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:
They can be an effective wildfire prevention tool — but not always.

Once the fires stop burning in Los Angeles and the city picks itself up from the rubble, the chorus of voices asking how such a disaster could have been prevented will rise. In California, the answer to that desperate query is so often “better forestry management practices,” and in particular “more controlled burns.” But that’s not always the full story, and in the case of the historically destructive L.A. fires, many experts doubt that prescribed burns and better vegetation management would have mattered much at all.
Controlled burns are intentionally set and supervised by land managers to clear out excess fuels such as shrubs, trees, and logs to reduce wildfire risk. Many habitats also require fire to thrive, and so ensuring they burn in a controlled manner is a win-win for natural ecosystems and the man-made environment. But controlled burns also pose a series of challenges. For one, complex permitting processes and restrictions around when and where burns are allowed can deter agencies from attempting them. Community backlash is also an issue, as residents are often concerned about air quality as well as the possibility of the prescribed fires spiraling out of control. Land management agencies also worry about the liability risks of a controlled burn getting out of hand.
Many of the state’s largest and most destructive fires — including the Camp Fire in 2018, lightning complex fires in 2020, and Dixie Fire in 2021 — started in forests, and would therefore have likely been severely curtailed had the state done more controlled burns. According to ProPublica, anywhere between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres used to burn annually in prehistoric California. By 2017, overzealous fire suppression efforts driven by regulatory barriers and short-term risk aversion had caused that number to drop to 13,000 acres. While the state has increased the amount of prescribed fire in recent years, the backlog of fuel is enormous.
But the L.A. fires didn’t start or spread in a forest. The largest blaze, in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood, ignited in a chaparral environment full of shrubs that have been growing for about 50 years. Jon Keeley, a research scientist with the U.S. Geological Survey and an adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that’s not enough time for this particular environment to build up an “unnatural accumulation of fuels.”
“That’s well within the historical fire frequency for that landscape,” Keeley told my colleague, Emily Pontecorvo, for her reporting on what started the fires. Generally, he said, these chaparral environments should burn every 30 to 130 years, with coastal areas like Pacific Palisades falling on the longer end of that spectrum. “Fuels are not really the issue in these big fires — it’s the extreme winds. You can do prescription burning in chaparral and have essentially no impact on Santa Ana wind-driven fires.”
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
We still don’t know what ignited the L.A. fires, and thus whether a human, utility, or other mysterious source is to blame. But the combination of factors that led to the blazes — wet periods that allowed for abundant vegetation growth followed by drought and intensely powerful winds — are simply a perilously bad combination. Firebreaks, strips of land where vegetation is reduced or removed, can often prove helpful, and they do exist in the L.A. hillsides. But as Matthew Hurteau, a professor at the University of New Mexico and director of the Center for Fire Resilient Ecosystems and Society, told me bluntly, “When you have 100-mile-an-hour winds pushing fire, there’s not a hell of a lot that’s going to stop it.”
Hurteau told me that he thinks of the primary drivers of destructive fires as a triangle, with fuels, climate, and the built environment representing the three points. “We’re definitely on the built environment, climate side of that triangle for these particular fires around Los Angeles,” Hurteau explained, meaning that the wildland-urban interface combined with drought and winds are the primary culprits. But in more heavily forested, mountainous areas of Northern California, “you get the climate and fuels side of the triangle,” Hurteau said.
Embers can travel impressive distances in the wind, as evidenced by footage of past fires jumping expansive freeways in Southern California. So, as Hurteau put it, “short of mowing whole hillsides down to nothing and keeping them that way,” there’s little vegetation management work to be done at the wildland-urban interface, where houses bump up against undeveloped lands.
Not everyone agrees, though. When I spoke to Susan Prichard, a fire ecologist and research scientist at the University of Washington School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, she told me that while prescribed burns close to suburban areas can be contentious and challenging, citizens can do a lot on their own to manage fuel risk. “Neighborhoods can come together and do the appropriate fuel reduction in and around their homes, and that makes a huge difference in wildfires,” she told me. “Landscaping in and around homes matters, even if you have 100-mile-an-hour winds with a lot of embers.”
Prichard recommends residents work with their neighbors to remove burnable vegetation and organic waste, and to get rid of so-called “ember traps” such as double fencing that can route fires straight to homes. Prichard pointed to research by Crystal Kolden, a “pyrogeographer” and associate professor at the University of California Merced, whose work focuses on understanding wildfire intersections with the human environment. Kolden has argued that proper vegetation management could have greatly lessened the impact of the L.A. fires. As she recently wrote on Bluesky, “These places will see fire again. I have no doubt. But I also know that you can rebuild and manage the land so that next time the houses won’t burn down. I’ve seen it work.”
Keeley pointed to the 2017 Thomas Fire in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, however, as an example of the futility of firebreaks and prescribed burns in extreme situations. That fire also ignited outside of what’s normally considered fire season, in December. “There were thousands of acres that had been prescribed burned near the eastern edge of that fire perimeter in the decade prior to ignition,” Keeley explained to Emily. “Once that fire was ignited, the winds were so powerful it just blew the embers right across the prescribed burn area and resulted in one of the largest wildfires that we’ve had in Southern California.”
Kolden, however, reads the Thomas Fire as a more optimistic story. As she wrote in a case report on the fire published in 2019, “Despite the extreme wind conditions and interviewee estimates of potentially hundreds of homes being consumed, only seven primary residences were destroyed by the Thomas Fire, and firefighters indicated that pre-fire mitigation activities played a clear, central role in the outcomes observed.” While the paper didn’t focus on controlled burns, mitigation activities discussed include reducing vegetation around homes and roads, as well as common-sense actions such as increasing community planning and preparedness, public education around fire safety, and arguably most importantly, adopting and enforcing fire-resistant building codes.
So while blaming decades of forestry mismanagement for major fires is frequently accurate, in Southern California the villains in this narrative can be trickier to pin down. Is it the fault of the winds? The droughts? The humans who want to live in beautiful but acutely fire-prone areas? The planning agencies that allow people to fulfill those risky dreams?
Prichard still maintains that counties and the state government can be doing a whole lot more to encourage fuel reduction. “That might not be prescribed burning, that might actually be ongoing mastication of some of the really big chaparral, so that it’s not possible for really tall, developed, even senescent vegetation — meaning having a lot of dead material in it — to burn that big right next to homes.”
From Hurteau’s perspective though, far and away the most effective solution would be simply building structures to be much more fire-resilient than they are today. “Society has chosen to build into a very flammable environment,” Hurteau put it. California’s population has increased over 160% since the 1950’s, far outpacing the country overall and pushing development further and further out into areas that border forests, chaparral, and grasslands. “As people rebuild after what’s going to be great tragedy, how do you re-envision the built environment so that this becomes less likely to occur in the future?”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
In an age of uncertainty, investors want proven technologies.
When Trump won a second term, nobody quite knew exactly what havoc he would wreak on the climate tech industry — only that its prospects looked deeply unstable. After all, he’d alternately derided and praised electric vehicles, accused offshore wind turbines of killing whales, and described himself as “a big fan of solar” — save for its supposed harm to the bunnies — all while rallying supporters around the consistent refrain of “drill, baby, drill.”
At the same time, a number of key technologies continued moving down the cost curve, supportive policy or no. This collision of climate tech antipathy and maturing technology is already reshaping the funding landscape. New reports from Sightline Climate, Silicon Valley Bank, and J.P. Morgan point to a clear bifurcation in the industry: While well-capitalized investors and more established climate tech companies continue to raise sizable funds and advance large-scale projects, much of the venture ecosystem that backs earlier-stage solutions is struggling to keep up.
The headline numbers — which look strong at first glance — help obscure that reality. Sightline Climate’s Dry Powder and New Funds report, for instance, shows investors raising a record $92 billion in new climate-focused capital across 179 funds last year. But 77% of that total was concentrated among the largest players, institutional heavyweights like Brookfield Asset Management, Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, and Energy Capital Partners, which tend to back proven technologies such as utility-scale solar, wind, and battery projects.
“A lot of infrastructure funds are very comfortable saying, Yeah, I’m going to do wind and solar. I know how that works. I can see the project finance there. All good,” Julia Attwood, Sightline’s head of research, said on a webinar about the firm’s report.
Meanwhile, the proportion of U.S. investment going to seed and Series A companies fell for the first time in about a decade, according to Silicon Valley Bank’s Future of Climate Tech report, bad news for less mature but critical technologies like carbon capture, green steel, low-carbon cement, and agricultural decarbonization. These remain the domain of more risk-tolerant early-stage venture investors, whose share of total funding raised is similarly shrinking, dropping from about 20% in 2021 to under 8% last year, according to Sightline. That’s due to both a decline in VC fundraising — the average fund size dropped from $174 million in 2024 to $160 million in 2025 — as well as infrastructure’s share of the pie growing as the industry matures.
Capital concentration also shows up within early-stage venture itself. While Silicon Valley Bank’s topline numbers show startup valuations increasing at every stage from seed to Series C and beyond, “there’s clearly a story behind that where the top performers are doing really well and a lot of the longer tail are still scraping to keep up,” Jordan Kanis, Silicon Valley Bank’s managing director of climate technology, told me. “There’s still money flowing into early stage companies. I think there’s more selectivity. It’s a higher bar.”
That selectivity has become a necessity, as investors struggle to raise fresh capital from their limited partners in a politically volatile environment, in which affordability and energy security have become the name of the game and the word “climate” is all but forbidden. Even before Trump’s second term, LPs were facing a liquidity crunch, as infrastructure-heavy climate tech companies often take a decade or more to exit and return capital to investors. So until those IPOs or acquisitions accelerate, many LPs will likely remain cautious about ponying up additional capital.
This year could be a turning point on that front, however, with nuclear startup X-energy going public last month at a valuation of nearly $12 billion, and geothermal unicorn Fervo Energy gearing up for its pending IPO. “Nothing gets this fired up more than some really good exits,” Andrew Beebe, managing director at Obvious Ventures, told me, referring to the climate tech ecosystem at large. “That’s going to get people talking a lot about the opportunities in the space.”
Obvious, which invests in climate tech companies but also those focused on “human health” and “economic health,” is one of the few venture investors to bring in fresh capital recently, raising about $360 million in January for its fifth fund. Last year, only 39% of climate-focused VC funds that were actively raising were able to close, according to Sightline Climate’s data, compared to 73% of mature infrastructure funds and 60% of growth funds.
Beebe said that for a well-known firm like Obvious, which has been investing in this space for over a decade, “we did not find it that hard” to raise, explaining that “LPs today are favoring experienced teams with track records.” The firm’s diversification beyond climate also might have been a boon, he said. And there’s always the possibility that “there were just too many funds, and we’re going to see a thinning of the field” in both climate and the venture landscape at large.
Indeed, the broader venture market mirrors many of these trends, indicating there’s more than just political sentiment — or even climate industry maturation — driving capital concentration at the top. For one, the entire venture industry contracted after 2022, as post-pandemic interest rates rose, money got more expensive, and valuations plummeted across the board. That’s led investors across all categories to hold off until companies demonstrate significant proof of traction.
“When we look at tech firms and look at how much revenue the median Series A company has in 2021 and compare that to what they had in 2025, it’s double,” Eli Oftedal, a principal researcher at Silicon Valley Bank, told me, meaning Series A companies are bringing in much more revenue than they were five years ago. “Investor expectations are higher across the board, not just in climate, and that’s a pretty clear indication of the whole ecosystem changing to request a higher level from founders.”
At the same time, revenue growth rates have slowed, elongating the time it takes startups to move from one round to the next. This environment has LPs and investors placing big bets on a few prosperous industries that seem almost guaranteed to generate returns, whether it’s solar and wind or artificial intelligence companies. For instance, OpenAI and Anthropic raised $40 billion and $13 billion last year, respectively, accounting for 14% of total global venture investment in 2025.
That type of focused hype is redirecting attention from generalist investors — who might have otherwise funded climate tech — toward more AI-centric bets. But the AI boom and the accompanying data center buildout are also behind many of today’s strongest climate tech deals, with surging electricity demand fueling investment in clean energy and gridtech startups as hyperscalers look to meet their ambitious — and perhaps impractical — climate targets.
“If you’re investing in the clean baseload energy and power part of climate tech, there’s so many dollars that need to be deployed to bring these companies to scale, and they’re viable today,” Robert Keepers, head of climate tech at J.P. Morgan Commercial Banking, told me. “Funds that are focusing on that part of the sector are doing really well.”
But the result is also a dynamic that disproportionately favors the energy sector, the most mature segment of the climate tech ecosystem. Last year, three quarters of new capital raised by climate-focused funds was earmarked for energy investments, leaving sectors including transportation, industry, and agriculture increasingly cut off from capital
If the trend continues, it could create a pipeline problem. Infrastructure investors would keep scaling solar and wind farms alongside politically favored tech like nuclear and geothermal, while a dwindling supply of venture capital leaves fewer next-generation companies able to graduate into that queue. “If they don’t have VC commercializing and providing [first-of-a-kind] funding for a bunch of the new tech then you’re just going to see more and more concentration in a few technologies, and you won’t really have that growth of a brand new market,” Attwood explained on the call.
As of now, however, that’s just speculation. As Attwood noted, Sightline’s data is based on climate tech funds that have already closed. “There’s another $200 billion out there that has not closed yet,” she emphasized. “So if all of that money is still in the pipeline, is still moving through, and could reach close fairly soon, that’s a huge indicator that there is still appetite to fund climate.”
With the historic level of electricity demand growth, Keepers told me “there’s never been this much momentum in the space.” And the climate issue certainly isn’t going away anytime soon. As Silicon Valley Bank’s report notes, over the past decade, billion-dollar climate and weather disasters alone have caused $1.5 trillion in direct damages — a figure that excludes smaller disasters and doesn’t even begin to capture the catastrophes’ broader economic ripple effects.
“We’re tackling a problem that some people still don’t really see, and we see with great clarity. So that’s where you make a lot of money,” Beebe told me. “Unlike some other cycles like blockchain, or crypto, or even enterprise SaaS, this cycle doesn’t come and go. It is a one way street. It will continue to become a bigger and bigger opportunity.”
Current conditions: Temperatures are climbing to 100 degrees Fahrenheit in Las Vegas as a heat wave settles over the Southwest • In India’s northwest Gujarat state, thermometers are soaring as high as 112 degrees • Fire season in the U.S. state of Oregon has officially begun, weeks ahead of usual.
A tanker carrying liquified natural gas from Qatar has appeared to transit the Strait of Hormuz, marking the country’s first export out of the Persian Gulf since the Iran War started. On Sunday, Bloomberg reported that the Al Kharaitiyat had successfully passed through the narrow waterway near the mouth of what’s traditionally the busiest route for oil and gas in the world. As of Sunday evening, the vessel en route to Pakistan from Qatar’s Ras Laffan export plant had reached the Gulf of Oman. The ship, the newswire noted, “appears to have navigated the Tehran-approved northern route that hugs the Iranian coast through the strait.”
Still, progress on ending the war the United States and Israel are waging on Iran remains limited. In a Sunday post on his Truth Social network, President Donald Trump said he had just read a “totally unacceptable” counter proposal to end the war “from Iran’s so-called ‘representatives.’” In the meantime, it’s not just hydrocarbon buyers feeling the pinch of higher prices. As Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin reported last month, the closure of the strait is squeezing both ingredients for battery storage and solar panels.
Data centers may represent big new buyers for electrical utilities. But Eversource Energy, the Massachusetts-based electrical power company serving nearly 5 million customers across New England, is betting against data centers. On a call with investors last week, Eversource CEO Joe Nolan said he’s “not interested” in developing new server farms across the company’s territory, as it’s “only going to drive up the price of energy,” according to Utility Dive. “It’s of no value to our residential customer — actually, any customer,” Nolan said. A limited buildout of artificial intelligence infrastructure had kept prices steadier in New England’s grid than in PJM Interconnection, the mid-Atlantic system. “If you look at the volatility in ISO New England, there’s not a very volatile market compared to PJM,” he said. “So, I feel good about it.”
That position may align well with the push from some Democrats, particularly on the left, to halt data center construction amid a populist backlash to the projects. But this isn’t a blue state issue alone. The same day Nolan made the remarks, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a hard-line Republican, signed a bill mandating that utilities require large data centers to pay their own service costs and prevent those costs from being shifted to ratepayers. “You should not pay one more red cent for electricity because of a hyperscale data center as an individual,” DeSantis said, according to E&E News. “That’s just not right, for the most wealthy companies in the history of the world to come in and have individual Floridians or Americans subsidize these hyperscale data centers.”
One of the biggest early problems afflicting America’s next-generation nuclear industry is the fact that a key fuel many new reactor technologies need has, for years, only been manufactured commercially by Russian and Chinese state-owned nuclear companies. For companies pitching a return to fission as a way for the West to avoid Moscow’s gas and Beijing’s solar panels, batteries, and critical minerals, that posed a problem. But Washington has been racing to shore up a domestic supply of what’s known as high-assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU. Now it’s tapping in one of its closest allies and partners in the atomic energy industry. On Friday, World Nuclear News reported that Japan had shipped 1.7 metric tons of HALEU to the U.S. as part of “the largest single international shipment of uranium in the history of the National Nuclear Security Administration.” The delivery joined together the U.S. Department of Energy’s NNSA, Japan’s top two nuclear regulatory agencies, and the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Transport Solutions and Civil Nuclear Constabulary. “This milestone accelerates our progress towards a secure and independent energy future, while reaffirming our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation,” Matthew Napoli, the NNSA’s deputy administrator for defense nuclear nonproliferation, said in a statement. “Through this partnership with Japan, we are fuelling the next generation of nuclear power, and solidifying America's energy dominance.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
ITER is just about ready to eat. The world’s biggest nuclear fusion experiment, the globally-funded megaproject in France known as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, has received the final shipment of components needed to assemble the giant magnet at the heart of the facility. As a result, the project is now back on schedule, NucNet reported last week.
The joint effort between the U.S., China, the European Union, India, Japan, Russia, and South Korea was once considered the vanguard of the quest for the so-called holy grail of clean energy. But delays, bureaucracy, and funding pauses created repeated setbacks. Meanwhile, fusion has made major strides at small startups in the U.S., while China — as I have reported here — is outspending the entire world combined on research.
JinkoSolar is selling a 75.1% stake in its U.S. manufacturing subsidiary to the private equity firm FH Capital for an undisclosed sum. The deal, announced Friday, also includes the Chinese giant’s battery business. “FH Capital brings deep sector expertise, financing experience, and a deep understanding of the U.S. market,” Nigel Cockroft, U.S. general manager of JinkoSolar, said in a statement. “We believe this transaction provides the right ownership, management and strategic direction for this new venture to grow capacity and serve the growing demand for high performance U.S.-sourced renewable energy products.”
U.S. manufacturers have long struggled to compete against Chinese solar panel producers, which — as I told you two weeks ago — have seen exports more than double since the start of the Iran War. And as I also recently noted, new kinds of solar panels are getting a second look in the U.S. right now. But U.S. panel manufacturers don’t just struggle to compete on price. A new industry report highlighted last week in PV Magazine found that U.S. solar factories are struggling to meet high soldering standards.

Coyotes are the best animal, just in case you didn’t know or you weren’t sure. They are cunning, beautiful, and so clearly emblematic of the natural wonder of this continent that various Native Americans cultures revered the canine European settlers later renamed Canis letrans — “barking dog” in Latin — as a deity. They are wily, the trickster whose wit and determination to endure against bigger predators such as wolves and bears and survive a record-shattering onslaught by the U.S. government. If you ever want to fall in love with the biology and mythology of these creatures, read Coyote America by the environmental historian Dan Flores, or listen to one of his lectures on YouTube. What you’ll learn is that the coyote was subjected to the most extensive extermination campaign in American history, facing all kinds of creatively cruel new weapons especially after World War II as ranchers demanded the U.S. government eradicate one of the peskier pests for livestock, only to spread to more corners of North America than ever before. One of the worst innovations in coyote killing: Cyanide bombs. In 2023, the Biden administration banned the devices, which shoot liquid cyanide into the animal’s mouth causing a vicious but swift death. Now the Trump administration is bringing back cyanide bombs, despite concerns that the traps kill wolves, foxes, and unleashed dogs. It may kill off more individual canines. But it certainly will not eliminate coyotes.
Rob takes stock of both Biden and Trump’s climate legacies with John Bistline and Ryna Cui.
When Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, researchers estimated it would cut U.S. carbon pollution by more than 40% by the mid-2030s. Then President Trump and a GOP majority partially repealed the law, and many of those emissions declines looked doubtful. What will U.S. carbon emissions look like after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act?
We’re starting to get a sense. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob talks with John Bistline and Ryna Cui about a new paper they coauthored modeling the Inflation Reduction Act and One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s combined effects. Bistline is the head of science at Watershed and a former researcher at the Electric Power Research Institute. Cui is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy and the research director for its Center for Global Sustainability.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: One of the many things the IRA was supposed to do — but I think one of the things that it got the most credit for, and that ultimately got some people who were maybe wavering about the law to get to yes — is it was supposed to really drag down the path of U.S. emissions, I think as far as 33% or 35% below where they would be otherwise.
It’s now been partially repealed, and without getting too much into it, basically, as we’ve talked about before, the solar and wind and some of the clean energy tax credits are going to terminate as soon as this year or next year. And then tax credits for energy storage for nuclear will remain on the books for longer. And it’s a more complicated story as we get into EVs. But it’s now been partially terminated. Do we have a sense for where U.S. emissions will wind up? Will they be lower thanks to passing IRA than they would have been in a world where we didn’t get IRA, even though we now also have OBBBA?
John Bistline: Yeah, I think one of the big stories from this paper, in aggregating the modeling work that a range of different teams have been doing, is that IRA was roughly expected to double emissions reductions over the next decade. I think the exact number is that, you know, across the economy, greenhouse gas emissions would be something like 40% to 50% below 2005 by 2035 with IRA in place. But without it, given the changes in OBBBA, something closer to 25% to 35% lower than 2005. Just as context, we’re at about 20% below 2005 right now. So with OBBBA, emissions are still projected to decline, just not as steeply as with IRA in place.
Ryna Cui: Yeah, I will add there, and we are also one of the modeling teams that’s doing the emission pathway trajectories. And I totally agree on John’s points there. Definitely IRA and other actually federal action on the climate policy front, it’s an important, very important contributor to the emission reduction trajectory in the U.S. And I do think the context about declining technology costs and also stronger market forces, it’s going to make it even more effective. It’s not like we have IRA going to replace the other enabling factors. So I do think with the ... now the context is all the enabling market forces are more favorable to the transition.
On top of that, with the policy incentive, we’ll see deeper reduction. Of course, with a series of rollbacks, we’re going to slow down that trajectory. But I also want to mention there’s also beyond federal action, there are other level of governments are still engaging and there are potentials to continue those trends.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
The new paper: Impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act and One Big Beautiful Bill Act on the US energy system
A cheat sheet on the energy policy changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
--
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by ...
Heatmap Pro brings all of our research, reporting, and insights down to the local level. The software platform tracks all local opposition to clean energy and data centers, forecasts community sentiment, and guides data-driven engagement campaigns. Book a demo today to see the premier intelligence platform for project permitting and community engagement.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.