihilate the Islamic Republic “ or “drive them into hell with no chance of survival” if Tehran doesn’t agree to a peace deal with Washington soon — and that doing so would bring down oil prices. “If we stand united, we will soon see a world free of the last 51-year menace of Iranian terror,” Trump said. “And oil prices will come plummeting down even lower than they were at the start of the conflict. And they were very low in the United States. They were really low. With courage and resolve, anything is possible.” As an example, he pointed to what he called the largest oil deal in history with Venezuela last month. “When you add the United States and Venezuela together, we have more than 60% of the oil in the world,” Trump said. “So it’s perhaps the biggest deal. It was a war, but it’s perhaps the biggest deal ever made. To the victor belong the spoils.” Among the other spoils the president sees: Tuesday’s signing of his updated deal with Greenland to permanently bar Russian, Chinese, and other adversaries from making large-scale investments or setting up military outposts on the Danish-controlled Arctic island.
Back in June, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed what my colleague Emily Pontecorvo clocked as the first major state lawsuit challenging any of the Trump administration’s series of deals to pay offshore wind developers to abandon their projects. The lawsuit zeroed in on TotalEnergies and the $1 billion the Department of the Interior offered for the French giant to walk away from two proposed projects. On Tuesday, Albany announced two more lawsuits seeking to block deals with the developers Bluepoint Wind and Invenergy that, combined, would equal “$1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars in exchange for canceling four critical offshore wind projects.” New York Governor Kathy Hochul, who joined the lawsuit, admonished “the Trump administration’s unlawful pay-to-not-play scheme to pressure companies to forgo planned offshore wind projects in America,” which she called “an outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars that hurts our ability to meet our energy needs.”
That same day, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit over the Interior Department’s deal with Invenergy to kill off what would have been one of the first major offshore wind projects on the West Coast. “At a time when we need more reliable, clean energy, President Trump is trying to send $111 million dollars to his fossil fuel industry friends and wants taxpayers and working families to cover the tab,” Bonta said in a press release. “This outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars will damage the offshore wind industry and create unnecessary obstacles to clean and reliable energy powering our homes and economies.” Both states explicitly tied the timing of the lawsuits to New York Climate Week, the five-day series of events around Manhattan that are tied to the UN General Assembly and seen as the aperitif for November’s global climate talks in Turkey.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
A 190-mile transmission line stretching across Wisconsin is drawing blowback from Democrats and Republicans. The state’s congressional delegation is increasingly aligned. Representative Mark Pocan, a Democrat, said Midcontinent Grid Solutions’ outreach to residents on the power line “does not match the scale of the project’s impact on their land, their livelihoods, and their communities,” the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. Senator Tammy Baldwin, another Democrat, called for a “slowdown” of the development process. On the other side of the aisle, Republican Representative Derrick Van Orden has backed a full moratorium on the project.
Coincidentally, Trump has signaled he’s willing to ease the administration’s blockade on renewables in a bid to secure a federal permitting deal with Democrats, Politico reported Tuesday. Two unnamed sources told the outlet that Trump has agreed to direct the Department of Defense to start clearing its queue of long-delayed onshore wind projects. My colleague Jael Holzman reported last week that, despite a court ruling ordering the military to resume its reviews, the administration hasn’t yet.
It was a bullish time for nuclear, it was a bearish time for nuclear. Billions of dollars are flowing into projects and ideas for reactors are proliferating as has not been seen since the mid-20th century atomic power buildout in North America, Europe, and East Asia. But startups debuting on the stock market are falling far short of expectations. Fuel maker Standard Nuclear went public in July in what Bloomberg called “a downsized U.S. IPO,” while the Amazon-backed next-generation reactor company X-Energy has fallen nearly 40% below its IPO price. America’s nuclear champion, Westinghouse, is still eyeing a $50 billion valuation ahead of a potential IPO. But it remains unclear whether that deal will ultimately go through. The market uncertainty isn’t stopping one of Europe’s most advanced nuclear startups from going public in the U.S. On Tuesday, Newcleo listed on the Nasdaq after completing a $247 million deal with a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, essentially a cheat code for a swift IPO that involves merging with an already-traded black-check company and thus allowing the firm to avoid the months of due diligence with investment bankers that typically precedes a stock market debut. Newcleo CEO Stefano Buono called the deal “a new steppingstone that sets up” the company “for long-term success.”
For fusion no longer to be “the energy source of tomorrow that always will be,” as the old joke goes, the startups promising to bring about the so-called holy grail of clean power need to scale up supply chains. Inertia, the fusion startup that formed with much of the team of U.S. government scientists that pulled off the historic 2022 breakthrough that made fusion energy a possibility, is now laying the groundwork for commercialization. On Tuesday, the company, led by former Twilio CEO Jeff Lawson (yes, the same one that’ll be at Heatmap House), announced what it called “close collaborations” with three companies to begin manufacturing the lasers needed for Inertia’s fusion power plants at scale. “These are the first of many industrial collaborations we will coordinate to bring the scale of mass manufacturing to industrialize the laser fusion energy supply chain,” the company said.