You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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.”
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
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 gains set up Democrats to potentially flip the utility commission in 2028.
The blue wave has officially reached the Arizona down ballot. Though two Democratic wins in the Arizona Corporation Commissioner race might not drum up the same national coverage as, say, flipping a Senate seat in South Carolina, the election of Clara Pratte and Jonathon Hill to the five-seat commission could have major energy implications in a state that already saw renewables champions take over the state’s largest utility earlier this year. (With close margins in slow-to-count Arizona, the ACC race wasn’t officially called until Thursday evening, when both Republicans conceded.)
Arizona is one of 10 states that elects its utility commissioners, with the ACC regulating private water, gas, and electric companies in the state. That includes overseeing Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power, where bills have increased 52% and 10%, respectively, over the past five years, per Heatmap’s data. (The publicly owned Salt River Project, which serves much of the Phoenix area, operates largely without ACC oversight.)
The ACC has been wholly in Republican hands since 2024; during that time, the body repealed Arizona’s Electric Efficiency Standards, which had incentivized utilities to pursue energy efficiency programs, as well as the state’s Renewable Energy Standard and Tariff, which supported the build-out of solar and wind power. “They were a rubber stamp for all our utilities and refused to even consider anything in support of protecting our climate,” Arizona State Representative Brian Garcia, who was reelected on Tuesday, said during a press call with Lead Locally this week. “At one instant, one of the commissioners told someone who got sick from the heat — who turned off their power and their AC — ‘Well, that’s on them.’ And I think our state and our communities have had enough of that.”
Though the ACC remains under Republican control despite the two Democratic additions, it puts full control within a one-seat striking distance for progressives when the other three seats are up in 2028 — a much easier fight to win, and potentially a huge one, given that the party hasn’t controlled the ACC since 1997.
Of particular concern in 2026, though, was the development of data centers. Ralph Heap, a Republican in the race who made the League of Conservation Voters’ 12-person “worst of the worst” list out of all 6,342 seats up for grabs nationwide on Tuesday, previously told the Arizona Capitol Times he supports the data center build-out in the name of American AI dominance. Incumbent Republican Kevin Thompson, meanwhile, has argued that the commission “has done its job of shielding ratepayers from costs associated with servicing data centers and other large load users.”
Voters evidently disagreed, backing Hill and Pratte, who say they support a data center moratorium. “The Corporation Commission might not be able to implement a pause, but I think they can certainly be a clearinghouse for information,” Hill told Yellow Sheet Report, an Arizona political tipsheet, acknowledging the relatively limited role the ACC actually has in regulating data centers beyond demanding transparency of utilities’ energy service agreements.
There are other concerns, too. Climate organizers zeroed in on the ACC race because of its influence over the solar buildout in the nation’s sunniest state, where nevertheless six of the state’s 15 counties have a restrictive ordinance against the resource, Heatmap Pro data shows. Commissioner-elect Pratte, a member of the Navajo Nation and the first Indigenous person elected to statewide office in Arizona, is also the co-founder of Navajo Power, a clean-energy company that helps tribal nations develop solar energy and storage projects.
Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power also both have pending rate increase requests under review by the ACC; a 14% rate increase for residential customers and a 45% or more increase for data centers in the case of APS, and a 10% increase for residential customers in the case of TEP. (The APS’ rate case will likely be decided in December, before Pratte and Hill take their seats.)
Additionally, State Senator Lauren Kuby has introduced a bill to change the name of the ACC to the Arizona Public Utility Commission, a move intended to highlight to voters “its significance to their daily lives,” as she told the Arizona Capitol Times earlier this year. Sure enough, John Qua, the campaign director at Lead Locally, and Caroline Spears, the executive director of Climate Cabinet, previously told my colleague Matthew Zeitlin that part of the trouble with supporting progressive candidates in the ACC race was communicating to Arizona voters that, like the race for governor, it is a partisan election.
But given how things turned out Tuesday nationwide — a referendum on cost-of-living and, perhaps, data centers — it seems they needn’t have worried. Arizonans worked out exactly who to blame.
Electricity companies look like one of the biggest losers of the 2026 midterms.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
I’m still wrapping my head around the size and scale of the Democratic victory on Tuesday. I suspect Wall Street is, too. Yesterday, the S&P 500 gained about 1.6% as investors saw an upside in the Democratic blow-out. Today, they lost their nerve: The S&P fell almost 4.4%, and the tech-focused Nasdaq slid by more than 5%. That AI-loaded index is now down more than 10% from its all-time high in October, which means it’s technically entered a “correction.” (If it drops by 20%, it’ll be in a bear market.)
Amid the market carnage, utilities have held out alright. The Vanguard utilities index fell by less than one percent today, and two of the country’s biggest vertically integrated electricity monopolies — Duke and Southern Company — actually gained ground. Other power companies — including Xcel Energy, which serves the Midwest and Dominion Energy in the Southeast — did okay as well.
I find that surprising, because utilities strike me as one of the biggest losers of Tuesday’s election.
That’s partly because utilities showed up in surprisingly specific ways in candidate policy proposals this cycle. Last night, I wrote about how Senate Democratic candidates took a fairly moderate tack on climate and energy policy this year. What I didn’t mention is that Adam Hamilton, Kansas’ newly elected Democratic senator, called out utilities specifically in his proposal for major new transmission. One of his four big energy policy proposals is as follows:
Require competitive bidding processes for transmission projects instead of handing utility companies lucrative contracts at taxpayer expense. When a nearly half-billion-dollar transmission project is handed to a single utility with no competitive bidding, Kansas ratepayers can end up paying far more than they should. Competitive bidding has been shown to cut these costs by twenty to thirty percent. Politicians on both sides of the aisle should speak out against harmful policies that avoid competitive bidding, like the $493 million project that was handed to Evergy.
I mean, sounds great to me, but transmission policy does not normally rank among Democrats’ biggest applause lines. Hamilton’s other energy ideas are far more conventional, including ending Trump’s tariffs, his war on domestic energy projects, and restoring the clean energy tax credits.
Hamilton wasn’t alone in targeting utilities. David Pomerantz, who leads the watchdogging Energy and Policy Institute, has a great blog post today looking at utility politics in the 2026 election. He argues that we’re about to see utilities endure a much tougher oversight regime than they’ve faced in decades.
Why? There was much more attention on public utility regulators in this election than there have been in previous ones, he argues. Historically, public utility commission appointments have been sleepy affairs. But “incoming new governors Amy Acton (Ohio), Jocelyn Benson (Michigan), David Crowley (Wisconsin), Aaron Ford (Nevada), and Hannah Pingree (Maine) all campaigned overtly on a promise to appoint commissioners who would put ratepayers first,” he writes. In a few of those gubernatorial races, the losing Republican candidate had also promised to fire or replace the existing utility commissioners.
It goes beyond just oversight. The incoming governors in Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Maine have all vowed to reform or lower utility profits. Democrats won a majority on Georgia’s public utility commission — and flipped two seats in Arizona’s five-person board — promising to look closely at the utility profit structure, too.
In one state, voters even directly intervened to limit utility action. Michigan’s Proposition 2, which bars regulated utilities from making campaign contributions, passed overwhelmingly with more than 80% of the vote (although it now faces a legal challenge). And more than 100 politicians, including the winning Benson, pledged not to take utility campaign contributions.
Anyway, it’s an interesting post. You might remember I spoke to David last week for Shift Key about how the bipartisan permitting legislation would weaken monopoly utilities. As my colleagues Jael Holzman and Emily Pontecorvo wrote yesterday, Democrats and Republicans are now negotiating a top-down amendment to that permitting package. We’ll soon learn if the new version — which could come out any time in the next two weeks — preserves the same tough-on-utilities provisions that Dave praised.
When it comes to energy and data centers, everyone loves Texas. Its pro-business political consensus, unusually deregulated electricity market, wide-open plains, sunny skies, and large natural gas and oil deposits have attracted data center developers, renewables developers, liquefied natural gas export terminals, and battery storage entrepreneurs alike.
But this all happened under decades of unified Republican control of Texas’ government. That’s ending on January 19, when Gina Hinojosa is sworn in as governor alongside every other holder of statewide elected office who won this year. In Austin, they will join a Democratic majority Texas House of Representatives, which has been under Republican control since 2003.
Immediately following the election, stocks linked to data center development in Texas swooned — Elon Musk’s SpaceX is down 12.5% since Tuesday, data center developer CoreWeave is down almost 19%, Oracle is down 9%, Texas-based independent power producer Vistra is down 19%. Sterling Infrastructure, a civil construction company headquartered outside Houston, has seen its shares fall 32%.
On the campaign trail, Hinojosa called for a moratorium on data centers until the legislature could pass legislation putting guardrails around development, including protecting residential ratepayers from electricity price hikes and giving local communities more leeway to restrict and condition development. Two weeks before election day, she released a video criticizing Governor Greg Abbott’s “Batch Zero” review process — which had been broadly characterized as a “pause” when it was announced over the summer — for allowing new permits, and she said that she would issue a “ban” on all data center approvals until new laws could be passed.
When Abbott introduced his pause over the summer, Texas’s electricity market ERCOT had 474 gigawatts of data center interconnection requests in its queue (almost all from data centers), a figure he said was around five times the electricity market’s peak demand. That review is due to end next month, shortly before Hinojosa is due to take office, leaving little time for new projects to get approved before the moratorium goes into effect.
Some observers and investors took a sanguine view of Hinojosa’s data center policies. Gavin Baker, a longtime investor in SpaceX, said on X that Hinojosa’s policies “sound reasonable” and pointed to an interview she gave saying that the moratorium would be on new permits and would not affect the pipeline of permitted projects.
The data center and energy industry, however, is in wait-and-see mode when it comes to the severity of the moratorium.
“If she was thinking of trying to go after projects that had begun the construction process,” Brandt Vermillion, U.S. research lead at Modo Energy, said, “I think it would change the overall outlook a ton.”
According to Modo Energy analysis, there are some 25 gigawatts worth of projects under construction in Texas, another 4.6 gigawatts permitted, and another 90 gigawatts that are either just announced or have only submitted grid studies. If Hinojosa “is only going after non-permitted projects,” Vermillion added, then anyone thinking about the future path of data center development in Texas should be more concerned about supply chain constraints like obtaining enough chips to power the data centers.
That being said, the Texas legislature’s session doesn’t end until May 2027, meaning that Hinojosa’s pause could last several months before lawmakers put guardrails into law.
“I don’t think we’re going to not build another data center in the state,” Joshua Rhodes, a research scientist at the University of Texas at Austin, told me. “But I think that they’re going to be under quite a bit more scrutiny.”
That being said, analysts are now much more uncertain about the future path of electricity demand in the state. “Texas demand is difficult to project after Gina Hinojosa’s surprise win,” Jefferies analyst Julien Dumoulin-Smith wrote in a note to clients on Thursday.
That means more trouble for developers in Texas, especially for storage projects, which had already been seeing extremely volatile monthly revenue.
“Batteries and energy storage have been counting on demand to go up because they’re having a rough time out there right now in terms of revenues,” Rhodes said. “Demand will have a pretty big impact on supply.”
One thing the battery storage industry, as well as solar and wind developers, can cheer is that Democratic control of the governorship and the state House means that the threat of anti-renewables bills has fallen to essentially zero.
The renewables industry is hoping that data center development does continue in Texas, but that it looks more orderly and grid-connected.
Going forward, Vermillion expects that data center developers will have a harder time getting tax abatements, which means that a “well-capitalized hyperscaler” could potentially still pursue projects.
“Project A that was going to go about development in a certain way of seeking tax abatements and buying a bunch of reciprocating engines and trying to run themselves off grid” is much less likely to be able to go forward in Hinojosa’s Texas, Vermillion told me, especially as she is able to appoint new commissioners to the Texas Public Utility Commission or the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Tim Woodruff, the data center lead at Modo, told me similarly. “In the near term, if you're one of the neo clouds, maybe now you start pushing a little harder on your projects that you have in MISO or in CAISO,” he said.