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:
Arsonists have “the power of a nuclear bomb at their fingertips.”

When a wildfire starts, there is rarely a witness.
Deep in the mountains, lightning strikes a tree on the hottest day in millennia. A dragging trailer chain, unnoticed by a driver, sends sparks into the bone-dry roadside brush. Hikers splash water over an illegal campfire, but it continues to smolder after they leave. And on the right day, in the right weather, unattended and unreported, these fires start to grow.
There is another kind of fire, too — one where the presence of a witness, some would argue, is the entire point. Arson officially accounts for only about 10% of fires handled by Cal Fire, the agency that manages wildfires and structure fires on California’s 31 million acres of wildlands and forests. But when there are thousands of fires across the state during a given season, that’s not an inconsequential number. “Getting 300 to 400 confirmed arson fires a year — that’s a lot of fires that don’t need to occur,” Gianni Muschetto, the staff chief of Cal Fire’s law enforcement division, told me.
The Park Fire, which has burned nearly 400,000 acres near Paradise, north of Sacramento, is now the fourth biggest wildfire in California’s recorded history. As of Friday afternoon, it is still only 24% contained. Investigators have charged 42-year-old Ronnie Dean Stout II with felony arson in connection with starting the blaze, alleging he pushed his burning car into a gully, where it ignited the surrounding vegetation. (Reports conflict over whether Stout set his car on fire intentionally or the engine accidentally caught fire while he was revving it.) Stout was then “seen calmly leaving the area by blending in with the other citizens who were in the area,” Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey said in a statement. Stout denies the charges.
In California, which has extremely strict arson laws, the felony is divided in the penal code into two different categories: “reckless” and “intentional” arson. Muschetto explained that someone shooting off illegal fireworks on a dry day might be charged with reckless arson: “They weren’t necessarily trying to start a wildland fire, but because of their reckless act, they did.” On the other hand, if the person shot the fireworks directly into dry grass to purposefully start a fire, “that would be a malicious arson act” and considered intentional. (Investigators had initially planned to charge Stout, the Park Fire suspect, with intentional arson but ultimately charged him on Monday with reckless arson, according to reports.)
Cal Fire lumps reckless and intentional arson together in their public statistics, which show an uptick in arson arrests from 61 in 2018 to over 110 every year since 2020, peaking at 162 in 2022. Muschetto attributes that rise to the fact that fire seasons have gotten longer due to climate change, meaning small acts of arson are more likely to result in fires big enough to warrant resources, investigations, and arrests. In 2023, for example, Cal Fire’s arson arrests dipped slightly, potentially because it wasn’t as long or severe of a fire season in the state.
The 2024 season has kicked off relatively normally, and Muschetto said he expects arson arrests to top 100 but not “break any record number, hopefully.”
The truth, though, is that arson happens “every single day,” Ed Nordskog, a retired Los Angeles arson investigator and the founder of the Serial and Wildland Arson Investigation Training program, told me. “But most of the year, it’s not conducive to a massive fire because of the weather and fuel conditions, so nobody gets excited.” Nordskog disputes reported arson numbers, pointing to the inconsistencies between fire agencies and the lack of resources available to investigate every fire with the thoroughness required to determine its origin. He estimates that closer to 50% of urban and wildland fires are caused by arson, though he agrees that number is likely lower when it comes to wildfires; many experts, however, admit that the commonly cited 10% statistic is probably an undercount.
Nordskog told me that arson investigators don’t care about the size of the fire; they care about the intent of the person who committed the act. Someone like the Park Fire suspect “didn’t have the ability to light a big fire; he didn’t have the ability to light a small fire,” Nordskog said. “He just lit a fire, and he did it on the wrong day, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and now you have a catastrophe.”
Nordskog is particularly rankled when people try to connect climate change to acts of arson, calling it a misconception that hot weather brings out the firebugs. Arsonists “are there all the time, 24 hours a day, doing their thing,” including in the winter, Nordskog explained. But a warmer world has made extreme fire conditions more common, as have decades of misbegotten fire suppression policies in the Western United States. As a result, arson fires in rural areas are more likely to burn out of control than they would have been half a century ago. That element of chance is why Nordskog likes to say that “a wildland arsonist has the power of a nuclear bomb at their fingertips: They’re the only criminal in the world that can do that kind of damage.”
Most arsonists are one-and-done offenders, and the crime cuts across race, gender, and education levels. Mental illness and drug use can certainly be exacerbating factors. Additionally, the housing crisis and anti-homelessness legislation have pushed marginalized populations into living in wildland-urban interfaces, on the fringes of towns and cities, where both intentional and unintentional fires can cause more extensive problems.
Nordskog specializes in serial arsonists — a much smaller subset of arsonists who set fires repeatedly and intentionally, sometimes hundreds of times. They can be sophisticated operators, picking “the perfect time of day” to start a fire when temperatures are high and the wind picks up; some even use delay ignition devices to avoid getting caught. “They’re usually very frustrated and angry about something,” Nordskog said of a motive, and “the one thing that anybody can do is light a fire.”
Nordskog, like Cal Fire’s Muschetto, told me he’s doubtful there is any significant rise in the number of people actually committing arson; discrepancies in investigations, annual fire conditions, and several other factors are the likelier reason for the fluctuations in numbers.
For Muschetto, though, it defies belief that someone would intentionally start a fire at all. “It blows my mind that [arson] occurs and how often it occurs,” Muschetto told me. An arson fire takes firefighters away from their families for potentially weeks on end; it puts first responders and the public in danger; and between the smoke pollution, immense environmental degradation, and potential loss of life and property, the damage can be incalculable.
“We’re always going to get accidental or natural ignitions” in California, Muschetto said. That’s why “reducing these intentional fires is very important.”
Editor’s note: This story was last update August 2 at 4:30 p.m. ET.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
According to a new analysis shared exclusively with Heatmap, coal’s equipment-related outage rate is about twice as high as wind’s.
The Trump administration wants “beautiful clean coal” to return to its place of pride on the electric grid because, it says, wind and solar are just too unreliable. “If we want to keep the lights on and prevent blackouts from happening, then we need to keep our coal plants running. Affordable, reliable and secure energy sources are common sense,” Chris Wright said on X in July, in what has become a steady drumbeat from the administration that has sought to subsidize coal and put a regulatory straitjacket around solar and (especially) wind.
This has meant real money spent in support of existing coal plants. The administration’s emergency order to keep Michigan’s J.H. Campbell coal plant open (“to secure grid reliability”), for example, has cost ratepayers served by Michigan utility Consumers Energy some $80 million all on its own.
But … how reliable is coal, actually? According to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund of data from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, a nonprofit that oversees reliability standards for the grid, coal has the highest “equipment-related outage rate” — essentially, the percentage of time a generator isn’t working because of some kind of mechanical or other issue related to its physical structure — among coal, hydropower, natural gas, nuclear, and wind. Coal’s outage rate was over 12%. Wind’s was about 6.6%.
“When EDF’s team isolated just equipment-related outages, wind energy proved far more reliable than coal, which had the highest outage rate of any source NERC tracks,” EDF told me in an emailed statement.
Coal’s reliability has, in fact, been decreasing, Oliver Chapman, a research analyst at EDF, told me.
NERC has attributed this falling reliability to the changing role of coal in the energy system. Reliability “negatively correlates most strongly to capacity factor,” or how often the plant is running compared to its peak capacity. The data also “aligns with industry statements indicating that reduced investment in maintenance and abnormal cycling that are being adopted primarily in response to rapid changes in the resource mix are negatively impacting baseload coal unit performance.” In other words, coal is struggling to keep up with its changing role in the energy system. That’s due not just to the growth of solar and wind energy, which are inherently (but predictably) variable, but also to natural gas’s increasing prominence on the grid.
“When coal plants are having to be a bit more varied in their generation, we're seeing that wear and tear of those plants is increasing,” Chapman said. “The assumption is that that's only going to go up in future years.”
The issue for any plan to revitalize the coal industry, Chapman told me, is that the forces driving coal into this secondary role — namely the economics of running aging plants compared to natural gas and renewables — do not seem likely to reverse themselves any time soon.
Coal has been “sort of continuously pushed a bit more to the sidelines by renewables and natural gas being cheaper sources for utilities to generate their power. This increased marginalization is going to continue to lead to greater wear and tear on these plants,” Chapman said.
But with electricity demand increasing across the country, coal is being forced into a role that it might not be able to easily — or affordably — play, all while leading to more emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, mercury, and, of course, carbon dioxide.
The coal system has been beset by a number of high-profile outages recently, including at the largest new coal plant in the country, Sandy Creek in Texas, which could be offline until early 2027, according to the Texas energy market ERCOT and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
In at least one case, coal’s reliability issues were cited as a reason to keep another coal generating unit open past its planned retirement date.
Last month, Colorado Representative Will Hurd wrote a letter to the Department of Energy asking for emergency action to keep Unit 2 of the Comanche coal plant in Pueblo, Colorado open past its scheduled retirement at the end of his year. Hurd cited “mechanical and regulatory constraints” for the larger Unit 3 as a justification for keeping Unit 2 open, to fill in the generation gap left by the larger unit. In a filing by Xcel and several Colorado state energy officials also requesting delaying the retirement of Unit 2, they disclosed that the larger Unit 3 “experienced an unplanned outage and is offline through at least June 2026.”
Reliability issues aside, high electricity demand may turn into short-term profits at all levels of the coal industry, from the miners to the power plants.
At the same time the Trump administration is pushing coal plants to stay open past their scheduled retirement, the Energy Information Administration is forecasting that natural gas prices will continue to rise, which could lead to increased use of coal for electricity generation. The EIA forecasts that the 2025 average price of natural gas for power plants will rise 37% from 2024 levels.
Analysts at S&P Global Commodity Insights project “a continued rebound in thermal coal consumption throughout 2026 as thermal coal prices remain competitive with short-term natural gas prices encouraging gas-to-coal switching,” S&P coal analyst Wendy Schallom told me in an email.
“Stronger power demand, rising natural gas prices, delayed coal retirements, stockpiles trending lower, and strong thermal coal exports are vital to U.S. coal revival in 2025 and 2026.”
And we’re all going to be paying the price.
Rural Marylanders have asked for the president’s help to oppose the data center-related development — but so far they haven’t gotten it.
A transmission line in Maryland is pitting rural conservatives against Big Tech in a way that highlights the growing political sensitivities of the data center backlash. Opponents of the project want President Trump to intervene, but they’re worried he’ll ignore them — or even side with the data center developers.
The Piedmont Reliability Project would connect the Peach Bottom nuclear plant in southern Pennsylvania to electricity customers in northern Virginia, i.e.data centers, most likely. To get from A to B, the power line would have to criss-cross agricultural lands between Baltimore, Maryland and the Washington D.C. area.
As we chronicle time and time again in The Fight, residents in farming communities are fighting back aggressively – protesting, petitioning, suing and yelling loudly. Things have gotten so tense that some are refusing to let representatives for Piedmont’s developer, PSEG, onto their properties, and a court battle is currently underway over giving the company federal marshal protection amid threats from landowners.
Exacerbating the situation is a quirk we don’t often deal with in The Fight. Unlike energy generation projects, which are usually subject to local review, transmission sits entirely under the purview of Maryland’s Public Service Commission, a five-member board consisting entirely of Democrats appointed by current Governor Wes Moore – a rumored candidate for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. It’s going to be months before the PSC formally considers the Piedmont project, and it likely won’t issue a decision until 2027 – a date convenient for Moore, as it’s right after he’s up for re-election. Moore last month expressed “concerns” about the project’s development process, but has brushed aside calls to take a personal position on whether it should ultimately be built.
Enter a potential Trump card that could force Moore’s hand. In early October, commissioners and state legislators representing Carroll County – one of the farm-heavy counties in Piedmont’s path – sent Trump a letter requesting that he intervene in the case before the commission. The letter followed previous examples of Trump coming in to kill planned projects, including the Grain Belt Express transmission line and a Tennessee Valley Authority gas plant in Tennessee that was relocated after lobbying from a country rock musician.
One of the letter’s lead signatories was Kenneth Kiler, president of the Carroll County Board of Commissioners, who told me this lobbying effort will soon expand beyond Trump to the Agriculture and Energy Departments. He’s hoping regulators weigh in before PJM, the regional grid operator overseeing Mid-Atlantic states. “We’re hoping they go to PJM and say, ‘You’re supposed to be managing the grid, and if you were properly managing the grid you wouldn’t need to build a transmission line through a state you’re not giving power to.’”
Part of the reason why these efforts are expanding, though, is that it’s been more than a month since they sent their letter, and they’ve heard nothing but radio silence from the White House.
“My worry is that I think President Trump likes and sees the need for data centers. They take a lot of water and a lot of electric [power],” Kiler, a Republican, told me in an interview. “He’s conservative, he values property rights, but I’m not sure that he’s not wanting data centers so badly that he feels this request is justified.”
Kiler told me the plan to kill the transmission line centers hinges on delaying development long enough that interest rates, inflation and rising demand for electricity make it too painful and inconvenient to build it through his resentful community. It’s easy to believe the federal government flexing its muscle here would help with that, either by drawing out the decision-making or employing some other as yet unforeseen stall tactic. “That’s why we’re doing this second letter to the Secretary of Agriculture and Secretary of Energy asking them for help. I think they may be more sympathetic than the president,” Kiler said.
At the moment, Kiler thinks the odds of Piedmont’s construction come down to a coin flip – 50-50. “They’re running straight through us for data centers. We want this project stopped, and we’ll fight as well as we can, but it just seems like ultimately they’re going to do it,” he confessed to me.
Thus is the predicament of the rural Marylander. On the one hand, Kiler’s situation represents a great opportunity for a GOP president to come in and stand with his base against a would-be presidential candidate. On the other, data center development and artificial intelligence represent one of the president’s few economic bright spots, and he has dedicated copious policy attention to expanding growth in this precise avenue of the tech sector. It’s hard to imagine something less “energy dominance” than killing a transmission line.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
Plus more of the week’s most important fights around renewable energy.
1. Wayne County, Nebraska – The Trump administration fined Orsted during the government shutdown for allegedly killing bald eagles at two of its wind projects, the first indications of financial penalties for energy companies under Trump’s wind industry crackdown.
2. Ocean County, New Jersey – Speaking of wind, I broke news earlier this week that one of the nation’s largest renewable energy projects is now deceased: the Leading Light offshore wind project.
3. Dane County, Wisconsin – The fight over a ginormous data center development out here is turning into perhaps one of the nation’s most important local conflicts over AI and land use.
4. Hardeman County, Texas – It’s not all bad news today for renewable energy – because it never really is.