You’re out of free articles.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Plus 3 more outstanding questions about this ongoing emergency.

As Los Angeles continued to battle multiple big blazes ripping through some of the most beloved (and expensive) areas of the city on Friday, a question lingered in the background: What caused the fires in the first place?
Though fires are less common in California during this time of the year, they aren’t unheard of. In early December 2017, power lines sparked the Thomas Fire near Ventura, California, which burned through to mid-January. At the time it was the largest fire in the state since at least the 1930s. Now it’s the ninth-largest. Although that fire was in a more rural area, it ignited for some of the same reasons we’re seeing fires this week.
Read on for everything we know so far about how the fires started.
Six major fires started during the Santa Ana wind event last week:
Officials are investigating the cause of the fires and have not made any public statements yet. Early eyewitness accounts suggest that the Eaton Fire may have started at the base of a transmission tower owned by Southern California Edison. So far, the company has maintained that an analysis of its equipment showed “no interruptions or electrical or operational anomalies until more than one hour after the reported start time of the fire.” A Washington Post investigation found that the Palisades Fire could have risen from the remnants of a fire that burned on New Year’s Eve and reignited.
On Thursday morning, Edward Nordskog, a retired fire investigator from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, told me it was unlikely they had even begun looking into the root of the biggest and most destructive of the fires in the Pacific Palisades. “They don't start an investigation until it's safe to go into the area where the fire started, and it just hasn't been safe until probably today,” he said.
It can take years to determine the cause of a fire. Investigators did not pinpoint the cause of the Thomas Fire until March 2019, more than two years after it started.
But Nordskog doesn’t think it will take very long this time. It’s easier to narrow down the possibilities for an urban fire because there are typically both witnesses and surveillance footage, he told me. He said the most common causes of wildfires in Los Angeles are power lines and those started by unhoused people. They can also be caused by sparks from vehicles or equipment.
At more than 40,000 acres burned total, these fires are unlikely to make the charts for the largest in California history. But because they are burning in urban, densely populated, and expensive areas, they could be some of the most devastating. With an estimated 9,000 structures damaged as of Friday morning, the Eaton and Palisades fires are likely to make the list for most destructive wildfire events in the state.
And they will certainly be at the top for costliest. The Palisades Fire has already been declared a likely contender for the most expensive wildfire in U.S. history. It has destroyed more than 5,000 structures in some of the most expensive zip codes in the country. Between that and the Eaton Fire, Accuweather estimates the damages could reach $57 billion.
While we don’t know the root causes of the ignitions, several factors came together to create perfect fire conditions in Southern California this week.
First, there’s the Santa Ana winds, an annual phenomenon in Southern California, when very dry, high-pressure air gets trapped in the Great Basin and begins escaping westward through mountain passes to lower-pressure areas along the coast. Most of the time, the wind in Los Angeles blows eastward from the ocean, but during a Santa Ana event, it changes direction, picking up speed as it rushes toward the sea.
Jon Keeley, a research scientist with the US Geological Survey and an adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles told me that Santa Ana winds typically blow at maybe 30 to 40 miles per hour, while the winds this week hit upwards of 60 to 70 miles per hour. “More severe than is normal, but not unique,” he said. “We had similar severe winds in 2017 with the Thomas Fire.”
Second, Southern California is currently in the midst of extreme drought. Winter is typically a rainier season, but Los Angeles has seen less than half an inch of rain since July. That means that all the shrubland vegetation in the area is bone-dry. Again, Keeley said, this was not usual, but not unique. Some years are drier than others.
These fires were also not a question of fuel management, Keeley told me. “The fuels are not really the issue in these big fires. It's the extreme winds,” he said. “You can do prescription burning in chaparral and have essentially no impact on Santa Ana wind-driven fires.” As far as he can tell, based on information from CalFire, the Eaton Fire started on an urban street.
While it’s likely that climate change played a role in amplifying the drought, it’s hard to say how big a factor it was. Patrick Brown, a climate scientist at the Breakthrough Institute and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, published a long post on X outlining the factors contributing to the fires, including a chart of historic rainfall during the winter in Los Angeles that shows oscillations between wet and dry years over the past eight decades.
But climate change is expected to make dry years drier and wet years wetter, creating a “hydroclimate whiplash,” as Daniel Swain, a pre-eminent expert on climate change and weather in California puts it. In a thread on Bluesky, Swain wrote that “in 2024, Southern California experienced an exceptional episode of wet-to-dry hydroclimate whiplash.” Last year’s rainy winter fostered abundant plant growth, and the proceeding dryness primed the vegetation for fire.
Get our best story delivered to your inbox every day:
Editor’s note: This story was last update on Monday, January 13, at 10:00 a.m. ET.
This Halloween, get 20% off using code ADVANCED
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: For the first time, Miami’s king tide — a periodic exceptionally high tide brought by on astronomical alignment — crossed the threshold for “major” flooding without a hurricane, notching the highest level in 11 years • America’s Northern Mariana Islands are hunkering down as Typhoon In-Fa is set to brush past its northern reaches • India has evacuated tens of thousands from its eastern coast as Tropical Cyclone Arnab makes landfall.

Israelis voted in record numbers Tuesday in the first election held since the October 2023 attacks by Hamas, which ignited the ongoing multifront conflict been Israel and militias in Gaza and southern Lebanon. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s conservative Likud party looked projected to win the most seats in the Knesset, the opposition coalition led by centrist former military chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot appeared positioned as of Wednesday morning New York time to form an alliance that holds at least 61 of the parliament’s 120 seats — if anyone can broker a governing bloc at all. What that means for energy and climate policy in the Jewish State remains even less clear than what kind of government may form out of the election results. Eisenkot ran on cost of living, democracy, and holding Netanyahu accountable for the October 7 disaster. In 2021, he became chairman of StorageDrop, a long-duration energy storage startup based just south of Tel Aviv. At the time, he said dealing with climate change and creating green alternatives to fossil fuels was “of great importance,” and that Israel should “be at the forefront of the global effort in this field.”
Netanyahu has also supported renewables, which grew to 16% of Israel’s electricity share last year. In May, his government set a target of a more than threefold increase in renewables in the next decade. Just last week, as you may recall, the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure put out a new plan to invest more into fusion. But his signature policy has been brokering an historic $35 million deal to drill gas offshore in the Mediterranean to sell the fuel to Egypt. While Israel has pledged to cut its economy-wide emissions 27% below 2015 levels, the State Comptroller, an independent watchdog within the government, warned in June that the country’s failure to pass a law enforcing the reductions meant it had, according to The Jerusalem Post, “still not built a functioning national system to prepare for climate change.”
President Donald Trump plans to loosen a Biden-era regulation requiring oil and gas drillers to cut emissions of methane. Speaking at a campaign rally for Texas Republican Senate hopeful Ken Paxton, Trump said he’s “officially terminating Biden’s expensive and unnecessary methane regulations to save consumers and energy producers $45 billion in costs.” The move aims to spur more gas production at a moment when, as we saw from the megamerger this week set to create the nation’s biggest gas producer, the industry is consolidating. But it comes as methane emissions in the U.S. oil and gas sector are actually flattening, despite growing production. Earlier this month, as I reported, a study by Johns Hopkins University found that “companies have built more infrastructure needed to better capture methane” and “transport it for sale as a fuel, providing a financial incentive to limit the amount escaping into the atmosphere.” But the researchers cautioned that “oil and gas production is still a large percentage of U.S. methane emissions, and we do not find any evidence that a flurry of federal legislation had an impact on emissions.”
Meanwhile, the former Biden senior climate advisor, John Podesta, has warned that passing the permitting reform bill as is could hand Trump “a loaded Howitzer,” my colleague Jael Holzman reported yesterday.
If you can’t buy an as-yet-unbuilt small modular reactor, you go for an existing large-scale technology like the Westinghouse AP1000 or the Canadian CANDU. If you can’t line up the financing for a whole new nuclear megaproject, you squeeze a little more juice out of the reactors you already have. That’s why Amazon and Google inked deals earlier this month with Constellation, the nation’s largest operator of nuclear plants, which estimates it can generate nearly 1.1 gigawatts of new power simply from “uprating” its existing plants. At the time, I called it “big tech’s nuclear hedge.” The Department of Energy is backing the bet. On Tuesday, the Office of Energy Dominance Financing announced a $5 billion loan to support the uprates. “These investments will add more reliable baseload power to the grid, help lower electricity costs, strengthen our nation’s energy security, and fuel long-term American prosperity,” EDF Director Gregory Beard said in a statement.
The U.S. is on track to rise from about 101 gigawatts of nuclear today to 111 gigawatts in 2040 and 132 gigawatts in 2050, according to Wood Mackenzie forecasts. Behind-the-meter plants, particularly for data centers, could add another 11 gigawatts in 2040 and 19 gigawatts in 2050. “If the US government, under the current administration or another pro-nuclear administration in the future, wants to accelerate the pace of that growth, building capacity in the workforce and supply chain should be an urgent priority,” Ed Crooks, Wood Mackenize’s vice chair of the Americas, wrote in a blog post.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Trump’s deal to import Russian diesel has largely been discussed for its for its potential to ease prices on the global market. But 140,000 metric tons of Russian fuel is now headed for the U.S. market. The fuel will arrive in three tankers, including one blacklisted by U.S. authorities and another by the European Union, according to the Financial Times. The shipments are the first licensed by the U.S. since Trump’s recent deal with President Vladimir Putin to exempt Russian diesel from sanctions. The goal is to achieve a perceptible reduction in costs ahead of next week’s midterm election, in which energy prices have been a major factor.
Insurance is often described as the canary in the coal mine for climate change as the industry is expected to raise prices on assets increasingly under threat from extreme weather. But the analysts tasked with assessing risk are facing pressure to downplay climate dangers in their models to help cut the price of coverage and make it easier for brokers and underwriters to sell more policies. That’s according to five whistleblowers’ testimony to the Financial Times. The United Kingdom’s Financial Conduct Authority told the newspaper the allegations were “exceptionally serious” and could amount to significant breaches of financial and prudential regulation. “Every single person I work with all say the same thing — that we shouldn’t be altering the numbers for these accounts in the way we do,” one whistleblower said.
The deadliest conflict of the 21st century is restarting in Ethiopia’s war-torn north. But in the country’s fast-industrialized capital, business is booming. Addis Ababa’s “Made in Ethiopia” initiative has spurred a manufacturing boom of 1,115 factories. As of last year, TOYO, a major U.S.-Japanese solar manufacturer, has capacity to produce 2 gigawatts of solar cells at its Ethiopian factory. Officially inaugurated last year, the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam added more than 5 gigawatts of power to the grid. A new International Energy Agency report highlights how far the country has come — and how far it has yet to go. Just 12% of the country had electricity access in the early 2000s. By 2024, that figure hit 35%. But around 85 million Ethiopians remain without steady access to power. The country has a target of 75% access by 2030 and universal access by 2035. That, the IEA said, “will require continued grid expansion, greater deployment of off-grid solutions, and measures to make connections more affordable.”
The computing facilities rise and fall on tax revenue, our new Heatmap Pro poll finds.
This is Heatmap Daily, a weekday digest written by our executive editor. Subscribe here.
Americans know why they like data centers, and they know why they don’t like them. They just can’t decide what to do about it.
That’s one takeaway from Heatmap Pro’s new poll, conducted by Embold Research, which earlier this month surveyed Americans’ fast-changing sentiment about data centers.
The poll asked more than 2,500 Americans about their views on data centers, clean energy, and economic development during the first half of October.
As I wrote yesterday, it found public opinion about data centers has rebounded slightly since the late summer. While more than 70% of Americans still say they would oppose a hypothetical data center slated for their area, support for the projects increased in our survey for the first time in more than a year.
The new results we’re releasing today add to that story. They reveal what pro- and anti-data-center arguments Americans find convincing, at least according to registered voters themselves, and they reveal the fissures over how to move forward.
Let’s start with what Americans say motivates them most to support data centers. When allowed to select up to three reasons why they might support a data center project, respondents gravitated to a few answers. Voters’ No. 1 reason to support a project is that it can generate huge amounts of tax revenue, our polling shows. Other popular answers are that data centers can help keep property taxes low or improve local sewer systems or the power grid.
Americans also seem to admire what data centers do for the economy … as long as they’re not the kind that is involved in AI. When a data center runs traditional cloud-based services like streaming, online banking, and GPS, Americans are much more likely to be in favor of it.

As you might expect, the arguments against data centers that Americans find most convincing also have a lot to do with money. The No. 1 reason to oppose a data center, respondents told us, is that it could raise power or water bills. Americans also dislike when a community has little transparency into a data center deal, when there’s a risk of local environmental harm, or when their own tax bills could go up to pay for the project.
It’s worth noting that these arguments don’t necessarily align with what actually dooms projects. Heatmap Pro’s market intelligence data suggests that loud noise is one of the biggest drivers of data center cancellations. But only about one in 10 Americans told our poll that a data center being “noisy” would cause them to oppose it.

One takeaway from these results: Americans aren’t very motivated in either direction by progress in artificial intelligence. That data centers “enable the building of AI” convinces the smallest share of Americans to support a given project. Yet it’s also among the worst-performing reasons to oppose data centers. People just don’t seem particularly exercised about AI as a technology, at least when they’re thinking about the infrastructure that might house it.
So what does all this mean for national policy, and the federal government’s outlook on data centers? Voters are split over what to do, but most prefer slowing down or restricting the boom in some form.
The plurality of Americans believe the country should keep building data centers, but “require stronger protections for electricity customers and nearby communities.” At the same time, about half of the country wants to hamper the buildout through either a temporary pause or a more aggressive permanent restriction.

Reading these results, I can’t help but think of the bipartisan Senate permitting reform bill, which, as I’ve written, would force AI data centers to pay for grid expansion and lock in protections for normal ratepayers. The debate over that proposal — and the relative importance of those provisions vis a vis the broader package — seems to get at these questions in miniature. Many climate advocates are happy about a policy that would “require stronger protections for electricity customers.” Others just want the boom to stop — at any price.
The Heatmap Pro poll of 2,537 American registered voters was conducted by Embold Research via text-to-web responses from October 3 to 15, 2026. The survey included interviews with Americans in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points.
It should only pass if lawmakers disarm a key provision, the former Biden senior climate adviser says.
Former Biden senior climate adviser John Podesta wants lawmakers to take a red pen to the bipartisan permitting deal.
Podesta criticized a key part of the Senate’s bipartisan permitting deal on Friday, according to a recording I obtained of a fireside chat at the University of Colorado Boulder. He praised the bill’s transmission reforms, but argued Democratic negotiators had handed President Trump “a loaded Howitzer” in their quest for permitting certainty for renewable energy projects, and that it should only pass if lawmakers remove the weapon.
The comments are notable because Podesta helped implement the Inflation Reduction Act and attempted to strike a permitting deal during the Biden administration. That effort, led by Senator Joe Manchin and John Barrasso, ultimately ran aground on criticism from environmental groups.
In the new remarks, Podesta applauded the parts of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act that would unlock new long-distance transmission construction. But he sharply criticized the bill’s reforms to fossil fuel permitting and federal land development. He indicated a belief there will be “give and take when we come back after the election.”
“If you’ve worked on the Hill, you know once you get started on something, you keep going. And I think they were trying to address a really serious problem,” Podesta said. “[The bill would] really take on some needed reforms on transmission to really build the infrastructure that’s necessary to fully integrate renewables into the system, and indeed, I think the bill is pretty good on that. Pretty strong. They got a lot on that question in terms of forcing utilities to use grid-enhancing technologies, doing better planning, getting data centers to pay their fair share.”
But Podesta added: “Then they gave up stuff.” He then unloaded on the bill’s “permitting certainty” provisions, which Podesta notably described as a Democratic priority during negotiations to get to yes.
Those provisions have attracted concern from tribal groups and some environmental groups in recent weeks. If enacted, the bill would bar federal agencies from revoking, changing, or tampering with any federal permits issued after September of this year. It would also prohibit officials from denying or delaying permits in a way that shows a “pattern of disparate treatment” against specific energy or mineral projects. (If you want to read more about the bill’s certainty provisions, you can read our full explainer.)
This was “one place where I think they made a huge mistake,” Podesta said, calling the restriction on revoking or rescinding decisions “one of the worst provisions of the bill.” He complimented lawmakers for trying to address Trump’s attacks on already-permitted renewable energy projects, including stop-work orders on offshore wind facilities under construction, and for seeking commitments from the administration to continue permitting projects in exchange for a deal.
However, Podesta said they are “going to have to take it out” or significantly revise it because he believes this language would allow Trump to illegally approve projects on sensitive or protected lands and courts would not be able to force the government to undo approvals that violate the law. He argued this would mean Trump could permit development in many areas land conservation groups, tribes, and anti-drilling advocates have long fought to protect from industry, including the Chaco Culture National Historic Park in New Mexico, the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in Minnesota, and the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah.
“I think they have handed Trump not just a loaded gun, but they’ve handed him a loaded Howitzer to go after public lands, to permit stuff that even if it’s illegal can’t be reversed by the courts,” Podesta said. “They’re going to have a permit gorge like you’ve never seen, not really caring about whether they’re going through the legal steps to do it, and under this bill, those can’t be reversed. That’s got to change if this bill’s going to pass.”
The former Biden administration alum’s comments are especially noteworthy because he previously helped negotiate a permitting deal that was similarly pilloried by environmental activists. “We did a permitting reform [bill] on the debt limit bill. Some of the environmental community didn’t like it. I thought it was a fair compromise,” he said, referring to that legislation in order to explain why he is focusing on a “provision I think the Democrats asked for.”
“It’s one thing to say I’m getting a lot and I’m going to have to give up something,” he said.
He added that “there are other issues” with the bill in his view, including “removing states’ ability to ensure clean drinking water” and “a lot of restraint on the ability to get courts to enjoin for NEPA violations.” Those are examples where “you can debate whether one is worth the other.”
“My line gets drawn with giving Trump more ways to do mischief and to do bad things, especially to the most important, most iconic places we need to protect."
I reached out to Podesta after obtaining the recording of his remarks, and in a brief interview, he clarified that he does believe the transmission provisions of the bill are central enough to the energy transition that if “they can resolve those matters and fix those problems,” and they can pass it during the lame duck period, “I would say go ahead.”
Podesta acknowledged “another school of thought” — most notably voiced by House Natural Resources ranking member Jared Huffman — that legislators should wait until the next Congress when Democrats may be able to strike a different deal after a potential blue wave in this year’s midterm elections. “Trump’s not making it easy by never fulfilling his end of the bargain. I think they thought he was actually going to go ahead and move forward with permitting these wind projects and instead he’s trying to stop them,” Podesta said.
Still, the certainty language to him is a “poison pill.” And regardless of what Congress elects to do with the permitting deal, Podesta maintained his biggest fear is enacting legislation that protects or emboldens Trump’s behavior: “If you give him things he can interpret that you think you had a deal on, he will make them worse than you could imagine, so you better not give him any more additional power.”
“The question becomes, is it worth trying to resolve these items which I think have surfaced since this text came forward,” Podesta said. “If they can resolve them, fine. If not, there’s always next year.”