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:
Recovering from a disaster like the Palisades or Eaton fire can take years. Here’s what they can expect.

Two weeks after two of California’s most destructive wildfires on record sparked on the same day in Los Angeles, tens of thousands of displaced residents are taking the first steps of their recovery processes. Officials have started lifting evacuation orders for both the Eaton and Palisades fires, allowing families to return to their properties for the first time. For those whose houses survived, that means suiting up in personal protective equipment and cautiously wiping away ash, throwing out spoiled food, and assessing the damage from smoke, heat, and flames. For those whose houses were lost, it means sorting through wreckage to see what, if anything, can be salvaged.
This moment marks the first of many milestones fire survivors will encounter in the weeks, months, and years to come. Urban wildfires launch complicated timelines that involve a braiding of bureaucratic checklists and personal choices. The volume of decisions can be daunting in both volume and scope, stretched over the course of months, if not years.
It took about 15 months for the first house to be rebuilt and occupied following the 2023 Lahaina Fire in Maui. Five years after the 2018 Camp Fire — which is currently the only California wildfire more devastating than the Eaton Fire — the hard-hit town of Paradise had still rebuilt only about a third of its lost structures. The recovery from the 2021 Marshall Fire in Colorado has notably outpaced many others. There, about two-thirds of the lost homes were rebuilt within the first three years, but that still leaves hundreds wading through their next steps with waning support.
Jennifer Gray Thompson, founder and CEO of the nonprofit group After the Fire U.S.A., told me it’s important to understand that every disaster — and therefore every recovery — is different. Her organization helps communities through this process, building on the knowledge of survivors from previous wildfires, and she said each community tends to make some adaptations and improvements. But the experiences of other wildfire-impacted areas can offer L.A.’s fire survivors an idea of the steps and potential concerns they can expect to encounter next.
Take the re-entry process. As Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass explained in a press conference on Monday, “Re-entry is based on safety.” And just because the fire has passed doesn’t mean the danger has: “Firefighters are still at work to prevent fires, to prevent flare-ups; there are hazardous materials being dealt with; utility repairs are underway; or there is other emergency work that makes it unsafe to be in the area,” Bass said. So far, officials doing this work have identified more than 16,000 destroyed structures and 28 fatalities from the two fires.
This waiting phase can be particularly challenging for those who evacuated, said Thompson. The adrenaline that helped impacted families make it through the fire might be waning under the weight of time, and the road ahead can start to feel overwhelming as various government agencies come to town and task forces pop up. It can take weeks for some evacuees to get the go-ahead to return home, particularly if they choose to wait for hazardous materials to get cleared, as L.A. County Department of Public Health Director Barbara Ferrer has recommended.
That brings us to the two phases of cleanup: removing hazardous materials and disposing of debris. Since the L.A. wildfires are a federally declared disaster, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is able to direct resources toward these tasks, with more than 500 Environmental Protection Agency employees currently surveying the burned areas to identify and collect of things like propane tanks, batteries, and other contaminants, which are packaged up and then disposed of off-site. This reduces the risks for residents returning to their properties, removing some obvious sources of chemicals and toxins like heavy metals and asbestos.
Once residents do make it back, they’ll have the opportunity to both survey and sift through their homes and choose whether they would like the government to remove the remains or contract out to a private company. This part of the process traditionally takes months, if not longer, depending on the scope of the damage, volume of the debris, and cooperation of the residents. For perspective, one year after the Lahaina Fire, debris removal was still ongoing and had racked up a more than $1 billion bill. The Army Corps of Engineers, which led this effort in Lahaina, will take charge again in L.A., with the L.A. Department of Public Works overseeing both phases from the local level.
While these are the larger hurdles residents will need to cross on the property level in order to rebuild, there will also be a number of government and utility-led efforts to make their homes habitable. That includes addressing issues with electric and water systems, from downed lines to blocked or broken sewers. These efforts are now underway in both burned areas, with utility trucks becoming a common sight across the county.
All of this can clear the way for construction to begin on the impacted properties, which comes with its own set of timelines, costs, and players. California Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have issued executive orders to reduce some of the bureaucracy that often accompanies permitting and building in L.A. These include suspending environmental reviews, expediting permitting, and clearing the way to “rebuild homes as they were.”
Still, residents will have to get those permits approved and source labor and materials for the project in what’s become a crowded national market. Other disasters, such as last year’s one-two punch of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, have created unusually high competition, with one development firm executive telling the Wall Street Journal he foresees a “Hunger Games-style competition for materials and labor.”
Fire survivors will also need to find the funds to put towards these projects, whether that’s through government aid, insurance, fundraising campaigns, or digging deep into their own pockets. Robert Fenton, Jr., a FEMA regional administrator, said that as of Wednesday, the agency has registered nearly 100,000 fire survivors to receive aid so far, including money to cover immediate needs for evacuees and to provide personal property and displacement assistance. But many previous disaster survivors will attest that navigating FEMA’s system can be challenging, particularly if you are also insured. Insurance claims need to be filed first — so that FEMA avoids duplicating aid homeowners are already receiving — another process that is known to be both slow and time-consuming, requiring a litany of paperwork and receipts.
And all of this is assuming no additional disasters occur during the recovery process. Wildfire-scorched areas are vulnerable to debris flows when it rains, as it is forecasted to do for the first time in months this weekend. Speaking at a county press conference Wednesday, Mark Pestrella, director of the L.A. Department of Public Works, said his office will be conducting 24/7 storm patrols, making assessments of burned properties and deploying sediment traps and sandbags in at-risk areas. Other weather conditions, like extreme heat or high winds, can also suspend operations and further delay residents from returning.
Overall, Thompson referred to rebuilding after a wildfire as “the biggest group project most people will have ever done in their lives.” Individuals, government officials, non-profits, attorneys, insurers, utilities, developers, and all sorts of laborers will be a part of the process, each bringing their own perspectives, needs, and costs to the table — some complementary and some competing.
Already, there is tension between the desire to rebuild for displaced residents and the desire to make the impacted area more resilient in the face of future hazards. In her newsletter, Susan Crawford, a climate adaptation expert and senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, described the urge to quickly restore what was lost in L.A. as “both understandable and unthinkable” given the county’s ongoing housing crisis and wildfire risk. (Crawford is also a Heatmap contributor.)
“It’s obvious we should be taking a step back and thinking how and where we are rethinking how and where we live, but it may be too much to contemplate in this thickly populated area,” Crawford told me.
For those in L.A. trying to find their own way forward through these agencies and agendas, Thompson recommends turning to others who understand what you’re going through, like your neighbors. Establishing ways to share information, support, and organize can help ensure your community’s concerns and priorities are taken into account in the recovery process.
“You can actually do this,” she said. “It feels right now like it can’t, and it’s going to take time and it comes in stages. But you’re not alone.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around development conflicts.
1. Benton County, Washington – The bellwether for Trump’s apparent freeze on new wind might just be a single project in Washington State: the Horse Heaven wind farm.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – The big data center fight of the week was the Kevin O’Leary-backed project in the middle of the Utah desert. But what actually happened?
3. Durham County, North Carolina – While the Shark Tank data center sucked up media oxygen, a more consequential fight for digital infrastructure is roiling in one of the largest cities in the Tar Heel State.
4. Richland County, Ohio – We close Hotspots on the longshot bid to overturn a renewable energy ban in this deeply MAGA county, which predictably failed.
A conversation with Nick Loris of C3 Solutions
This week’s conversation is with Nick Loris, head of the conservative policy organization C3 Solutions. I wanted to chat with Loris about how he and others in the so-called “eco right” are approaching the data center boom. For years, groups like C3 have occupied a mercurial, influential space in energy policy – their ideas and proposals can filter out into Congress and state legislation while shaping the perspectives of Republican politicians who want to seem on the cutting edge of energy and the environment. That’s why I took note when in late April, Loris and other right-wing energy wonks dropped a set of “consumer-first” proposals on transmission permitting reform geared toward addressing energy demand rising from data center development. So I’m glad Loris was available to lay out his thoughts with me for the newsletter this week.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
How is the eco right approaching permitting reform in the data center boom?
I would say the eco-right broadly speaking is thinking of the data center and load growth broadly as a tremendous and very real opportunity to advance permitting and regulatory reforms at the federal and state level that would enable the generation and linear infrastructure – transmission lines or pipelines – to meet the demand we’re going to see. Not just for hyperscalers and data centers but the needs of the economy. It also sees this as an opportunity to advance tech-neutral reforms where if it makes sense for data centers to get power from virtual power plants, solar, and storage, natural gas, or co-locate and invest in an advanced reactor, all options should be on the table. Fundamentally speaking, if data centers are going to pay for that infrastructure, it brings even greater opportunity to reduce the cost of these technologies. Data centers being a first mover and needing the power as fast as possible could be really helpful for taking that step to get technologies that have a price premium, too.
When it comes to permitting, how important is permitting with respect to “speed-to-power”? What ideas do you support given the rush to build, keeping in mind the environmental protection aspect?
You don’t build without sufficient protections to air quality, water quality, public health, and safety in that regard.
Where I see the fundamental need for permitting reform is, take a look at all the environmental statutes at the federal level and analyze where they’re needing an update and modernization to maintain rigorous environmental standards but build at a more efficient pace. I know the National Environmental Policy Act and the House bill, the SPEED Act, have gotten lots of attention and deservedly so. But also it’s taking a look at things like the Clean Water Act, when states can abuse authority to block pipelines or transmission lines, or the Endangered Species Act, where litigation can drag on for a lot of these projects.
Are there any examples out there of your ideal permitting preferences, prioritizing speed-to-power while protecting the environment? Or is this all so new we’re still in the idea phase?
It’s a little bit of both. For example, there are some states with what’s called a permit-by-rule system. That means you get the permit as long as you meet the environmental standards in place. You have to be in compliance with all the environmental laws on the books but they’ll let them do this as long as they’re monitored, making sure the compliance is legitimate.
One of the structural challenges with some state laws and federal laws is they’re more procedural statutes and a mother may I? approach to permitting. Other statutes just say they’ll enforce rules and regulations on the books but just let companies build projects. Then look at a state like Texas, where they allow more permits rather quickly for all kinds of energy projects. They’ve been pretty efficient at building everything from solar and storage to oil and gas operations.
I think there’s just many different models. Are we early in the stages? There’s a tremendous amount of ideas and opportunities out there. Everything from speeding up interconnection queues to consumer regulated electricity, which is kind of a bring-your-own-power type of solution where companies don’t have to answer or respond to utilities.
It sounds like from your perspective you want to see a permitting pace that allows speed-to-power while protecting the environment.
Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, in the case of a natural gas turbine, if they’re in compliance with the regulations at the state and federal level I don’t have an issue with that. I more so have an issue if they’re disregarding rules at the federal or state level.
We know data centers can be built quickly and we know energy infrastructure cannot. I don’t know if they’ll ever get on par with one another but I do think there are tremendous opportunities to make those processes more efficient. Not just for data centers but to address the cost concerns Americans are seeing across the board.
Do you think the data center boom is going to lead to lots more permitting reform being enacted? Or will the backlash to new projects stop all that?
I think the fundamental driver of permitting reform will be higher energy prices and we’ll need more supply to have more reliability. You just saw NERC put out a level 3 warning about the stability of the grid, driven by data centers. People really pay attention to this when prices are rising.
Will data centers help or hurt the cause? I think that remains to be seen. If there’s opportunities for data centers to pay for infrastructure, including what they’re using, there are areas where projects have been good partners in communities. If they’re the ones taking the opportunity to invest, and they can ensure ratepayers won’t be footing the bill for the power infrastructure, I think they’ll be more of an asset for permitting reform than a harm.
The general public angst against data centers is – trying to think of the right word here – a visceral reaction. It snowballed on itself. Hopefully there’s a bit of an opportunity for a reset and broader understanding of what legitimate concerns are and where we can have better education.
And I’m certainly not shilling for the data centers. I’m here to say they can be good partners and allies in meeting our energy needs.
I’m wondering from your vantage point, what are you hearing from the companies themselves? Is it about a need to build faster? What are they telling you about the backlash to their projects?
When I talk to industry, speed-to-power has been their number one two and three concern. That is slightly shifting because of the growing angst about data centers. Even a few years ago, when developers were engaging with state legislatures, they were hearing more questions than answers. But it’s mostly about how companies can connect to the grid as fast as possible, or whether they can co-locate energy.
Okay, but going back to what you just said about the backlash here. As this becomes more salient, including in Republican circles, is the trendline for the eco-right getting things built faster or tackling these concerns head on?
To me it's a yes, and.
I would broaden this out to be not just the eco right but also Abundance progressives, Abundance conservatives, and libertarians. We need to address these issues head on – with better education, better community engagement. Make sure people know what is getting built. I mean, the Abundance movement as a whole is trying to address those systemic problems.
It’s also an opportunity for the necessary policy reform that has plagued energy development in the U.S. for decades. I see this from an eco right perspective and an abundance progressive perspective that it's an opportunity to say why energy development matters. For families, for the entire U.S. energy economy, and for these hyperscalers.
But if you don’t win in the court of public opinion, none of this is going to matter. We do need to listen to the communities. It’s not an either or here.
And future administrations will learn from his extrajudicial success.
President Donald Trump is now effectively blocking any new wind projects in the United States, according to the main renewables trade group, using the federal government’s power over all things air and sky to grind a routine approval process to a screeching halt.
So far, almost everything Trump has done to target the wind energy sector has been defeated in court. His Day 1 executive order against the wind industry was found unconstitutional. Each of his stop work orders trying to shut down wind farms were overruled. Numerous moves by his Interior Department were ruled illegal.
However, since the early days of Trump 2.0, renewable energy industry insiders have been quietly skittish about a potential secret weapon: the Federal Aviation Administration. Any structure taller than 200 feet must be approved to not endanger commercial planes – that’s an FAA job. If the FAA decided to indefinitely seize up the so-called “no hazard” determinations process, legal and policy experts have told me it would potentially pose an existential risk to all future wind development.
Well, this is now the strategy Trump is apparently taking. Over the weekend, news broke that the Defense Department is refusing to sign off on things required to complete the FAA clearance process. From what I’ve heard from industry insiders, including at the American Clean Power Association, the issues started last summer but were limited in scale, primarily impacting projects that may have required some sort of deal to mitigate potential impacts on radar or other military functions.
Over the past few weeks, according to ACP, this once-routine process has fully deteriorated and companies are operating with the understanding FAA approvals are on pause because the Department of Defense (or War, if you ask the administration) refuses to sign off on anything. The military is given the authority to weigh in and veto these decisions through a siting clearinghouse process established under federal statute. But the trade group told me this standstill includes projects where there are no obvious impacts to military operations, meaning there aren’t even any bases or defense-related structures nearby.
One energy industry lawyer who requested anonymity to speak candidly on the FAA problems told me, “This is the strategy for how you kill an industry while losing every case: just keep coming at the industry. Create an uninvestable climate and let the chips fall where they may.”
I heard the same from Tony Irish, a former career attorney for the Interior Department, including under Trump 1.0, who told me he essentially agreed with that attorney’s assessment.
“One of the major shames of the last 15 months is this loss of the presumption of regularity,” Irish told me. “This underscores a challenge with our legal system. They can find ways to avoid courts altogether – and it demonstrates a unilateral desire to achieve an end regardless of the legality of it, just using brute force.”
In a statement to me, the Pentagon confirmed its siting clearinghouse “is actively evaluating land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations, in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements.” The FAA declined to comment on whether the country is now essentially banning any new wind projects and directed me to the White House. Then in an email, White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly told me the Pentagon statement “does not ‘confirm’” the country instituted a de facto ban on new wind projects. Kelly did not respond to a follow up question asking for clarification on the administration’s position.
Faced with a cataclysmic scenario, the renewable energy industry decided to step up to the bully pulpit. The American Clean Power Association sent statements to the Financial Times, The New York Times and me confirming that at least 165 wind projects are now being stalled by the FAA determination process, representing about 30 gigawatts of potential electricity generation. This also apparently includes projects that negotiated agreements with the government to mitigate any impacts to military activities. The trade group also provided me with a statement from its CEO Jason Grumet accusing the Trump administration of “actively driving the debate” over federal permitting “into the ditch by abusing the current permitting system” – a potential signal for Democrats in Congress to raise hell over this.
Indeed, on permitting reform, the Trump team may have kicked a hornet’s nest. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Ranking Member Martin Heinrich – a key player in congressional permitting reform talks – told me in a statement that by effectively blocking all new wind projects, the Trump administration “undercuts their credibility and bipartisan permitting reform.” California Democratic Rep. Mike Levin said in an interview Tuesday that this incident means Heinrich and others negotiating any federal permitting deal “should be cautious in how we trust but verify.”
But at this point, permitting reform drama will do little to restore faith that the U.S. legal and regulatory regime can withstand such profound politicization of one type of energy. There is no easy legal remedy to these aerospace problems; none of the previous litigation against Trump’s attacks on wind addressed the FAA, and as far as we know the military has not in its correspondence with energy developers cited any of the regulatory or policy documents that were challenged in court.
Actions like these have consequences for future foreign investment in U.S. energy development. Last August, after the Transportation Department directed the FAA to review wind farms to make sure they weren’t “a danger to aviation,” government affairs staff for a major global renewables developer advised the company to move away from wind in the U.S. market because until the potential FAA issues were litigated it would be “likely impossible to move forward with construction of any new wind projects.” I am aware this company has since moved away from actively developing wind projects in the U.S. where they had previously made major investments as recently as 2024.
Where does this leave us? I believe the wind industry offers a lesson for any developers of large, politically controversial infrastructure – including data centers. Should the federal government wish to make your business uninvestable, it absolutely will do so and the courts cannot stop them.