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.
As always, it’s the lawyers who are the real winners.
Things are never simple when it comes to tariffs. While the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday finding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, better known as IEEPA, did not authorize Donald Trump’s “fentanyl” tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico, and “reciprocal” tariffs on the rest of the world was unambiguous, tariff policy is still complex and evolving.
Already Trump has said he would use a separate authority to impose a 10% global tariff that can extend as long as 150 days. The administration is also pursuing a number of investigations that will likely result in new tariffs under more well-established authorities.
And none of this changes the fact that the clean energy industry has been tangling with tariffs for years and will continue to do so after today. While companies will likely experience some relief, it may or may not make a material difference.
Here are just some of the factors in play:
One thing today’s court ruling did not clarify is how companies should go about recovering the funds they’ve already paid toward these tariffs — which, if the tariffs were illegal all along, is money they’re now owed.
The confusion goes deeper than the mere mechanism, however, because while developers may be feeling the impact from tariffs in terms of higher prices from their suppliers — for, say, solar modules — it’s the suppliers they’ve contracted with who are likely entitled to refunds.
“The existing tariffs that are in place as of the date of that contract signing are built into the contract price. And then there’s a provision in there that if new tariffs are introduced, the supplier is entitled to readjust,” Stefan Reisinger, a partner at the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, told me.
While contracts often have provisions for what to do when a new tariff comes in, they don’t tend to have provisions for tariffs being refunded.
“The agreements don’t have provisions in them that actually deal with the prospect of tariffs being ruled invalid with the supplier getting a refund, so they’re technically not obligated under the contract to flow those refunds down,” Reisinger said.
“I had some preliminary discussions today with suppliers that are in that position, and for business reasons, they’ll likely pass along some portion of the refund,” he added. “There’s going to be countless disputes over who gets the refund and how much.”
The clean energy supply chain is global. Especially for the backbone of the energy transition — solar and storage — China dominates. For some components, like wafers, China has a near monopoly on production. Over 90% of the market for solar cells comes from China. The U.S. lacked even the capacity to produce all components of a solar system domestically until late last year.
Trade restrictions on solar go far beyond the baseline tariffs and the China-specific tariffs addressed in today’s Supreme Court decision, however. There are China-specific restrictions and other tariffs imposed on companies that tried to evade them by setting up manufacturing abroad. The Trump administration is investigating polysilicon, a first step to imposing tariffs. The Biden administration extended and increased tariffs on Chinese solar cells and modules that had been first imposed in 2018. Meanwhile, another set of solar tariffs expired earlier this month.
Still, “I think the biggest impact of the ruling will be for solar and batteries, because they face some of the largest tariffs, and so we’ll see the biggest cost reductions,” Oliver Kerr, North America managing director at Aurora Energy Research, told me. Some manufacturers have already made refund requests — though again, who knows how that will play out.
Solar investors responded with cautious optimism to the court’s tariff ruling. Shares in Canadian Solar, a solar manufacturing company that has been whipped around by tariffs, shot up after the decision was released.
Other solar manufacturers have a more ambiguous relationship to tariffs. First Solar, the leading U.S. solar manufacturer, took a hit following the initial “liberation day” tariffs, as they affected the company’s operations in Vietnam, India, and Malaysia. In regulatory filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, First Solar has said that, “as it pertains to the countries where we manufacture solar modules, reciprocal tariff rates apply to Vietnam (20%), India (25%), and Malaysia (19%),” and so “as a result, our operating results have and may continue to be adversely impacted by these tariffs.” (Since “liberation day,” the Trump administration has reached trade deals with Vietnam and India.)
When it comes to the tariffs on China, though, First Solar has a clear point of view: They’re good. “Our operating results could be adversely impacted if the IEEPA tariffs on China were to be terminated or reduced,” the company has said in its regulatory filings.
A similar story applies to batteries. China dominates the supply chains for the minerals used in batteries, including cobalt, lithium, and graphite, particularly in the refining stage. Much of the anode graphite material manufacturing sector simply moved to Indonesia in response to the tariffs on China, according to battery analyst Henry Sanderson.
At the same time, battery manufacturers and developers of battery energy storage systems will want to comply with foreign entities of concern rules, which restrict the use of Chinese material and Chinese companies’ involvement in the supply chain for technologies that receive tax credits.
“For storage in particular, they will have the foreign entity of concern, so they will still have to source a meaningful proportion of the content domestically,” Kerr told me. “That matters a little more for batteries because batteries still have access to tax credits through the early 2030s and those tax credits are pretty valuable.”
Another wrinkle: Unrelated to the Trump “reciprocal” tariffs, the Department of Commerce last week finalized punishingly high tariff rates on Chinese active anode material as part of an antidumping investigation.
Many emerging technologies are likely to benefit from tariffs being lifted.
“Anything that relies on industrial inputs, I think there’s a big impact here,” David Yellen, director of climate policy innovation at the Clean Air Task Force, told me.
While protection can work for some industries like steel and aluminum, it doesn’t help much for anyone — including manufacturers — who have to use inputs.
“The blanket policy was that putting tariffs on downstream products and inputs doesn’t actually really protect your domestic industry. It raises prices across the board,” he said, pointing to advanced nuclear and geothermal as high tech industrial processes that have a global supply chain. Drill bits, sensors, and power electronics may all see some price relief.
“To the extent that removing some of these blanket tariffs in the aggregate allows the input prices to go down,” Yellen told me, “I think it may benefit a lot of the capital intensive technologies.”
The sale of Ravenswood Generating Station closed at the end of January.
New York City’s largest fossil fuel-fired power plant has changed hands. The Ravenswood Generating Station, which provides more than 20% of the city’s generation capacity, was sold by its former parent company LS Power to NRG, an energy company headquartered in Texas that owns power plants throughout the country.
It’s not yet clear what this means for “Renewable Ravenswood,” the former owner’s widely-publicized plans to convert the site into a clean energy hub. Prior to the sale, those plans were hanging by a thread. NRG did not respond to detailed questions about whether it will abandon or advance that vision.
“Ravenswood has been an important part of powering New York City for decades, and we recognize how much the facility matters to the surrounding community and the region,” a spokesperson for the company told me in an email. “We’ve begun engaging with community stakeholders and look forward to continuing those conversations in the months ahead. Our leadership team is carefully reviewing all relevant information and is taking a thoughtful, measured approach to any future decisions.”
Ravenswood is made up of four generating units: a natural gas combined cycle plant built in 2004, and three steam generators built in the 1960s that run mostly on natural gas, though sometimes also on oil. The plant is responsible for a sizable chunk of the city’s climate footprint. In 2023, the most recent year for which data is available, the plant emitted nearly 1.3 million metric tons of CO2, or about 8% of the city’s emissions from electricity production.
The Renewable Ravenswood concept was largely celebrated by the surrounding community, which includes two of the largest public housing projects in the country and suffers from disproportionately high rates of chronic respiratory diseases like asthma. The plan, which a local subsidiary of LS Power called Rise Light and Power proposed in 2022, entailed replacing the plant’s three 1960s steam generators with a combination of offshore wind, batteries, and renewable energy delivered from upstate New York via new power lines.
By last year, however, the plan was increasingly looking like a distant dream. Its centerpiece was a proposed offshore wind farm called Attentive Energy, but the project has been on ice since 2024, with little chance of moving forward under the Trump administration. This past November, New York regulators rejected a proposed transmission line that would have connected Ravenswood to a hypothetical future offshore wind development, primarily because there was no longer any such development in progress. Earlier this week, state energy regulators delivered yet another blow to potential offshore wind development when they decided not to solicit offers from for new projects to enter the state’s energy market.
Battery development has also had a rocky few years in New York State, which has affected Ravenswood’s transition. Rise Light and Power initially proposed building a 316-megawatt battery project on the site in 2019, but it has yet to break ground. The former CEO, Clint Plummer, previously told me that the company was waiting on New York State regulators to open up their anticipated battery solicitation, which would enable the project to bid into the New York energy market, before building the project. That solicitation opened last July, but it’s unclear whether the company submitted a bid. NRG did not respond to a question about this.
NRG first announced its plans to buy a fleet of natural gas plants — 18 in total — from LS Power in May 2025. Ravenswood was not mentioned in the press release or investor materials, however. “We're acquiring these assets at a significant discount to new build cost, at an attractive valuation, and at the strategically opportune time to be adding high-quality, difficult-to-replicate resources into our portfolio as the sector enters into a period of sustained demand growth,” NRG’s CEO Lawrence Coben told investors at the time.
The purchase was subject to regulatory approval and officially closed a few weeks ago, on January 30. Documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission confirm that Ravenswood was part of the deal. Documents filed with the New York Public Service Commission describe the terms in more detail, but they do not mention the proposed transition of the site to a clean energy hub.
Local officials, community groups, and tenant associations were deeply involved in fleshing out the Renewable Ravenswood vision. The Queens Borough President worked with the former owner on a multiyear report called “Reimagine Ravenswood,” released last summer, based on extensive engagement with the community, including public workshops, focus groups, interviews with local leaders, and a community survey. The report is evidence of high hopes the community has for the site’s transition, describing the potential to create jobs, expand public space, and generally increase investment in the neighborhood.
I reached out to many of the local elected officials and community groups that have publicly supported Renewable Ravenswood to ask if they were aware of the sale and whether NRG had made any commitments in regard to the transition plan. Just one responded. State Senator Kristen Gonzalez’s office told me they were aware of the sale, but declined to comment further.
Heron Power and DG Matrix each score big funding rounds, plus news for heat pumps and sustainable fashion.
While industries with major administrative tailwinds such as nuclear and geothermal have been hogging the funding headlines lately, this week brings some variety with news featuring the unassuming but ever-powerful transformer. Two solid-state transformer startups just announced back-to-back funding rounds, promising to bring greater efficiency and smarter services to the grid and data centers alike. Throw in capital supporting heat pump adoption and a new fund for sustainable fashion, and it looks like a week for celebrating some of the quieter climate tech solutions.
Transformers are the silent workhorses of the energy transition. These often-underappreciated devices step up voltage for long-distance electricity transmission and step it back down so that it can be safely delivered to homes and businesses. As electrification accelerates and data centers race to come online, demand for transformers has surged — more than doubling since 2019 — creating a supply crunch in the U.S. that’s slowing the deployment of clean energy projects.
Against this backdrop, startup Heron Power just raised a $140 million Series B round co-led by Andreessen Horowitz and Breakthrough Energy Ventures to build next-generation solid state transformers. The company said its tech will be able to replace or consolidate much of today’s bulky transformer infrastructure, enabling electricity to move more efficiently between low-voltage technologies like solar, batteries, and data centers and medium-voltage grids. Heron’s transformers also promise greater control than conventional equipment, using power electronics and software to actively manage electricity flows, whereas traditional transformers are largely passive devices designed to change voltage.
This new funding will allow Heron to build a U.S.manufacturing facility designed to produce around 40 gigawatts of transformer equipment annually; it expects to begin production there next year. This latest raise follows quickly on the heels of its $38 million Series A round last May, reflecting hunger among customers for more efficient and quicker to deploy grid infrastructure solutions. Early announced customers include the clean energy developer Intersect Power and the data center developer Crusoe.
It’s a good time to be a transformer startup. DG Matrix, which also develops solid-state transformers, closed a $60 million Series A this week, led by Engine Ventures. The company plans to use the funding to scale its manufacturing and supply chain as it looks to supply data centers with its power-conversion systems.
Solid-state transformers — which use semiconductors to convert and control electricity — have been in the research and development phase for decades. Now they’re finally reaching the stage of technical maturity needed for commercial deployment, driving a surge in activity across the industry. DG Matrix’s emphasis is on creating flexible power conversion solutions, marketing its product as the world’s first “multi-port” solid-state transformer capable of managing and balancing electricity from multiple different sources at once.
“This Series A marks our transition from breakthrough technology to scaled infrastructure deployment,” Haroon Inam, DG Matrix’s CEO, said in a statement. “We are working with hyperscalers, energy companies, and industrial customers across North America and globally, with multiple gigawatt-class datacenters in the pipeline.” According to TechCrunch, data centers make up roughly 90% of DG Matrix’s current customer base, as its transformers can significantly reduce the space data centers require for power conversion.
Zero Homes, a digital platform and marketplace that helps homeowners manage the heat pump installation process, just announced a $16.8 million Series A round led by climate tech investor Prelude Ventures. The company’s free smartphone app lets customers create a “digital twin” of their home — a virtual model that mirrors the real-world version, built from photos, videos, and utility data. This allows homeowners to get quotes, purchase, and plan for their HVAC upgrade without the need for a traditional in-person inspection. The company says this will cut overall project costs by 20% on average.
Zero works with a network of vetted independent installers across the U.S., with active projects in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Illinois. As the startup plans for national expansion, it’s already gained traction with some local governments, partnering with Chicago on its Green Homes initiative and netting $745,000 from Colorado’s Office of Economic Development to grow its operations in Denver.
Climactic, an early-stage climate tech VC, launched a new hybrid fund called Material Scale, aimed at helping sustainable materials and apparel startups navigate the so-called “valley of death” — the gap between early-stage funding and the later-stage capital needed to commercialize. As Climactic’s cofounder Josh Fesler explained on LinkedIn, the fund is designed to cover the extra costs involved with sustainable production, bridging the gap between the market price of conventional materials and the higher price of sustainable materials.
Structured as a “hybrid debt-equity platform,” the fund allows Climactic’s investors to either take a traditional equity stake in materials startups or provide them with capital in the form of loans. TechCrunch reports that the fund’s initial investments will come from an $11 million special purpose vehicle, a separate entity created to fund a small set of initial investments that sits outside Material Scale’s main investing pool.
The fashion industry accounts for roughly 10% of global emissions. “These days there are many alt materials startups that have moved through science and structural risk, have venture funding, credible supply chains and most importantly can achieve market price and positive gross margins just with scale,” Fesler wrote in his LinkedIn post. “They just need the capital to grow into their rightful commercial place.”