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.
The last week of Wisconsin’s politics show the risks of the data center issue for Democrats — and decarbonization.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
That was my takeaway after last week’s Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial primary, where the liberal candidate David Crowley edged out a victory over the progressive insurgent Francesca Hong.
Hong, a socialist, had run an aggressively anti-data-center campaign, pledging to pause their development across the state and then “control-alt-delete” them with regulations. Yet as my colleague Jael Holzman recently detailed, Hong lost many of the state’s jurisdictions that have fought data centers the hardest. Port Washington, the site of an acrimonious battle over a $15 billion Oracle and OpenAI facility, went for Crowley by eight points. Hong could not even secure a majority in the small town of Wrightstown, even though voters passed a data center ban by referendum on the same night.
I found the result illuminating. I’ve spent much of the past few months covering the size and scale of the data center backlash. Yet viewed at a remove, the Hong-Crowley result looked like nothing so much as a traditional post-2016 Democratic map, with Hong taking progressive college towns like Madison and Crowley winning more moderate black and rural voters. You would have to squint hard to locate an emergent anti-AI axis in the results. And more critically, you would find little evidence that the data center backlash is changing how voters define themselves ideologically. If Americans hate data centers — and polling shows that they do — then the results suggest that there are limits to their antipathy.
I stand by that conclusion. Yet since then, data centers have become an even bigger issue in Wisconsin state politics, dominating the first week of the general election. In doing so, they’ve demonstrated the risk that the data center backlash poses for Democrats — as well as for decarbonization.
The saga began when Crowley, newly victorious, told NBC News that one of the issues where he “disagreed most” with Hong was data centers: He wanted stronger guardrails on new and existing data centers but didn’t support a moratorium, he said, because he didn’t want to forbid communities that want them from accepting the facilities. Tom Tiffany, the Republican gubernatorial nominee, pounced, sharing a deceptively cut clip of the interview (to put it generously) and framing Crowley as both pro-corporate and tragically woke. If Crowley most disagreed with Hong about data centers, Tiffany asked, does he agree with her about “abolishing the police or prisons?”
Tiffany followed up with a TV ad labeling his opponent “Data Center David Crowley.” “My priority is protecting Wisconsin families, taxpayers, farmland, and water, not turning our state into a data center hub for the 'entire globe," Tiffany said.
This move succeeded in splitting the left. The socialist influencer Hasan Piker — who endorsed and campaigned for Hong — criticized Crowley for not endorsing an outright moratorium on data centers. “david crowley i know you hate me but please don’t do this!” he said [sic].
Let us interject here to say: Crowley and Tiffany have many overlapping policies about data centers — and as we shall see, Crowley’s policies would be more restrictive. Neither candidate supports a data center moratorium, but both say that they would allow communities to veto a local proposal, ban the use of non-disclosure agreements in data center development, and require data centers to cover the cost of their grid upgrades. One of their most salient divisions is on tax policy: Tiffany now supports ending a state tax carveout for some data center equipment, while Crowley would preserve it.
Where the two candidates really disagree is not about data centers at all — it’s about clean energy. Tiffany has argued that data centers are, like renewables, a form of industrial development overtaking agricultural land. He wants to restrict them accordingly.
“We should not be converting our beautiful farmland here in Wisconsin to industrial-scale wind, solar, or data centers,” he posted on Facebook in June. “As the next governor of Wisconsin, I’m going to make sure we stop the conversion of our beautiful farmland in Wisconsin to these industrial sites.”
Tiffany has attacked Crowley, in fact, for saying that data centers should use 100% renewable energy, because that will require the conversion of even more farmland to energy development.
This isn’t a new hangup for Tiffany: He has long sought to block renewables from getting built on farmland. Since 2022, he has repeatedly sought to end federal tax incentives for solar and wind projects built on private agricultural land, and he has opposed individual solar projects in the state that he claimed used too much farmland. (The Trump administration, as part of its broader war on clean energy, has also cut some subsidies for solar on “prime farmland.”)
In other words, Tiffany is using data centers as a kind of trojan horse to restrict clean energy development. By appearing to seem more anti-data-center than Crowley in theory, he is going to be more anti-solar in practice. The stakes here are real for the clean energy industry and for decarbonization more broadly. As governor, Tiffany could implement his longstanding preferences by naming new members to the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, which oversees the state’s utilities. In a letter sent last year, he urged the commission to look more favorably at coal.
What remains notable about this story — and lost in much of the commentary — is that Crowley is not even a moderate on data centers. On some fronts, he would regulate data centers more aggressively than the Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed would, even though the former has been branded as a pragmatist and the latter as a progressive.
Crowley, of course, wants data centers to use 100% renewable electricity and cover their full grid and infrastructure upgrade costs. El-Sayed hasn’t made the same commitment on clean energy. Crowley says data center developers “must build … with union labor,” while El-Sayed would require only that the facilities must be built by contractors with state-registered apprenticeship programs. I even think Crowley’s insistence on local control over data centers is a more expansive commitment than El-Sayed’s demand that communities must get a “meaningful say.” (El-Sayed’s language around water, by comparison, is more specific and binding, requiring data centers to use “closed loop systems.”)
You could say this is all a function of framing: It is Crowley who has declined to endorse a data center moratorium, while El-Sayed railed against data centers repeatedly on his campaign. On a vibes basis, El-Sayed is more the more anti-data-center candidate. But policies are not made by vibes. And it is notable that socialists like Piker have endorsed El-Sayed’s approach while begging for Crowley to go further — when Crowley had the stricter policy all along.
A new report from a coalition of energy and data analytics organizations offers recommendations for the country’s demand response leader.
By many measures, California is the most advanced U.S. demand response market. Its aggressive clean energy targets, widespread home electrification, and near-universal smart meter deployment make it a natural testbed for programs that call upon distributed energy resources — from home batteries and electric vehicle chargers to smart thermostats — to ease grid strain and pay customers for helping out.
The state has been running these initiatives in one form or another for decades, starting with agreements that paid commercial and industrial customers to cut their power during periods of grid stress. Over time, those programs expanded to households, allowing ratepayers to let utilities cycle their air conditioners on and off and, eventually, control their smart thermostats too. But the theoretical potential of California’s demand response strategy has far outpaced the realized grid benefits.
“Load flexibility has underdelivered for a long time,” Ric O’Connell, executive director at the grid policy nonprofit GridLab, told me.
A new joint report from GridLab, data analytics firm Kevala, and the energy consulting firm Energy and Environmental Economics released on Tuesday argues that California’s early-mover advantage has, in many ways, become a liability. While the technology to run more effective, streamlined demand response programs has finally arrived, decades of legacy initiatives have left the state and its confused consumers tangled among dozens of fragmented offerings, outdated compensation structures that don’t reward active participation, and rules that make it unnecessarily difficult for small, household devices to participate in wholesale electricity markets.
“The communications, the control, the metering — none of that stuff was really available 10 years ago, and you just sort of paid people to sign up,” O’Connell told me. “And then we didn’t really switch it as the technology became available for better measurement.”
But now that the technology is better, the report points out that the opportunity is bigger than ever: California has an unprecedented base of smart, connected devices — including millions of EVs, electrified buildings, and home batteries — that, if properly harnessed, could help smooth out the state's electricity demand and avoid the kind of costly new infrastructure buildouts that drives up everyone's rates.
One of the primary recommendations in the report, titled “Unlocking California’s Flexible Load,” is to pay customers for the actual value they provide to the grid — such as how often and for how long they reduce or shift their electricity use during demand response events. While that may seem obvious, historically, utility and state programs have paid customers simply for signing up and remaining "available" to cut power use — regardless of whether they actually deliver when called upon. That model made some sense before smart meters and other tools could verify performance, but today it often just wastes money while failing to deliver meaningful load reductions.
Changes like this could help California capture far more of the value demand response has long promised. A 2024 GridLab study with The Brattle Group found that virtual power plants — networks of distributed resources that collectively act like large, traditional power plants — could save California utilities and consumers $550 million per year while meeting more than 15% of the state’s peak electricity demand.
The potential is especially striking with EVs. Their charging patterns can already help shift overall electricity demand to less grid-constrained hours, while bidirectional charging may one day turn them into giant grid batteries capable of sending power back to the grid — an increasingly common capability known as vehicle-to-grid, or V2G. The report reveals that if just 10% of California’s projected 9.7 million EVs participated in V2G programs, they could supply nearly a third of the state’s 2036 long-duration battery storage target, according to a press release about the report.
As the report also makes clear, though, getting there will require more than simply changing how the program pays customers. Another major recommendation is consolidating the programs and streamlining how they’re administered. O’Connell said the utilities running their own programs — long held back by institutional inertia — are beginning to recognize the inefficiency problem, waking up to the fact that “the person doing the smart thermostat program is in a different department than the person who’s doing the behind the meter battery program,” he told me, explaining that he’s already working with Con Ed in New York to consolidate its offerings. Based on his conversations with California’s utilities, he said he expects them to announce consolidation plans soon, as well.
It can be a hard sell to get the investor-owned utilities to put real muscle behind these programs, however, as they make money by building new infrastructure like large power plants, not by avoiding the need for it through demand flexibility.
“I think in many ways the IOUs have been indifferent to load flexibility. It’s not core to their business,” O’Connell told me. But with political tension over affordability mounting, customers increasingly worried about electricity rate hikes, and huge new large loads like data centers seeking to connect to the grid as quickly as possible, utilities are facing more pressure than ever to make better use of the infrastructure they already have.
Another core recommendation is designed to ensure that demand flexibility programs actually benefit all customers by capping customer compensation below the total cost that the utility avoided in new infrastructure buildout. For example, if a customer’s individual participation in such a program saves a utility $100 in spending, they should receive less than $100 for providing that flexibility. This is designed to ensure that all California customers end up saving on their utility bills, regardless of whether they’re able to flex their loads or not.
This particular recommendation comes in response to a problem the state encountered with its legacy rooftop solar compensation system, Net Energy metering, which ran from 1996 to 2022. The program pays existing solar customers, who have been grandfathered into the program, well above the actual value of the power they export to the grid, thereby shifting billions of dollars in costs onto customers without solar.
Lastly, the report recommends creating a simpler path into wholesale electricity markets. While sophisticated players —- think large businesses or major demand response aggregators such as Voltus or Sunrun — can sell load reductions directly into those markets, the process remains too complicated and paperwork-heavy for smaller aggregators bundling together resources such as household EVs and batteries. For now, the report argues, those smaller players should keep enrolling customers through simpler, utility-run programs while regulators work to make wholesale market participation more accessible.
Ultimately, O’Connell hopes the report can help California move past the institutional battles that have historically held demand flexibility back. “One of the problems with California is there’s no kind of neutral,” he told me. “We were trying to be that neutral party that’s like, here’s the roadmap to get everyone to actually unlock this potential.”
The goal, he said, was to “name all the problems of the past” — and, in doing so, give California’s utilities, regulators, aggregators, and customers a clearer path forward.
Current conditions: Lake Powell just dropped to its lowest level since the reservoir straddling the border between northern Arizona and Utah began filling 60 years ago • A dangerous new heat dome has formed over the American Southeast, driving midday highs north of 110 degrees Fahrenheit in cities such as Jacksonville, Florida • Temperatures in Bandar-e Mahshahr are rising past 124 degrees, making the Iranian port city at the northern end of the Persian Gulf, near the border with Iraq, the current hottest place on Earth.
Less than two weeks ago, Amazon confirmed its plans to build a data center complex powered by a 7.65-gigawatt, off-grid natural gas plant. As my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote, the facility would handily surpass the output of the nation’s biggest power station, the 7-gigawatt Grand Coulee hydroelectric plant in Washington State, and Georgia’s Plant Vogtle, which recently vaulted to No. 2 after the completion of the country’s only two wholly new nuclear reactors in decades increased its output to nearly 5 gigawatts. An even bigger gas plant is now eyeing the top spot on the list. On Monday, ChatGPT-maker OpenAI inked a deal for a sweeping new data center campus in Ohio, backed by $105 billion from chipmaker Nvidia. As part of the agreement, SoftBank’s SB Energy will construct a 9.2-gigawatt gas plant that will be owned by the U.S. government and financed by Japan, according to The Wall Street Journal. “Today, we are helping secure the critical infrastructure required to build these factories,” Jensen Huang, Nvidia’s chief executive, wrote in a blog post on the company’s website. “We are investing in the long-lived foundations of AI factories so our customers can deploy the most productive compute platform in the world, generation after generation.”
The biggest impediment, at least according to North America’s quasi-governmental grid watchdog, is power. “The only thing China is ahead of us in the AI race is power,” Jim Robb, the chief executive of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, told reporter Arianna Skibell on the Politico Energy podcast episode that went live Monday. “We have better models, we have better engineers, we have better scientists — but we’re challenged in our society to build the infrastructure that’s going to be required to support the growth.”
Europe’s hellish summer continues to shatter records. Just weeks after wildfires scorched Spain and France in what the French president called the country’s “hardest” challenge “since World War II,” Belgium is now battling its biggest blaze in recorded history. Hundreds fled as the flames approached the German border, though rainfall on Monday helped slow the spread. But the High Fens fire has already exposed political fissures in the country. On Monday, Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken blamed anti-American sentiment for preventing the government from purchasing Chinook helicopters that would have strengthened the country’s firefighting capacities, according to The Brussels Times, an English-language news website. In the Flemish-language Het Laatste Nieuws, the country’s most widely circulated newspaper, columnist Isolde Van den Eynde complained that the episode highlighted the gap between how much government infrastructure exists for climate policy and how little there is for actually dealing with warming-fueled disasters. “While quite a few citizens are wondering where our little army of climate ministers is,” she wrote, “soldiers are on the ground.”
Hawaii, meanwhile, was still reeling from the first hurricane to damage the Big Island in more than a century. Tropical Storm Lala, which strengthened into a Category 1 storm at its peak, knocked out power for nearly 200,000 homes and businesses across the state. As I told you yesterday, the utility that covers 95% of Hawaii has warned it could be months before power is restored. Today we got a clearer sense of the other damage. More than 100 homes were washed away in the storm, and the damage to roads and bridges, according to The New York Times, cut off access to a town with the only hospital in its region.

Exxon Mobil’s oil fields off the coast of Guyana are booming, generating nearly $5 billion in profit last year and only expanding. Chevron last summer spent $53 billion to buy Hess and gain a foothold in the once-poor nation on South America’s Caribbean shores. It’s no wonder The Economist declared South America “the world’s hottest oil patch” last summer.
Now America’s oil goliaths are looking across the Atlantic for their next windfall. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that Exxon had revived its plans to build a liquified natural gas plant in Mozambique’s restive Cabo Delgado, despite the threat of terrorism from an Islamist insurgency in the region. At the same time, Chevron confirmed to Reuters the discovery of new oil and gas deposits in one of its blocks off the coast of Angola, the second-largest producer in sub-Saharan Africa.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Sunrun built America’s biggest business selling and leasing residential batteries and solar panels on the promise of going off-grid and helping homeowners produce enough power to pare down their utility bills. Now the company is doing the same for data centers. On Monday, the San Francisco-based giant announced a deal with the virtual power plant provider Voltus to provide access to its thousands of residential solar-plus-storage systems in the PJM Interconnection and Midcontinent Independent System Operator electrical grids, covering much of the eastern half of the lower 48 states. “We are providing critical capacity from home batteries supported by funding from hyperscalers,” Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said in a statement. “This is just the beginning of what distributed energy assets can achieve.”
Good news for some of my friends over at the farmer’s market in my neck of Brooklyn: New Jersey is preparing to allow farmers to harvest sunlight for crops and electricity. On Monday, the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities voted to award 16 projects totaling more than 52 megawatts for the state’s first agrivoltaics program. Over the next three years, the program will scale up to more than 200 megawatts of projects. “This pilot can help agriculture and the solar energy industry learn if active agriculture use can be a renewable energy partner in shaping New Jersey’s future,” New Jersey Secretary of Agriculture Ed Wengryn said in a statement. “Getting these projects operating is the best real-life laboratory to learn the challenges the two industries face.”
Manila is a striking metropolis with ancient-looking Chinese and Spanish colonial architecture, gleaming new towers, and vast new neighborhoods forming out of landfilled parts of its eponymous bay. When I visited for a reporting trip in 2024, I learned that the name of the Philippines’ capital comes from the Tagalog phrase meaning “where there is nilad,” a type of flowering mangrove shrub that historically blossomed along the city’s riverbanks. Today those channels that line that city’s streets and wind through the world’s oldest Chinatown are filled with trash. Plastic bottles and garbage are common sights in a fast-growing economy held back by its limited supply of mostly dirty electricity. President Ferdinand Marco Jr. now says there’s “only” one solution to the pollution crisis: Burn it. Last week, his administration told The Philippine Star that new waste-to-energy plants could come online in as little as a year. Environmentalists who say incinerators will only add to air pollution are already pushing back. The government has put out a tender for up to 400 megawatts of capacity, Renewables Now reported. Meanwhile, in a sign of just how much the energy market is heating up in the country, the Philippines’ biggest renewables installer, First Gen Corporation, just turned down a bid from the American investment giant KKR, saying the offer didn’t match the installer’s surging value.
Europe, on the other hand, is seeing its hydrogen ambitions stall out. New analysis by Hydrogen Insight found that project timelines across the continent are now being pushed past two years, “with the number of projects expected to begin commissioning by the end of 2029 falling by almost two thirds.”
Something you don’t see every day: The Trump administration is defending a climate policy imposed by the Biden administration that environmental groups like against Republican states. Last week, E&E News reported that the Department of Justice had asked a federal judge in Louisiana to dismiss a lawsuit brought by 10 GOP state attorneys general in a challenge to a Biden-era policy that stopped subsidizing flood insurance for properties in places increasingly at risk due to new climate extremes.