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:
More and more Americans are going to need flood insurance — yet the market is contracting.
Torrential rain drowned parts of New York State and Vermont this week, bringing “historic and catastrophic” flooding, in the words of Vermont governor Phil Scott. Now, as the immediate horror of the event recedes and evacuees journey home, many are sure to face another disaster: unrecoverable property loss and damage.
Despite the region experiencing several destructive storms in recent memory, including Hurricanes Irene in 2011, Sandy in 2012, and Ida in 2021, very few residents in the Northeast have flood insurance policies. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, only about 1% of properties in Vermont and 2% in New York State had policies in 2021 through the National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, which administers most flood insurance policies in the United States.
The Northeast is not unique in this regard. The U.S. flood insurance market has been contracting since 2009, even as climate change has brought more damaging floods and storms to many parts of the country over the same time period. Even in Florida, which has the most policies in effect of any state, uninsured losses are racking up. About 13% of homes were insured for flooding during Hurricane Ian last year, and the state still incurred an estimated $10 to $17 billion in uninsured damages.
The pattern threatens to blight communities and increase economic disparities as the effects of climate change intensify. “Without a national plan to make flood insurance affordable and accessible, many more will continue to struggle after these storms,” wrote Carolyn Kousky, an expert on flood insurance at the Environmental Defense Fund, in an op-ed in The Hill after Hurricane Ian.
Flooding is already the most common and costly natural disaster in the United States, and it’s expected to get worse. Climate change will raise sea levels, putting coastal communities at risk of more dangerous storm surges. A warmer atmosphere also sucks up more water from the land, only to dump it back down later. The Fourth National Climate Assessment found that heavy precipitation events could increase in the U.S. by at least 50% of the historical average by the end of the century. Much of this rain will occur in areas all over the country that didn't previously see flooding. Rainfall intensity in the Northeast has already increased at a faster rate than anywhere else in the U.S.
Still, it’s no big mystery why so few people purchase flood insurance, even in hurricane-ravaged places like Florida. It’s expensive, confusing, and many people are either ignorant of their flood risk, unaware their regular homeowners insurance doesn’t cover floods, or willing to roll the dice.
There are few options on the private market, and they tend to cost more than policies through the NFIP. But the national program’s policies can still cost upwards of $1,000 per year. The only people required to have a flood policy are those with a federally-backed mortgage who buy property within a “special flood hazard area” — an area deemed to have a 1% risk of flooding in any given year. But the maps designating those areas are out of date in much of the country. Flood risk is not static, as urban development continuously drives changes in hydrology. Some experts say that even when the maps are updated, they don’t adequately reflect flood risk — by, for example, not taking climate change into account.
Janet Thigpen, a flood mitigation specialist in upstate New York, told me that when she talks to residents about flood insurance, most of the time it’s because they are asking her how to get out of buying it. “It's a cost, it’s not cheap, and they don't feel there's value,” she said. “They either say, I've lived here for however long and it has never flooded and it's never gonna flood, or, it flooded but that was a record-breaking flood and it's not going to happen again.” She added that many seem to think that if their homes do flood, insurance won’t actually cover a lot of the damages.
But when a storm comes through, insurance can mean the difference between putting your life back together and being forced to abandon it. Although President Biden approved an emergency declaration for Vermont on Tuesday, which will give residents access to disaster relief and emergency assistance, those grants are typically only a few hundred dollars and are capped at $5,000. National flood insurance policies, on the other hand, pay out up to $250,000.
It’s too early to tally up the full economic toll of this week’s floods, but Vermont Governor Scott said Tuesday that thousands of people lost homes and businesses. Studies have found that there’s often an uptick in flood insurance contracts after a disaster like this, but many let their policies lapse in the proceeding years as memory of the event fades.
There’s much debate and disagreement about how to improve the national picture for flood insurance, John Zinda, an environmental sociologist at Cornell told me. On one hand, insurance puts a price on living in a risky place, and from that perspective, the cost of flood insurance should be high in the riskiest places. FEMA recently introduced a new insurance pricing system called Risk Rating 2.0 that attempts to better capture that risk. It has led to major increases in premiums for homes built in floodplains. (A number of states and municipalities are suing FEMA over the changes.)
On the other hand, said Zinda, that way of thinking assumes that people living in floodplains have willingly taken on that risk. The reality is more complicated given that floods are increasing due to climate change. Urban development and the expansion of impermeable surfaces, like concrete, also severely exacerbates flooding hazards. “There are all sorts of things that happen over time such that somebody who got their house 20 years ago wasn't really making that choice, and now they're stuck there,” he said.
Some experts and policymakers want to improve FEMA’s buyout program for that reason. Many, including Kousky of the Environmental Defense Fund, and FEMA itself, have also put forward proposals for making flood insurance more accessible by providing targeted subsidies to those least able to afford it.
“Another way of thinking about the National Flood Insurance Program,” Zinda told me, “is that it technically works like insurance, but it’s actually part of our social safety net.”
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 that’s on top of the constitutional questions.
One of the biggest stories of the new Trump administration is the president’s attempt to block congressionally mandated spending. So far, most of the discussion over this freeze has focused on whether it violates federal law and the Constitution. But another front is likely to open soon in that legal battle — and it has received much less attention.
On his first day in office, Trump froze all federal spending tied to the Inflation Reduction Act and the $1 trillion infrastructure law passed during Joe Biden’s presidency. Although Trump has since relented on other spending freezes — such as a short-lived block on virtually all federal payments — he has continued to withhold these energy, climate, and infrastructure funds, even after a federal judge ordered their release on Monday.
Continuing this freeze for longer than 45 days would take an act of Congress, and it’s unclear whether the Trump administration intends to get one. It seems to be gearing up to fight a Supreme Court battle over whether the president has an inherent “impoundment” authority to block federal funding unilaterally (more on that later).
That constitutional fight will obviously be extremely important. But as hundreds of CEOs and local government officials are now surely realizing, this battle is not the only legal front on which the Trump administration’s spending freeze will be fought.
That is because — as long as the freeze continues — the Trump administration is going to start violating hundreds or even thousands of contracts and legally binding spending agreements. The Trump spending fight is not only about policy and the Constitution, in other words, but also about contract law.
The companies and local governments that are now being strung along by the Trump administration did not make a vague handshake agreement with the Biden administration. Instead, they signed a contract with the federal government to receive a certain amount of money in exchange for doing a certain activity. The administration might have changed since then. But the government is still bound by its debts and obligations.
Those companies have now spent money — in some cases more than tens of millions of dollars — to fulfill their side of the contract. They have bought equipment, purchased land, and hired workers. Those companies’ contracts with the federal government are as legally binding as any other contract between two parties — and the courts are as empowered to defend those contracts as they are any others.
There is a significant amount of money tied up in these agreements. By the end of 2024, the Biden administration had “obligated” more than $96 billion of grants from the Inflation Reduction Act, while the Department of Energy’s loans office had “finalized” more than $60 billion in lending. Both terms generally mean that a contract has been signed.
As Heatmap has written before, just because the government has signed a contract for a certain amount of money doesn’t mean that the money has gone out the door. Many federal contracts are designed, basically, as ongoing invoicing relationships: A private party agrees to do something for the government, the private party does it, and then the private party brings back its receipts and asks the government for reimbursements.
The government has been refusing to make those private parties whole, even though those private parties have kept up their side of their agreements. (Note that at no point, ever, has the Trump administration claimed on the record that the private entities it’s now refusing to pay are in breach of contract. It is simply saying that it would rather not pay them just yet for political reasons.)
This has several important consequences for what is about to happen next.
The first is that the Trump administration is about to face dozens and perhaps hundreds of lawsuits over breach of contract. The president cannot simply announce that the contracts are void, like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy in The Office. If the president or his officials want to cut off funding to IRA and infrastructure law grant and loan recipients, then they will need to give specific reasons under the contract for terminating and then defend those claims in court — provided that the recipient sues. Under a law called the Tucker Act, companies can sue the federal government for breaching a contract in the Court of Federal Claims, a special court in Washington, D.C. These lawsuits will not be about MAGA policies, but rather about the facts of each contract and whether the parties are in compliance with them.
At the same time, the Trump administration will likely be waging a fight over “impoundment.” Some officials in the Trump administration — including Russ Vought, the Project 2025 architect who now leads the White House budget office — profess that the president has an inherent authority that allows him to unilaterally block federal funding. This is despite the fact that the Constitution does not mention such a capacious authority, and the Supreme Court has historically rejected other presidential ploys, such as President Bill Clinton’s use of the line-item veto, to accept some parts of the federal budget and ignore others.
This will create, at least at first, a two-track legal fight over the Trump administration’s spending freeze. At the high level, President Trump will be fighting over the political and constitutional question of whether he can unilaterally block funding that has been appropriated by Congress. But at the lower level, federal agencies may be sparring with hundreds of companies about whether they can wriggle their way out of the contracts they have already signed. These dozens of potential smaller fights will command an enormous amount of time and personnel attention — not only from the companies, nonprofits, and local governments trying to secure what they are owed, but also from the Trump administration, which has finite resources.
These skirmishes will have economic consequences — and while these might be small in the context of America’s $29 trillion economy, they will gradually deepen. By refusing to honor its contracts, the Trump administration is forcing private companies to bear public costs. Those companies will delay hiring employees and investing in new equipment as they await repayment; some will furlough workers and go bankrupt. The burden will become more and more significant every day that the Trump administration continues its spending freeze.
These costs will not be randomly distributed through the economy, but rather concentrated primarily in sectors located in rural areas and affecting working-class Americans. Professional environmentalists in Seattle will continue to have a job regardless of what happens to some rural school district’s microgrid project. But the construction workers and electricians set to build that grid will lose income.
For this reason, the energy and infrastructure freeze does not strike me as a very wise move, politically — particularly as U.S. economic sentiment is worsening. One reason it is politically prudent for lawmakers, and not the president, to make spending decisions is that representatives understand their districts much better than federal officials in Washington, D.C.
This suggests the final takeaway: The Trump administration is beginning to play a very dangerous game with the United States. The American economy’s strength and prosperity arises from its territorial resource wealth, its educated and productive workforce, its secure defensive position, and — crucially — a set of financial intangibles that are ultimately backed up by federal contracts. The federal government is the largest counterparty in the global economy because it can be relied upon to pay its debts. If it begins to back out of contracts hither and thither, especially if primarily for partisan political reasons, then it will ultimately damage every American.
This is not a new or novel thought. Writing in 1790, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton said that the “punctual performance of contracts” was the key to maintaining the United States’ good credit. “States, like individuals, who observe their engagements, are respected and trusted: while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct,” he said. “Every breach of the public engagements, whether from choice or necessity, is in different degrees hurtful to public credit.”
It isn’t unusual for new administrations to pause some spending at the beginning of their terms, and perhaps the Trump administration will soon prove the worriers wrong and lift the spending freeze. But I fear it will not. It is very possible that in the next several months, the administration will begin to breach dozens of its public engagements. This will hurt the energy, automaking, and construction sectors in the near term. It will cause grief for the president — and, I worry, all of us — soon after.
Core inflation is up, meaning that interest rates are unlikely to go down anytime soon.
The Fed on Wednesday issued a report showing substantial increases in the price of eggs, used cars, and auto insurance — data that could spell bad news for the renewables economy.
Though some of those factors had already been widely reported on, the overall rise in prices exceeded analysts’ expectations. With overall inflation still elevated — reaching an annual rate of 3%, while “core” inflation, stripping out food and energy, rose to 3.3%, after an unexpectedly sharp 0.4% jump in January alone — any prospect of substantial interest rate cuts from the Federal Reserve has dwindled even further.
Renewable energy development is especially sensitive to higher interest rates. That’s because renewables projects, like wind turbines and solar panels, have to incur the overwhelming majority of their lifetime costs before they start operating and generating revenue. Developers then often fund much of the project through borrowed money that’s secured against an agreement to buy the resulting power. When the cost of borrowing money goes up, projects become less viable, with lower prospective returns sometimes causing investors not to go forward .
High interest rates have plagued the renewables economy for years. “As interest rates rise, all of a sudden, solar assets that are effectively bonds become less valuable,” Quinn Pasloske, a managing director at Greenbacker, a renewable investor and operating company, told me on Tuesday, describing how the stream of payments from a solar project becomes less valuable as rates rise because investors can get more from risk-free government bonds.
The new inflation data is “consistent with our call of an extended Fed pause, with only one rate cut in 2025, happening in June,” Morgan Stanley economists wrote in a note to clients. Bond traders are also projecting just a single cut for the rest of the year — but not until December.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told the Senate Banking committee Tuesday, “We think our policy rate is in a good place, and we don’t see any reason to be in a hurry to reduce it further.”
The yield for the 10-year Treasury bond, often used as a benchmark for the cost of credit, is up 0.09% today, to 4.63%. While this is below where yields peaked in mid-January, it’s a level still well above where yields have been for almost all of the last year. When Treasury yields rise, the cost of credit throughout the economy goes up.
Clean energy stocks were down this morning — but so is the overall market. Because while high interest rates are especially bad for renewables, they’re not exactly great for anyone else.
Current conditions: Los Angeles is bracing for a massive rain storm that could trigger landslides in areas recently charred by severe wildfires • About 90% of districts in India have received little or no rainfall since the start of the year • Schools are closed in Kansas City, Missouri, where up to 6 inches of snow is expected today.
California’s state-backed insurance plan of last resort is short on funds to pay out claims from the Los Angeles wildfires. As a result, California Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara is asking private insurers that operate in the state to give the program, known as the FAIR Plan, $1 billion. The FAIR Plan is for people who can’t get private insurance coverage because their properties are considered high risk. As weather disasters get worse and private insurers pull back from the state, more people are relying on the FAIR Plan, and its policy load has doubled since 2020 to more than 452,000. The plan has received some 4,700 claims related to last month’s devastating fires, and paid out more than $914 million. But that’s not enough. The program expects a loss of $4 billion from the fires. This is the first time in 30 years that the program has needed to ask for more money. The fee will be divided between the private companies according to market share, and they’ll have 30 days to pay. Up to half of the cost can be passed on to their own policyholders. Even so, there are concerns that this will push private insurers to leave California to avoid further losses, exacerbating the state’s insurance crisis. State Farm, the state’s largest insurer, recently asked regulators to approve a 22% rate increase.
The U.S. added nearly 50% more clean energy capacity last year than in 2023, according to a new report from energy data company Cleanview. Most of the 48.2 gigawatts of new capacity came in the form of batteries and solar, with solar additions rising by 65%, mostly in southern states like Texas and Florida. As for battery storage, four states (California, Texas, Arizona, and Nevada) accounted for 70% of new capacity. Meanwhile, wind power missed out on growth, with capacity additions dropping by nearly a quarter year-over-year. The report says solar growth will likely slow down in 2025, battery storage could grow by nearly 70%, and wind capacity could grow by 80% if all planned projects manage to reach completion. One interesting tidbit is that Indiana is emerging as a solar hot spot. It ranks third on the list of states with the most solar additions planned for 2025, below Texas and California, but above Arizona. Of course, a lot will depend on the Trump administration.
Cleanview
Global air traffic rose by 10% to an all-time high last year, according to recent data from the International Air Transport Association. This means more aviation pollution. Air travel already accounts for 2.5% of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, and has contributed an estimated 4% to global warming. As Ben Elgin at Bloombergnoted, the rise in air travel comes as airlines fail to adopt “sustainable” aviation fuel at meaningful levels, with SAF accounting for a paltry 0.3% of commercial jet fuel production in 2024. “SAF volumes are increasing, but disappointingly slowly,” the IATA said in December. “Governments are sending mixed signals to oil companies which continue to receive subsidies for their exploration and production of fossil oil and gas.” Airlines are relying on SAF to curb their emissions, with many pledging to consume 10% SAF by 2030. But “even if airlines can somehow replace 10% of their fuel with lower-emitting alternatives by the end of the decade, those climate benefits would be wiped out by the industry’s expected growth,” wrote Elgin. Yesterday the Trump administration released a $782 million loan for a plant in Montana to turn waste fats into biofuel. The loan was originally finalized under the Biden administration.
The CEO of Ford Motor yesterday warned that the company could be forced to lay off workers if President Trump raises tariffs on Mexico and Canada, and guts Biden-era legislation that supported electric vehicle production. “A 25% tariff across the Mexico and Canadian border will blow a hole in the U.S. industry that we have never seen,” Jim Farley said at a conference. He added that ending loans and subsidies for EV manufacturing projects would also put many Ford jobs at risk. The New York Times noted that his comments “offered a rare example of a corporate executive calling into question Mr. Trump’s policies or statements.”
Sales of electric vehicles were up 18% in January compared to the same time in 2024, but growth is slowing, according to research firm Rho Motion. Last month, 1.3 million EVs were sold worldwide. That’s down 35% from December’s numbers, and marks the third month in a row of slowing growth. China’s sales were down last month because of the Chinese New Year. Meanwhile, sales were up in Europe as new emissions standards came into effect. And in the U.S. and Canada, sales rose 22%. Rho Motion expects more than 20 million EVs will be sold this year.
$160 million – The amount raised in a Series B funding round by Chestnut Carbon. The startup focuses on planting trees and vegetation, and improving forest management practices to better remove carbon from the atmosphere. Chestnut will use this latest funding to build out afforestation projects — that is, planting trees in areas where, at least in modern times, forests have not existed.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify the nature of the Trump administration’s actions on funding for a Montana biofuels plant.