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:
Private providers have started returning to the fire-ravaged state, but its insurer of last resort still has huge and growing exposure.
The massive wildfires in Pacific Palisades and Altadena in Southern California may deal a devastating blow to the state’s fragile home insurance market, which is in the midst of large-scale reforms as part of an effort to lure private insurers back to the state.
In the years running up to yesterday’s, today’s, and likely tomorrow’s fires, several home insurers announced plans to stop writing new policies in California, or even leave the state entirely. The industry and many analysts blamed not just California’s famously hostile mix of dry vegetation, high winds, and scarce rains,but also a rise in construction and reinsurance costs and a regulatory system that made it difficult for insurers to raise rates or think prospectively about risk when setting rates.
In other words, it was simply easier for insurers to not renew policies than it was for them to increase rates to better adjust for risk. Some of these non-renewals occurred in the area now affected by the Eaton Fire in Altadena, though they were most prevalent in the Bay Area and the Sierra Nevada foothills.
In response, California’s insurance commissioner Ricardo Lara rolled out a set of reforms last year thattried to both expand insurance in wildfire prone areas and lure insurers back to the state. The new rules would allow insurers to use models to determine risk (not just historical data, as the law had previously been interpreted to allow) while also mandating that insurance companies operating in the state write policies in fire-prone areas as well as in those that are relatively safe. Lara thenissued another rule late last year allowing insurers to use the cost of reinsurance in determining their rates, which insurers in the rest of the country are allowed to do.
Allstate, which announced in November, 2022 that it would stop writing new home insurance policies in California, said last spring that it was considering a return to the state based on the possibility of models being allowed for ratemaking. At the end of last year, partly in response to the reforms, Farmers also said that it would restart writing new policies for some lines of business in California, and that it would increase the number of new homeowners insurance policies it writes every month after instituting limits in 2023. Last week, Verisk submitted a model to project wildfire risk to the state for regulatory agency review for use in rate-setting.
Get the best of Heatmap in your inbox daily.
Consumer advocates have warned that these rules would lead to increases in insurance rates. So has Lara’s predecessor, Dave Jones, who has been skeptical of trying to grow the private insurance market by giving it more flexibility to set rates without addressing the core issues of climate change and fire management policy.
“In the long term, we’re not going to be able to ‘rate increase’ ourselves out of this problem,” he said in an interview with the University of California, pointing to Florida’s insurance problems as an example, despite the flexibility that insurers have in setting rates there. “In the short-and mid-term for California, giving insurers proposed higher rates will get them to start writing new insurance again — although many homes in the wildland urban interface will continue to face challenges. But in the longer term, higher rates alone are likely to be overwhelmed by the higher risks and losses from climate change — just like in Florida.”
Like Florida, California has a backup for the private market, an insurer of last resort. And, like Florida, it’s been trying to make it smaller, to little avail. It may now be so large as to place the rest of the state at financial risk.
California’s FAIR Plan is a fire insurance pool that all property and casualty insurers operating in the state contribute to in proportion to how much business they have in the state; homeowners turn to FAIR when they can’t get insurance otherwise. As the state has experienced massive wildfires and insurers have pulled out, the size of the FAIR Plan has ballooned, with exposure rising to $458 billion in 2024 from $153 billion in 2020, even as it explicitly says that its “goal is attrition” (i.e. getting customers back on normal insurance plans).
“It’s a socialized cost,” Kate Gordon, the chief executive of California Forward, a policy nonprofit, and former advisor to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, told me. “We see more and more people switching to the FAIR plan. It’s getting massively oversubscribed. It’s going to hit some kind of wall at some point.”
The communities with the most wildfire exposure for the insurer include vacation areas throughout the state such as Lake Arrowhead, Truckee, and Big Bear Lake, and affluent residential communities including Berkeley and the San Francisco suburb Orinda. They also include Pacific Palisades, the fifth most wildfire-exposed market for FAIR in Southern California, with some $5.9 billion of exposure.
While the fires have yet to be substantially contained, let alone extinguished, and the damage has not yet been calculated, the still-raging fires will likely constitute a major hit to the FAIR Plan and California insurers. The number of residential FAIR policies in the Pacific Palisades zip code grew by over 80% between 2023 and 2024, and has quadrupled since 2020. The total financial exposure for residential insurance in Pacific Palisades doubled in the past year, growing to almost $3 billion. In one zipcode affected by the fire in Altadena, residential FAIR plan policies grew by over 40% since 2020, with around $950 million of total exposure.
“As the risk of more climate change-intensified wildfires increases in California, a major wildfire in one geographical area concentrated with FAIR Plan-insured properties could overwhelm the FAIR Plan’s reserves and its capacity to quickly and fully pay consumers’ claims,” Lara wrote in a bulletin in September.
Like other states with insurers of last resort, the FAIR Plan can seek cash from insurers — which could, if the losses are large enough, extract “temporary supplemental fees from their own policyholders,” according to new California insurance regulations. This would mean that Californians who were able to buy private insurance — because they don’t live in a region of the state that insurers have abandoned — could be on the hook for massive wildfire losses. While such an assessment has not occurred since 1994, Victoria Roach, the FAIR Plan’s president, warned in a hearing before the State Assembly last March that a major fire could knock out the plan’s reserves and force it to go to insurers — and their policyholders — to shell out for the difference.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On Trump’s Gulf trip, budget negotiations, and a uranium mine
Current conditions: Highs in Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin could break 100 degrees Fahrenheit on Wednesday afternoon, with ERCOT anticipating demand could approach August 2023’s all-time high of 85,500 megawatts • Governor Tim Walz has called in the National Guard to respond to three fires in northern Minnesota that have burned 20,000 acres and are still 0% contained• The coldest place in the world right now is the South Pole of Antarctica, which could drop to -70 degrees tomorrow.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
The White House on Tuesday announced a $600 billion investment commitment from Saudi Arabia during President Trump’s trip to the Gulf. In exchange, the U.S. offered Riyadh “the largest defense cooperation agreement” Washington has ever made, with an arms package worth nearly $142 billion, Reuters reports. The deals announced so far by the White House total just $283 billion, although the administration told The New York Times that more would be forthcoming.
Among the known commitments in the health and tech sectors, the U.S. also reached a number of energy deals with Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil company, Aramco, which agreed to a $3.4 billion expansion of the Motive refinery in Texas “to integrate chemicals production,” OilPrice.com reports. Aramco additionally signed “a memorandum of understanding with [the U.S. utility] Sempra to receive about 6.2 million tons per year of LNG.” (Aramco is responsible for over 4% of the planet’s CO2 emissions, according to the think tank InfluenceMap, and would be the fourth largest polluter after China, the U.S., and India, if it were its own country.) Additionally, Saudi company DataVolt committed to invest $20 billion in AI data centers and energy infrastructure in the U.S.
Senate Republicans are reportedly putting the brakes on the House Ways and Means Committee’s proposal to overhaul the nation’s clean energy tax credits and effectively kill the Inflation Reduction Act. “[S]ome Senate Republicans say abruptly cutting off credits and changing key provisions that help fund projects more quickly could stifle investments in energy technologies needed to meet growing power demand, and lead to job losses for manufacturing and electricity projects in their states and districts,” Politico reports. North Dakota’s Republican Senator John Hoeven, for one, characterized the Ways and Means’ plan as a “starting point,” with “some change” expected before agreement is reached.
As my colleague Emily Pontecorvo reported earlier this week, the House proposal “appears to amount to a back-door full repeal” of the IRA, including cutting the EV tax credit, moving up the phase-out of tech-neutral clean power, and eliminating credits for energy efficiency, heat pumps, and solar. But as she noted then, “there’s a lot that could change before we get to a final budget” — especially if Republican senators follow through on their words.
The Interior Department plans to expedite permitting for a uranium mine in Utah, conducting an environmental assessment that typically takes a year in just 14 days, The New York Times reports. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the fast-track addressed the “alarming energy emergency because of the prior administration’s Climate Extremist policies.” Notably, Burgum also recently issued a stop-work order on Equinor’s fully permitted Empire Wind offshore wind project, claiming the project’s permitting process had been rushed under former President Joe Biden. That process took nearly four years, according to BloomberNEF.
Critics of the Velvet-Wood project in San Juan County, Utah, said the Interior Department is leaving no opportunity for public comment, and that there are concerns about radioactive waste from the mining activities. Uranium is a fuel in nuclear power plants, and its extraction falls under President Trump’s recent executive order to address the so-called “national energy emergency.”
Clean energy investment saw a second quarterly decline at the start of 2025, but nevertheless accounted for 4.7% of total private investment in structures, equipment, and durable consumer goods in the first quarter of the year, a new report by the Rhodium Group’s Clean Investment Monitor found. Among some of its other notable findings:
You can read the full report here.
A Dutch environmental group is suing oil giant Shell, arguing that the company is in violation of a court order to make an “appropriate contribution” to the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, France 24 reports. Amsterdam-based Milieudefensie previously won an historic precedent against Royal Dutch Shell in 2021, with the court ruling the company had to cut its carbon emissions by 45% of 2019 levels by 2030 because its investments in oil and gas were “endangering human rights and lives.” Shell appealed the decision, moved its headquarters to London, and dropped “Royal Dutch” from its name; subsequently, a Dutch appeals court sided with Shell and reversed the 45% emissions reduction target, while still insisting the company had a responsibility to lower its emissions, Inside Climate News reports.
Now, Milieudefensie is suing, claiming Shell is in breach of its obligation to reduce emissions due to its “continued investment in new oil and gas fields and its inadequate climate policy for the period 2030 to 2050.” Sjoukje van Oosterhout, a lead researcher on the Shell case for Milieudefensie, said in a press conference, “The impact of this case could really be enormous. Science is clear, crystal clear, and the ruling of the appeals court was also clear. Every new field is one too many. That’s why we have this case today.”
AstraZeneca
UK regulators this week approved the use of AstraZeneca’s new medical inhaler, which uses a propellant with 99.9% lower global warming potential than those currently in use. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the discharge and leakage of planet-warming hydrofluoroalkane propellants from inhalers was responsible for 2.5 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2020, or about the same emissions as 550,000 passenger vehicles driven for one year.
Tuesday’s encouraging inflation data concealed an ominous warning sign.
The Trump administration’s policy of increased natural gas exports abroad, plus increased industrial and artificial intelligence investment at home, plus cuts to green energy tax credits could add up to more energy price volatility for Americans.
On Monday, the House Ways and Means Committee unveiled its plan for deep cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act, including early expiration dates and restrictions on the core clean energy tax credits that would effectively gut America’s signature climate law.
But Tuesday’s good news about inflation also contained a troubling omen for electricity prices.
Overall, prices are rising at their slowest rate in years. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that overall prices have risen 2.3% in the past year, the slowest annual increase since February 2021. But electricity prices were up 0.8% just in the past month, and were up 3.6% over last year.
This is likely due in part to rising natural gas prices, as natural gas provides the better part of American electricity generation.
The benchmark Henry Hub spot price for natural gas was $3.26 per million British thermal unit last week,according to the latest Energy Information Administration data — around twice the price of a year ago. And there’s reason to think prices for both gas and electricity will continue to rise, or at least be vulnerable to spikes, explained Skanda Amaranth, the executive director of Employ America.
European demand for liquified natural gas has been high recently, which helps pull the American natural gas price closer to a global price, as Europe is a major buyer of U.S. LNG.
During the early years of the shale boom in the 2010s, before the United States had built much natural gas export capacity (the first LNG shipment from the continental United States left Louisiana in early 2016, believe it or not), American natural gas consumers benefited from “true natural gas abundance,” Amarnath told me. “We had this abundance of natural gas and no way for it to get out.”
Those days are now over. The Trump administration has been promoting LNG exports from day one to a gas-hungry global economy. “We’re not the only country that wants natural gas, and LNG always pays a premium,” Amarnath said.
In March, Western European gas imports hit their highest level since 2017, according to Bloomberg. And there’s reason to expect LNG exports will continue at that pace, or even pick up. One of the Trump administration’s first energy policy actions was to reverse the Biden-era pause on permitting new LNG terminals, and Secretary of Energy Chris Wright has issued a number of approvals and permits for new LNG export terminals since.
The EIA last week bumped up its forecast for natural gas prices for this year and next, citing both higher domestic natural gas demand and higher exports than initially expected. And those are in addition to all the structural factors in the United States pulling on electricity demand — and therefore natural gas demand — including the rise in data center development and the boom in new manufacturing.
But we’re in the era of “drill, baby, drill,” right? So all that new demand will be met with more supply? Not so fast.
Increased production of oil overseas — pushed for by Trump — is playing havoc with the economics of America’s oil and gas companies, which are starting tolevel off or even decrease production. The threat of an economic slowdown induced by Trump’s tariffs also influenced some of those decisions, though that fear may have eased with the U.S.-China trade deal announced on Monday.
While it’s the price of oil that largely determines investment decisions for these companies, a consequence can be fluctuations in natural gas production. That’s because much of America’s natural gas comes out of oil wells, so when oil wells go unexploited, natural gas stays in the ground, too.
“A drop in crude oil prices over the past three months has reduced our expectations for U.S. crude oil production growth, and we now expect less associated natural gas production than we did in January,” the EIA wrote last week.
“Together, these factors mean we expect natural gas prices will be higher in order to incentivize production and keep markets balanced.”
At the same time, Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration look to choke off policy support for a boom in renewables investment with their planned dismantling of the Inflation Reduction Act. This means a less diversified grid that will be more reliant on natural gas, Amarnath explained.
When natural gas prices spike, “it’s very useful to have non-gas sources of supply,” Amarnath told me. The alternative fuel can be anything as long as it’s not fossil. It can be solar, it can be wind, it can be nuclear — all three of which would be hammered by the IRA cuts.
What these sources of power do — besides reduce greenhouse gas emissions — is diversify the grid, so that America’s electricity consumers are “not held hostage to what Asian or European LNG buyers want to pay,” Amarnath said.
“The less you rely on a fuel source for electricity, the more stable you are from a price spike. And we’re more at risk now.”
It’s not early phase-out. These 3 changes could overhaul the law’s clean electricity supports.
On Monday, the Republican-led House Ways and Means Committee released the first draft of its rewrite of America’s clean energy tax credits.
The proposal might look, at first, like a cautious paring back of the tax credits. But the proposal amounts to a backdoor repeal of the policies, according to energy system and tax analysts.
“The bill is written to come across as reasonable, but the devil is in the details,” Robbie Orvis, a senior analyst at Energy Innovation, a nonpartisan energy and climate think tank, told me. “It may not be literally the worst text we envisioned seeing, but it’s probably close.”
The proposal would strangle new energy development so quickly that it could raise power costs by as much as 7% over the next decade, according to the Rhodium Group, an energy and policy analysis firm.
Senate Republicans have already indicated that the proposal is unworkable. But to understand why, it’s worth diving into the specific requirements that render the proposal so destructive.
The clean energy tax credits are one of the centerpieces of American energy policy. They’re meant to spur companies to deploy new forms of energy technology, such as nuclear fusion or advanced geothermal wells, and simultaneously to cut carbon pollution from the American power grid.
The U.S. government has long used the tax code to encourage the build-out of wind turbines or solar panels. But when Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, they rewrote a pair of key tax credits so that any technology that generates clean electricity would receive financial support.
Under the law as enacted, these clean electricity tax credits provide 10 years of support to any electricity project — no matter howit generates power — for the foreseeable future. But the new Republican proposal would begin phasing down the value of the credit starting in 2029, and end the program entirely in 2032.
That might sound like a slow and even reasonable phase-out. But a series of smaller changes to the law’s text introduce significant uncertainty about which projects would continue to qualify for the tax credit in the interim. Taken together, these new requirements would kill most, if not all, of the tax credits’ value.
Here are three reasons why the Republican proposal would prove so devastating to the American clean electricity industry.
The new Ways and Means proposal begins to phase out the clean energy tax credits immediately. The proposal cuts the value of the tax credit by 20% per year starting in 2029, and ends the credit entirely in 2032.
But the GOP proposal changes a key phrase that helps financiers invest confidently in a given project.
Under the law as it stands today, developers can’t claim a tax credit until a project is “placed in service” — meaning that it is generating electricity and selling it to the grid. But a project qualifies for a tax credit in the year that construction on that project begins.
For example, imagine a utility that begins building a new geothermal power plant this year, but doesn’t finish construction and connect it to the grid until 2029. Under current law, that company could qualify for the value of the credit as it stands today, but it wouldn’t begin to get money back on its taxes until 2029.
But the GOP proposal would change this language. Under the House Republican text, projects only qualify for a tax credit when they are “placed in service,” regardless of when construction begins. This means that the new geothermal power plant in the earlier example could only get tax credits as set at the 2029 value — regardless of when construction begins.
What’s more, if work on the project were delayed, say by a natural disaster or unexpected equipment shortage, and the power plant’s completion date was pushed into the following year, then the project would only qualify for credits as set at the 2030 value.
In other words, companies and utilities would have no certainty about a tax credit’s value until a project is completed and placed in service. Any postponement or slowdown at any part of the process — even if for a reason totally outside of a developer’s control — could reduce a tax credit’s value.
This makes the tax credits far less dependable than they are today. Generally, companies have more ability to plan around when construction on a power plant begins than they do over when it is placed in service.
This change will significantly raise financing costs for new energy projects of all types because it means that companies won’t be able to finalize their capital stack until a project is completed and turned on. The most complicated and adventurous projects — such as new geothermal, nuclear, or fusion power plants — could face the highest cost inflation.
The Inflation Reduction Act as it stands today attaches a “foreign entity of concern” rule to its $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicle buyers.
In order to qualify for that EV tax credit, automakers had to cut the percentage of Chinese-processed minerals and battery components that appear in their electric models every year. This phased in gradually over time — the idea being that while China dominates the EV and battery supply chain today, the requirement would provide a consistent spur to reshore production.
Somewhat ironically, the GOP proposal ditches the EV tax credit and its accompanying foreign sourcing rules. But it applies a strict version of the foreign entity of concern rule to every other tax credit in the law, including the clean electricity tax credits.
Under the House proposal, no project can qualify for the tax credits unless it receives no “material support” from a Chinese-linked entity. The language defines “material support” aggressively and expansively — it means any “any component, subcomponent, or applicable critical mineral” that is “extracted, processed, recycled, manufactured, or assembled.”
This provision, in other words, would essentially disqualify the use of any Chinese-made part, subcomponent, or metal in the construction of a clean electricity project, although the rule includes a partial and narrow carve-out for some components that are bought from a third-party. Even a mistakenly Chinese-sourced bolt could result in a project losing millions of dollars of tax credits.
Technically, the law also disqualifies the use of goods from other “foreign entities of concern” as defined under U.S. law, which include Russia, Iran, and North Korea. But China is the United States’ third largest trading partner, and it is the only manufacturer of the type of goods that matter to the law.
Solar projects would face immediate challenges under the new rule. China and its domestic companies command more than 80% of the market share for all stages of the solar panel manufacturing process, according to the International Energy Agency.
But then again, the proposal would be an issue for virtually all energy projects. Copper wiring, steel frames, grams of key metals — even geothermal plants rely on individual Chinese-made industrial components, according to Seaver Wang, an analyst at the Breakthrough Institute. These parts also intermingle on the global market, meaning that companies can’t be certain where a given part was made or where it comes from.
These new and stricter rules would kick in two years after the reconciliation bill passes, which likely means 2027.
This provision by itself would be unworkable. But it is made even worse by being coupled to the tax credit’s change to a “placed in service” standard. That’s because projects that are already under construction today might not meet these new foreign entity rules, essentially stripping them of tax credits that companies had already been banking on.
These projects have assumed that they will qualify for the tax credits’ full value, no matter when their power plant is completed, because they have already begun construction. But the GOP proposal would change this retroactively, possibly threatening the financial viability of energy projects that grid managers have been assuming will come online in the next few years.
In some ways, these two changes taken together are “worse than repeal,” Mike O’Boyle, an Energy Innovation analyst, told me. “A number of projects under construction now will lose eligibility."
It is also made worse by the House GOP plan to phase out the tax credits. If companies could plan on the tax credits remaining on the books long-term then the foreign entity rules might spur the creation of a larger domestic — or at least non-Chinese — supply chain for some clean energy inputs. But because the credits will phase out by 2032 regardless, fewer projects will qualify, and it won’t be worth it for companies to invest in alternative supply chains.
Finally, the House Republican proposal would end companies’ ability to sell the value of tax credits to other firms. The IRA had made it easier for utilities and developers to transfer the value of tax credits to other companies — essentially allowing companies with a lot of tax liability, such as banks, to acquire the rights to renewable developers’ credits.
The GOP proposal ends that right for every tax credit, even those that Republicans have historically looked on more favorably, such as the tax credit that rewards companies for capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
This change — coupled with the foreign entity and placed-in-service rules — will have an impact today on power markets by further gumming up the pipeline of new energy projects planned across the country, according to Advait Arun, an analyst at the Center for Public Enterprise.
The end to transferability “functionally imposes higher marginal tax rates on all of these projects,” Arun told me. “The prices that developers will get for their tax credits on the tax equity market today will be a lot lower than normal.”
That could significantly raise the cost of any new energy projects that get planned. And that will lead in the medium term to a further slowdown in the growth of electricity supply, just as turbine shortages have made it more difficult than ever to build a new natural gas power plant.
While many of these changes may seem academic, they will hit energy consumers faster than legislators might realize. Natural gas prices in the U.S. have been unusually high in 2025. A slowdown in the growth of non-fossil energy will further stress natural gas supplies, raising power prices.
Taken together, Orvis told me, these changes to the IRA “will increase the price of the vast majority of new capacity coming online next year,” Orvis said. “It’s an immediate price hike for new energy, and you can’t replace that with new gas.”