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:
Disaster-averse insurers are jacking up rates and restricting coverage, worsening the sector’s post-pandemic crisis.
It’s not just homeowners starting to feel the effects of extreme weather on their insurance bills. The commercial real estate sector, some $20 trillion worth of property from cell-phone towers to apartment complexes to office buildings to warehouses, is also seeing unexpectedly large premium increases or disappearing coverage.
The challenges of damage from wind and water, smoke and fire, snow and ice are likely to compound what’s a challenging moment for the massive industry, as work from home and migration reshape how office space is used and as high interest rates make the financing-dependent business more perilous. With higher insurance costs will likely come some combination of lower payouts for investors and higher rents for tenants.
“Rising insurance costs are a growing problem for commercial property owners, particularly in states with increasing climate-related risk, such as Florida and Texas, where costs are rising upwards of 50% and starting to threaten new development and property sales,” Yardi Matrix, the commercial real estate research firm, said in a report earlier this year.
In areas affected by large storms, not only is insurance getting more expensive, it’s getting more limited as well, according to Yardi Matrix, including “new exclusions for damages such as mold or flood endorsements.”
“Clients with coastal exposures and/or less desirable risk … have experienced more difficult renewals. They have taken what coverage they can get, where it is available, and have been ready to consider the alternatives,” the insurance broker Gallagher said in a market report.
The losses due to weather have been felt up and down the business, with insurance and reinsurance companies taking big hits. Munich Re, the large reinsurer, has seen its underwriting (i.e. the difference between premiums collected and claims paid out) “deteriorat[ing] since last year, primarily as a result of higher natural catastrophe and human-made losses in the second quarter,” according to Morningstar analysts. Insurers are then passing those losses onto customers in the form of higher premiums.
For instance, the insurer Chubb said it had $400 million in catastrophe losses in the second quarter “principally from weather-related events in the U.S.,” the company’s chief financial officer Peter Enns said in a July conference call with analysts. At the same time, the insurer is raising prices on its property and casualty clients: “In terms of the commercial P&C rate environment, rates and price increases in property and casualty lines were strong,” Chubb’s chief executive officer Evan Greenberg said on the call. Overall, pricing was up in Chubb’s North American business by 12.8 percent, Greenberg said, while property insurance pricing was up over 30 percent.
“Premiums are going up,” Cal Inman, a principal at the climate research firm ClimateCheck, told me. “It’s an issue in commercial real estate. The risk profile is changing, we’re seeing higher frequency of events and intensity.”
Higher insurance costs have been spotted all over the commercial real estate market. Equity LifeStyle, which owns and operates RV resorts, campgrounds, and manufactured home communities, said in financial filings that its insurance for its RV and campgrounds have seen its deductibles for “most catastrophic events” increase from $2 million in the aggregate to $10 million.
Most of the company’s properties in Florida experienced “flooding, wind, wind-blown debris, and falling trees and branches,” according to its annual report, while four RV sites “experienced strong winds as well as significant flooding, including from unprecedented storm surges that resulted in damage to certain common area buildings, utility infrastructure and residents’ homes.” The company incurred $40.6 million in cleanup cost in 2022 that was covered by its insurance and another $10.3 million in costs in the first half of this year.
On the other side of the country, Hudson Pacific Properties, which owns offices and studio space on the West Coast, reported an increase in insurance premiums starting in April. Last year, it had prepaid $6.5 million in insurance, up from $5.4 million in 2021. But in the first six months of this year, those costs have already ballooned to $21.7 million.
Equity Residential, which owns over 80,000 apartment units, reported in its second quarter of this year that its insurance costs had gone up by just over 14 percent from the second quarter of last year, which it attributed to “higher premiums on property insurance renewal due to challenging conditions in the insurance market.”
The higher insurance costs are not just limited to residential and office investors. Prologis, which owns over one billion feet of logistics infrastructure (think lots of warehouses), said in its most recent quarterly report that it had incurred “higher insurance costs from an unusually active storm season during the first quarter of 2023.”
“The premiums that insurers charge are changing to reflect increased risk,” Inman said. “If you put that next to everything else that happens in the industry, that’s a lot. Beyond premiums going up, you’re seeing some properties [that are] hard to get insurance on.”
That everything else is namely high interest rates. As interest rates have gone up, refinancing buildings has gotten more expensive and the commercial real estate loans that banks and other financial institutions — like insurance companies — hold on their books have declined in value. The combination of more extreme weather and a tighter financing environment presents something of a doublebind for commercial real estate — some types of buildings, like office space in New York and California, have probably gotten intrinsically less valuable, while the cost of operating and financing the business has gone up.
And like the high interest rates, there may be no good place to hide from the bad weather.
While the issues in the insurance markets in California and the Gulf Coast are well known and especially pronounced; according to Gallagher, extreme weather and corresponding large insurance losses are occurring in the central and northern parts of the country as well.
“Atmospheric rivers and severe convective storms (SCSs) during the first three months of the year drove insured losses to nearly $10 billion, resulting in one of the most costly first quarters on record,” the Gallagher report says. “Clients with exposure to Northeast wind, wildfire, and/or severe weather events across the Midwestern region may now be seen as riskier than in the past.”
Read more about climate change and insurance:
Vermont Is the Soggy Edge of America’s Flood Insurance Crisis
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
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.”
Between the budget reconciliation process and an impending vote to end California’s electric vehicle standards, a lot of the EV maker’s revenue stands to go poof.
It’s shaping up to be a very bad week for Tesla. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s draft budget proposal released Sunday night axes two of the primary avenues by which the electric vehicle giant earns regulatory credits. Congress also appears poised to vote to revoke California’s authority to implement its Zero-Emission Vehicle program by the end of the month, another key source of credits for the automaker. The sale of all regulatory credits combined earned the company a total of $595 million in the first quarter on a net income of just $409 million — that is, they represented its entire margin of profitability. On the whole, credits represented 38% of Tesla’s net income last year.
To add insult to injury, the House Ways and Means committee on Monday proposed eliminating the Inflation Reduction Act’s $7,500 consumer EV tax credit, the used EVs tax credit, and the commercial EVs tax credit by year’s end. The move comes as part of the House’s larger budget-making process. And while it will likely be months before a new budget is finalized, with Trump seeking to extend his 2017 tax cuts and Congress limited in its spending ability, much of the IRA is on the chopping block. That is bad news for clean energy companies across the spectrum, from clean hydrogen producers to wind energy companies and battery manufacturers. But as recently as a few months ago, Tesla CEO Elon Musk was sounding cavalier.
After aligning himself with Trump during the election, Musk came out last year in support of ending the $7,500 consumer EV tax credit, along with all subsidies in all industries generally. He wrote on X that taking away the EV tax credit “will only help Tesla,” presumably assuming that while his company could withstand the policy headwinds, it would hurt emergent EV competitors even more, thus paradoxically helping Tesla eliminate its competition.
While it looks like Musk will get his wish, he probably didn’t account for a small but meaningful carveout in the Ways and Means committee proposal that allows the tax credit to stand through the end of 2026 for companies that have yet to sell 200,000 EVs in their lifetime. While Tesla’s sales figures are orders of magnitude beyond this, the extension will give a boost to its smaller competitors, as well as potentially some larger automakers with fewer EV sales to their credit.
A number of other provisions in the Ways and Means committee’s proposal spell bad news for Tesla and EV automakers on the whole. These include the elimination of the $4,000 tax credit for used EVs as well as the $7,500 tax credit for commercial EVs — which leased cars also qualify for. This second credit, often referred to as the “leasing loophole,” allows consumers leasing EVs to redeem the full tax credit even if their vehicle doesn’t meet the domestic content requirements for the buyer’s credit. The committee also wants to phase out the advanced manufacturing tax credit by the end of 2031, one year earlier than previously planned. While not a huge change, this credit incentivizes the domestic production of clean energy components such as battery cells, battery modules, and solar inverters — all products Tesla is heavily invested in.
The domestic regulatory credits that comprise such an outsize portion of Tesla’s profits, meanwhile, come from a mix of state and federal standards, all of which are under attack. These are California’s Zero-Emission Vehicle program, which sets ZEV production and sales mandates, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, and the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas emissions standards.
While the mandates differ in their ambition and implementation mechanisms, all three give automakers credits when they make progress toward EV production targets, fuel economy standards, or emissions standards; exceed these requirements, and automakers earn extra credits. Vehicle manufacturers can then trade those additional credits to carmakers that aren’t meeting state or federal targets. Since Tesla only makes EVs, it always earns more credits than it needs, and many automakers rely on buying these credits to comply with all three regulations.
It’s unclear as of now whether lawmakers have the authority to eliminate the federal fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards via budget reconciliation. A Senate stricture known as the Byrd Rule mandates that provisions align with the basic purpose of the reconciliation process: implementing budgetary changes; those with only “incidental” budgetary impacts can thus be deemed “extraneous” and excluded from the final bill. It’s yet to be seen how the standards in question will be categorized. At first blush, fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards are a stretch to meet the Byrd Rule, but that determination will take weeks, or even potentially months to play out.
What’s for sure is that California’s ZEV program cannot be eliminated through this process, as the program derives its authority from a Clean Air Act waiver, which was first granted to the state by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1967. This waiver allows California to set stricter emissions standards than those at the federal level because of the “compelling and extraordinary circumstances” the state faces when it comes to air quality in the San Joaquin Valley and Los Angeles basin. California’s latest targets — which require all model year 2035 cars sold in the state to be zero emissions — have been adopted by 11 other states, plus Washington D.C.
These increasingly ambitious goals would presumably cause the tax credits market — and thus Tesla’s profits — to heat up as well, as most automakers would struggle to fully electrify in the next 10 years. But the House voted at the beginning of the month to eliminate California’s latest EPA waiver, granted in December of last year. Now, it’s up to the Senate to decide whether they want to follow suit.
To accomplish this task, Republicans have called upon a legislative process known as the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn newly implemented federal rules. Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, for one, has been vocal about using the process to end California’s so-called “EV mandate,” writing in the Wall Street Journal last week that “it’s time for the Senate to finish the job.” And yet other Senate Republicans are reluctant to attempt to roll back California’s waiver. The Government Accountability Officeand the Senate Parliamentarian have both determined that the regulatory allowance ought not to be subject to the Congressional Review Act as it’s an EPA “order” rather than a “rule.” Going against this guidance could thus set a precedent that gives Congress a broad ability to gut executive-level rules.
During his first term, Tesla CEO Elon Musk stood in firm opposition to efforts to roll back fuel efficiency standards. But lately, as the administration has started turning its longstanding anti-EV rhetoric into actual policy, Trump’s new best friend has been relatively quiet. Tesla’s stock is down about 25% since Trump took office, as investors worry that Musk’s political preoccupations have kept him from focusing on his company’s performance. Not to mention the fact that Musk's enthusiastic support for Trump, major role in mass federal layoffs, and, well, whole personality have alienated his liberal-leaning customer base.
So while Musk may have staged a Tesla showroom on the White House lawn in March, awing the President with the ways in which “everything’s computer,” he’s presumably well aware of exactly how Trump’s policies — and his own involvement in them — stand to deeply hurt his business. Whether Tesla will make it through this regulatory onslaught and self-inflicted brand damage as a profitable company remains to be seen. But with Musk planning to slink away from the White House and back into the boardroom, and with House leaders hoping to complete work on the reconciliation bill by Memorial Day, we should start to get answers soon enough.