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:
And anyone who the company covers might be legally obligated to rescue it.
The entire state of Florida may end up on the hook for damage caused by Hurricane Idalia.
That’s because the state-run insurance company, Citizens, has hundreds of thousands of policies in the area that could be hit by the storm. The most recent National Hurricane Center forecast projects the largest storm surge just north of the heavily populated Tampa Bay area in counties where Citizens has over half the market. The center is also expecting high winds from Tampa north all the way to the state’s Big Bend region, and unlike many private insurers in the state, Citizens is willing to cover wind damage.
Citizens is designed to be backup for Floridians if they can’t get private insurance for their homes and commercial property. As more and more insurance companies leave the state or go out of business, the company has massively expanded its reach over the state’s insurance market. In 2023, Citizens expects to have 1.7 million clients with $5.1 billion in premiums, compared to under 500,000 policyholders and $877 million in premiums in 2019, according to the company’s budget report.
“The difference for this storm of a few degrees is billions of dollars to Citizens,” Jeff Brandes, a former Florida state senator and president of the Florida Policy Project, told me. If it hits Pasco or Hernando counties head-on, Brandes said, the resulting insurance claims could exhaust Citizens’ current surplus and force it to issue “special assessments” — essentially one-time bills — on the state’s policyholders, including drivers. Citizens has over 50% of the property insurance market in the two counties north of Tampa Bay, according to Brandes, meaning that substantial storm damage could incur large losses for Citizens.
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
Florida’s domestic property insurers have been losing money on underwriting — the difference between premiums collected and claims paid — since 2016, according to the state’s Office of Insurance Regulation. Earlier this year, another Florida insurer, United Property & Casualty Insurance Company, was declared insolvent. Farmers said in July that it would leave the state, one of several insurers to stop doing business there or go out of business entirely.
The combination of high risk from storms and an increasingly uncompetitive insurance market has led to some of the highest home insurance premiums in the nation. In Hillsborough County, homeowners pay an average premium of $2,752, while in Miami-Dade, it’s $5,665.
These high costs are driven by a combination of Florida’s, especially the coasts’, high risk of storm damage to property, and its uniquely litigious environment, which the Florida state government has tried to reform.
Citizens, however, is unlikely to face insolvency because it has an immense backstop: Floridians. If any of the company’s separate accounts are overdrawn (they’re scheduled to be combined early next year), the company can issue assessments to make up the difference.
“A devastating storm or series of smaller storms could cause a deficit in one or more account, leaving Citizens without enough money to pay all claims. If this happens, Florida law requires Citizens to charge a series of assessments until the deficit is paid,” according to the company.
The first level of assessments goes to Citizens policyholders, then a 2 percent surcharge on the premiums paid by private insurance policyholders for the company’s Coastal Account which provides coverage in specified high risk areas. The third level of assessments goes to both private and Citizens policyholders — including home and auto insurance policyholders — until the accounts are made solvent.
“Emergency Assessments can be up to 10% per account per year for each of Citizens’ three accounts. It is levied on both Citizens and non-Citizens policyholders for as many years as necessary until the deficit is resolved,” according to Citizens.
“They have this incredible assessment base,” Brandes told me. “If someone is paying $3,000 [in annual premiums], they can force you to write another for $1,200 or $1,300. Imagine people’s shock when that shows up at their door.”
Earlier this year, Citizens reported that “due to Hurricane Ian, Citizens’ financial resources have been significantly depleted,” and that its surplus had declined to just under $5 billion. This could mean that Florida policyholders could be on the hook for the state-run company: “If Florida is impacted by a storm or series of storms in 2023, Citizens will need to rely on its assessment capability and/or post‐event financing to meet its policyholder obligations,” Citizens said in the report.
“You see massive amount of socializing risk [in a state] that doesn’t want to talk about socialism,” Brandes said. “We’re the free state of Florida except for our largest liability — Citizens — which we are happy to subsidize.”
Read more about insurance:
Commercial Real Estate Is Getting Walloped By Climate Change
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more on the week’s most important conflicts around renewable energy projects.
1. Lawrence County, Alabama – We now have a rare case of a large solar farm getting federal approval.
2. Virginia Beach, Virginia – It’s time to follow up on the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project.
3. Fairfield County, Ohio – The red shirts are beating the greens out in Ohio, and it isn’t looking pretty.
4. Allen County, Indiana – Sometimes a setback can really set someone back.
5. Adams County, Illinois – Hope you like boomerangs because this county has approved a solar project it previously denied.
6. Solano County, California – Yet another battery storage fight is breaking out in California. This time, it’s north of San Francisco.
A conversation with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Elizabeth McCarthy of the Breakthrough Institute. Elizabeth was one of several researchers involved in a comprehensive review of a decade of energy project litigation – between 2013 and 2022 – under the National Environment Policy Act. Notably, the review – which Breakthrough released a few weeks ago – found that a lot of energy projects get tied up in NEPA litigation. While she and her colleagues ultimately found fossil fuels are more vulnerable to this problem than renewables, the entire sector has a common enemy: difficulty of developing on federal lands because of NEPA. So I called her up this week to chat about what this research found.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
So why are you so fixated on NEPA?
Personally and institutionally, [Breakthrough is] curious about all regulatory policy – land use, environmental regulatory policy – and we see NEPA as the thing that connects them all. If we understand how that’s functioning at a high level, we can start to pull at the strings of other players. So, we wanted to understand the barrier that touches the most projects.
What aspects of zero-carbon energy generation are most affected by NEPA?
Anything with a federal nexus that doesn’t include tax credits. Solar and wind that is on federal land is subject to a NEPA review, and anything that is linear infrastructure – transmission often has to go through multiple NEPA reviews. We don’t see a ton of transmission being litigated over on our end, but we think that is a sign NEPA is such a known obstacle that no one even wants to touch a transmission line that’ll go through 14 years of review, so there’s this unknown graveyard of transmission that wasn’t even planned.
In your report, you noted there was a relatively small number of zero-carbon energy projects in your database of NEPA cases. Is solar and wind just being developed more frequently on private land, so there’s less of these sorts of conflicts?
Precisely. The states that are the most powered by wind or create the most wind energy are Texas and Iowa, and those are bypassing the national federal environmental review process [with private land], in addition to not having their own state requirements, so it’s easier to build projects.
What would you tell a solar or wind developer about your research?
This is confirming a lot of things they may have already instinctually known or believed to be true, which is that NEPA and filling out an environmental impact statement takes a really long time and is likely to be litigated over. If you’re a developer who can’t avoid putting your energy project on federal land, you may just want to avoid moving forward with it – the cost may outweigh whatever revenue you could get from that project because you can’t know how much money you’ll have to pour into it.
Huh. Sounds like everything is working well. I do think your work identifies a clear risk in developing on federal lands, which is baked into the marketplace now given the pause on permits for renewables on federal lands.
Yeah. And if you think about where the best places would be to put these technologies? It is on federal lands. The West is way more federal land than anywhere else in the county. Nevada is a great place to put solar — there’s a lot of sun. But we’re not going to put anything there if we can’t put anything there.
What’s the remedy?
We propose a set of policy suggestions. We think the judicial review process could be sped along or not be as burdensome. Our research most obviously points to shortening the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedures Act from six years to six months, because a great deal of the projects we reviewed made it in that time, so you’d see more cases in good faith as opposed to someone waiting six years waiting to challenge it.
We also think engaging stakeholders much earlier in the process would help.
The Bureau of Land Management says it will be heavily scrutinizing transmission lines if they are expressly necessary to bring solar or wind energy to the power grid.
Since the beginning of July, I’ve been reporting out how the Trump administration has all but halted progress for solar and wind projects on federal lands through a series of orders issued by the Interior Department. But last week, I explained it was unclear whether transmission lines that connect to renewable energy projects would be subject to the permitting freeze. I also identified a major transmission line in Nevada – the north branch of NV Energy’s Greenlink project – as a crucial test case for the future of transmission siting in federal rights-of-way under Trump. Greenlink would cross a litany of federal solar leases and has been promoted as “essential to helping Nevada achieve its de-carbonization goals and increased renewable portfolio standard.”
Well, BLM has now told me Greenlink North will still proceed despite a delay made public shortly after permitting was frozen for renewables, and that the agency still expects to publish the record of decision for the line in September.
This is possible because, as BLM told me, transmission projects that bring solar and wind power to the grid will be subject to heightened scrutiny. In an exclusive statement, BLM press secretary Brian Hires told me via e-mail that a secretarial order choking out solar and wind permitting on federal lands will require “enhanced environmental review for transmission lines only when they are a part of, and necessary for, a wind or solar energy project.”
However, if a transmission project is not expressly tied to wind or solar or is not required for those projects to be constructed… apparently, then it can still get a federal green light. For instance in the case of Greenlink, the project itself is not explicitly tied to any single project, but is kind of like a transmission highway alongside many potential future solar projects. So a power line can get approved if it could one day connect to wind or solar, but the line’s purpose cannot solely be for a wind or solar project.
This is different than, say, lines tied explicitly to connecting a wind or solar project to an existing transmission network. Known as gen-tie lines, these will definitely face hardships with this federal government. This explains why, for example, BLM has yet to approve a gen-tie line for a wind project in Wyoming that would connect the Lucky Star wind project to the grid.
At the same time, it appears projects may be given a wider berth if a line has other reasons for existing, like improving resilience on the existing grid, or can be flexibly used by not just renewables but also fossil energy.
So, the lesson to me is that if you’re trying to build transmission infrastructure across federal property under this administration, you might want to be a little more … vague.