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:
Two years in, union leaders say Biden’s big climate law is making a difference.

The Inflation Reduction Act is by far the most important climate law ever passed in the U.S. But it also may go down as one of the most important labor laws of recent history. Overnight, jobs installing solar farms that were largely performed by an itinerant, low-wage workforce had the potential to become higher-paid positions occupied by skilled tradespeople — maybe even union jobs.
That’s because in order to qualify for a 30% tax credit on their investment or operating costs, clean energy developers now have to follow two key labor standards. They have to pay construction workers the federally determined prevailing wage for their region, plus hire a designated number of apprentices, who are provided with paid classroom instruction in addition to on-the-job-training.
“I don’t think people have a sense of the scale and the scope of what this law has done and is going to do,” Rick Levy, the president of the Texas AFL-CIO, told me. “From our perspective, putting community well-being and labor standards in the very fabric of this industrial expansion is going to pay dividends for generations.”
On the eve of the IRA’s two-year anniversary, a new report provided exclusively to Heatmap has identified 6,285 utility-scale clean energy projects planned, under construction, or already operating, that are likely candidates for these tax credits. Together, they represent an estimated 3.9 million jobs, according to the Climate Jobs National Resource Center, a nonprofit that supports unions fighting for worker-centered climate action, which compiled the data.
There’s no way to know, at least right now, how many of the projects still in progress will actually get built, or how many have or will adhere to labor standards. Safe harbor provisions in the law also allow developers to claim the full tax credit without adhering to the rules as long as they started construction by the end of January 2023, so the full effect of the provisions will take some time to be realized.
But the report reveals the vast potential for the law to create higher-quality jobs in clean energy all over the country. Based on my reporting, that potential is starting to materialize. Union leaders told me they’re now having conversations with developers who never returned their calls before. And renewable energy developers and tax credit consultants told me it was a no-brainer to meet the labor standards, even though they create substantial administrative burdens. Otherwise, they’ll only be eligible for a 6% credit, leaving a huge amount of money on the table.
Mike Fishman, the executive director of the Climate Jobs National Resource Center, told me that when he first started advocating for high-road climate jobs, he found that many trades workers were afraid of clean energy. “If they had a good job in the fossil fuel industry, then saying, we’re going to reach these goals and shut down all the fossil fuel plants, that was very scary to people.” But since the IRA passed, he’s seen a change in workers’ attitudes about supporting climate action. “It creates a sense that there’s a future for everyone — an economic future, as well as a climate future,” Fishman said.
The IRA’s potential to spur well-paid jobs and training opportunities is actually even larger than the Resource Center’s estimate indicates. The report only covers clean energy generation projects like wind and solar farms, but the law also tied labor standards to tax credits for the construction of clean energy manufacturing plants, EV chargers, carbon capture projects, hydrogen plants, clean fuel factories, and new, energy-efficient buildings.
The standards are likely to affect each of these industries in different ways, but it’s instructive to look at what’s already happening in renewable energy development. To do so, you first have to understand that developers sit near the top of a ladder of companies involved in bringing an energy project into the world. Above them sits investors; below, a series of contractors and subcontractors who manage the project on the ground and hire the workers who ultimately build it.
Before the IRA, everyone along this ladder had an incentive to keep costs as low as possible. At the top, developers are competing for power contracts with utilities. Contractors would try to win bids by quoting the lowest construction costs. Staffing agencies would source temporary workers from all over the country and negotiate wages and benefits on a case by case basis. An investigation into solar work by Vice found that it was “common to have two workers doing the same job for vastly different pay and living stipends.” Some would travel to a new place for a gig and “pile into motel rooms with other workers on the same projects in order to save money.”
The IRA disrupts that incentive structure, creating a new regime whereby the top priority is getting that 30% tax credit. The law also extended the ladder, creating new rungs of accountability thanks to new tax credit transferability rules that allow developers to sell their tax credits to third parties. That means there are a host of other companies looming over developers’ shoulders with a stake in making sure they don’t cheat the rules. Tax credit buyers don’t want to end up in a situation where the IRS audits the developer who sold them the credits, finds that there weren’t enough apprentices on the project, and claws back the money. The risk is serious enough that buyers also purchase insurance for these transactions, adding another layer of oversight.
“The lawyers are scaring everyone about this,” Derek Silverman, the co-founder and chief product officer of Basis Climate, a startup that matches tax credit buyers and sellers, told me. For example, the law contains a loophole for companies to claim the credit without hiring the required number of apprentices as long as they show they made a “good faith effort.” Treasury defines that as having reached out to at least one registered apprenticeship program in the area every year the project is operating. Silverman said he’s seen lawyers challenge companies that are trying to get around the requirement, asking them who they reached out to and berating them if it wasn’t a legitimate effort.
“They’re saying, you have a huge part of your capital stack that’s based off this tax credit,” said Silverman. “It’s not worth the downside of the government questioning through an audit that you didn’t meet these requirements, and then, boom, you owe them $20 million when it would have cost you $100,000 to do the documentation and get that all square.”
The upside is valuable enough that it’s generated a whole new cottage industry in tax credit compliance. Empact Technologies, for example, is a software company that collects and evaluates payroll data from contractors to make sure they are paying the correct wages and have the right number of apprentices. “Then we have to go back and essentially fix all of the mistakes that they made every single week” — like classifying workers incorrectly and paying them the wrong amount, or falling behind on apprenticeship hours — “which every single contractor does. It’s insane,” Charles Dauber, Empact’s founder, told me.
All of this has added much complexity — and cost — to renewable energy development. David Yaros, who co-leads Deloitte’s US Tax Sustainability Practice, told me that the cost of compliance, including hiring companies like Empact and Deloitte to compile all the documentation, could eat into 5% to 20% of the tax benefits.
“This has raised our costs,” Rodrigo Inurreta Acero, a government affairs manager at the international developer EDP Renewables, confirmed, referring specifically to the added cost of consultants rather than the mostly negligible cost of paying prevailing wages. “But, we are very, very happy to comply with this, because the juice is worth the squeeze.”
There’s clear incentives for developers to do everything in their power to meet the labor standards. The key question is whether these two little provisions — prevailing wage and apprenticeships — are strong enough to “build a strong pipeline of highly-skilled workers” and “ensure clean energy jobs are good-paying jobs,” as the Biden administration has said.
The need is definitely there. A census of U.S. solar jobs in 2022 found that 52% of solar installation and project development companies found it “very difficult” to find qualified workers, with electricians and construction workers being among the most difficult positions to fill.
But even if armies of lawyers are scaring companies into making serious efforts to hire apprentices, that doesn’t mean they are actually finding them. “It’s not clear at this stage whether apprenticeship programs are scaling up fast enough to match labor supply to project demand,” Derrick Flakoll, a policy associate at BloombergNEF told me. He pointed to an announcement made by the White House just last month of $244 million in grants to expand the Registered Apprenticeship system throughout the country. “I’d be skeptical that apprenticeship programs have been able to scale up yet,” said Flakoll.
There’s a catch with the wage requirement, too: “Prevailing wage” doesn’t necessarily mean a living wage, and it can vary dramatically from place to place. The rate is determined by surveys sent out to contractors and labor organizations, and is typically higher in jurisdictions with active labor unions. For example, in Falls County, Texas, where the 640 megawatt Roseland Solar project is under construction, prevailing wage for a general laborer is $8.75 an hour. In Sangamon County, Illinois, where the 800 megawatt Black Diamond Solar project is being built, prevailing wage for a laborer is $34.04 an hour plus benefits worth $29.26 an hour.
Nico Ries, the lead organizer for the Green Workers Alliance, which organizes solar and wind workers, told me solar wages seem to have only increased in places with higher union density. That’s because unions are now on a more even playing-field to compete for jobs in those areas, since their typical rates have become the de facto minimum.
To be clear, the prevailing wage and apprenticeship provisions do not require developers to hire union workers to build their projects. And there are plenty of non-union, registered apprenticeships. Ries told me that the temp staffing agencies that have served the solar industry in the past are quickly standing up apprenticeship programs to stay on top of the market under the IRA. The main problem with that, they said, is that unlike union apprentices, these workers have no representation.
“There’s a lot of misinformation,” Ries said. “People think they are joining an apprenticeship and it’s going to be a whole thing, but it’s really just a little training or two, and then they slap a sticker on your hard hat.”
Nonetheless, unions are starting to make inroads in solar in places that have long been hostile to organized labor. Ethan Link, the assistant business manager for the Southeast Laborers’ District Council, which has members in right-to-work states throughout the south, told me that before and after the IRA was like “night and day.” For the first time, solar developers are calling the union directly to talk about projects on the horizon and to figure out how to work with them. As a result, the union is investing in more solar-specific training for its apprenticeship instructors.
“The Inflation Reduction Act is one of the most consequential and, I think, also most innovative ways of inducing the market to have broad based benefits for the community,” Link said. “The way I’ve experienced it, it’s changed the landscape on the ground with these developers within a matter of months, rather than a matter of years.” He said they don’t yet have a lot of workers actually assigned to projects, but “we’re really optimistic about where things sit right now.”
Kent Miller, president of the Wisconsin Laborers’ District Council, told me his union has been able to double its apprenticeship program from around 300 to 400 students a few years ago to closer to 700 to 800 post-IRA. It’s now looking to build another training campus to expand its capacity. Not all of that growth is thanks to renewable energy, he said, but the union now has a significant portion of its membership that just works in utility-scale solar.
Earlier this year, Wisconsin’s four biggest electric utilities pledged to employ local, union labor on all future renewable energy projects. Miller doesn’t think this would have happened without the incentives in the IRA. Though every wind farm in Wisconsin has been built by union labor, the more nascent solar industry was starting to bring in non-union workers from out of state to build projects. The IRA incentives gave Miller’s union leverage in negotiations with the utilities, because future projects were going to need to be able to find registered apprentices. “Unions run the best registered apprenticeship programs,” he said. “It was showing what we could do, what we could bring to the table.”
There is one more small but potentially powerful incentive for developers to work with unions. The Internal Revenue Service has said that if companies sign a project labor agreement — an agreement with one or more unions, made prior to hiring, that establishes wages and benefits — then they are less likely to be audited, and won’t have to pay penalties if they are found to be non-compliant.
To Levy, of the AFL-CIO in Texas, and others in the labor movement, getting workers to support clean energy is essential to tackling climate change. “Unless workers see themselves and their interests reflected in these new energy technologies, there’s never going to be the kind of political support that we need to be able to do the things we need to do to save the planet,” Levy said. The first step to achieve that, he said, is making sure these jobs are “good union jobs.”
The Climate Jobs National Resource Center connected me with Kim Tobias, a union electrician in Maine, as an example of how union jobs can change lives. Tobias used to work in call centers, providing customer service for healthcare software companies, before leaving to join the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. She was making $16 an hour in her last call center job after more than 10 years in the field, and was fed up after getting passed over for a promotion. When she started as an electrical apprentice in 2019, she essentially doubled her salary overnight once benefits were taken into account.
Today, in part because of the IRA, but also because of a state law that requires developers to pay prevailing wage on all large renewable projects in Maine, Tobias mainly works on solar projects. The work isn’t always ideal — she told me she once had to commute 75 miles away for a solar job — while she was pregnant, no less. “Then again, a year and a half later, I worked a solar job that was 0.9 miles away from my house. So it’s give and take,” she said.
But Tobias also said she sees potential to create high-quality clean energy jobs beyond solar in Maine, where, she lamented, “people under the age of 30 are leaving in droves.” She noted that an old paper mill in Lincoln, Maine, is being turned into an energy storage site, and the developer has already said it would establish a collective bargaining agreement with the Maine Building and Construction Trades. Illustrating Levy’s point about political support, the union is also now advocating for the construction of a new port to support the offshore wind industry, which would have to be built with union labor under a recent state law.
Even if the IRA’s labor provisions are starting to work, which it seems they are, they contain one significant weakness. The rules only apply to the construction of projects — not to their operations. It’s an improvement to have labor standards for construction jobs. But once they are built, wind and solar farms don't take many people to operate. The federally subsidized clean energy manufacturing plants springing up around the country due to the IRA will create a lot more jobs, but, at least right now, those jobs don’t have to be “good.”
“I think that people need to understand the opportunity here,” said Levy, and make sure that we continue to build on it and not turn back.”
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify the “good faith effort” exception to the apprenticeship provision and that both provisions apply only to construction.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Facing down a sea change, the automaker has staked its next EV bet on a compact, sporty pickup.
“Full fathom five, your father lies,” the invisible spirit Ariel sings early in The Tempest, as a handsome and grieving prince listens, rapt. The song tells of a shipwrecked skeleton transforming into something else — its eyes have become pearls, and its bones pink coral — as it undergoes, yes, a “sea change.” It is the first time that phrase appears in the English language.
Ford is now facing its own kind of sea change. Over the past decade, the automaker has doubled down on its most profitable and exciting vehicles — pickups, SUVs, and the Mustang muscle car — and dropped from its line-up the cheap, boring cars that once made it famous. It embraced, then backed off, the transition to electric vehicles, in part because it failed to make money from them; and it began to reckon with the surge of cheaper, cleaner, and “far superior” EVs from Chinese producers that are transforming global auto markets around the world.
Locked into its aging but reliable line-up, yet unable to innovate at the low end, Ford might seem like the epitome of a company facing disruptive innovation. No wonder its stock has traded flat from where it was five years ago — even as the broader market has surged by more than 70%.
Its solution is an EV skunkworks, run by Tesla alumni, where it can develop a new “universal EV platform” to undergird future vehicles. Today, we got a peek at the first car to emerge from that secret shop: an all-electric compact pickup that will hit the roads by the end of next year. Its name? The Ford Fathom.
We know very little about the Fathom, as our correspondent Andrew Moseman wrote today. It will retail for just over $28,000, and even with mandatory delivery costs and other add-ons will stick to this side of $30,000. That makes it only a smidge more expensive than the gas-burning Ford Maverick, a sporty, compact, and popular pickup that starts around $27,000.
Ford promises that the Fathom will have as much seating capacity as Toyota’s RAV4, America’s best-selling car that isn’t a truck. (Ford’s own F-150, of course, holds the true No. 1 spot.) Those dimensions suggest the Fathom will sport a four-door crew cab, like the Maverick, making it more acceptable to families with kids — or young professionals who want to give their friends rides on the weekend. It will also have a frunk.
Beyond that, though, we don’t know much. We don’t know its range, for instance, and its price point shouldn’t inspire too much confidence on that front. Nor do we know, frankly, whether Ford can pull it off: When the automaker announced its first electric truck, the F-150 Lightning, in 2021, it claimed a price point of less than $40,000. Eighteen months of inflation later, it actually sold them for closer to $55,000 — and it still lost money on every EV that it made. Fixing the latter problem is part of why the skunkworks exists in the first place, and Ford now has an additional half-decade of experience making EVs. But consumers hoping for a miraculously priced electric pickup from the Blue Oval have been burned before.
If the Fathom disappoints, though, then consumers will soon have other options. The American car market is about to be deluged with sporty, compact pickup trucks — a welcome change from just a few years ago, when the segment was almost entirely dominated by mid-size and half-ton models. The Jeff Bezos-backed startup Slate will start delivering two-door, all-electric pickups starting at $25,000 at the end of this year. The automaker Stellantis, which owns the Dodge and Jeep brands, says it wants to bring another compact pickup — it’s almost more of a ute — called the Rampage to North America soon.
That’s welcome news for me — I love these little trucks — but I’m a little worried I’ll be outside my pickup-buying years by the time they actually make it to market. In the meantime, I’ll keep you posted on other updates about the Fathom. Will “sea nymphs hourly ring its knell”? No, but it will have Apple CarPlay and Android Auto.
The company confirmed its plans to market research company Cleanview.
The data center buildout has hit a new inflection point. It has long been true that artificial intelligence is fueling climate change by driving up power demand; more recently, tech companies have started directly financing new natural gas plants in their quest for AI glory. Now one is backing the biggest fossil fuel-fired power plant ever to exist in the United States — exclusively to power an AI data center complex.
That company is Amazon, according to the market research company Cleanview, which reported on Friday that the tech giant is building an AI data center campus in Texas powered by an up to 7.65-gigawatt off-grid natural gas plant.
That’s larger than any other power plant in the country — fossil or otherwise. The next biggest plant is the Grand Coulee hydroelectric plant in Washington State, at 7 gigawatts, followed by Arizona’s 4-gigawatt Palo Verde nuclear plant, and the West Count Energy Center, a 3.7-gigawatt natural gas plant in Florida.
The new power plant’s developer, Pacifico Energy, announced in January that it had secured permits from Texas regulators for the project, dubbed “GW Ranch.” The site is also permitted for up to 750 megawatts of solar and 1.8 gigawatts of battery energy storage.
It was not clear who the customer for all this energy would be until earlier this week, when Cleanview uncovered construction permits Amazon filed showing that the company owned the GW Ranch site. The company confirmed to Cleanview that it acquired the site and planned to buy power from Pacifico’s plant.
Not only will this natural gas plant be larger than the one in Florida, it will also use far less efficient technology. Pacifico’s permit says it plans to build 35 “simple cycle” generating units, which are typically installed in rarely-used peaker power plants and waste a lot more fuel potential than the modern “combined cycle” natural gas plants that serve as baseload power for the grid today. These more efficient turbines are essentially on backorder for years, and power-hungry developers have increasingly turned to the simpler versions as a quick fix as they race to bring facilities online.
According to its permit, the GW Ranch plant is allowed to emit as much as 33 million tons of CO2 per year. That’s twice as much as the most-polluting power plant in the country, the James H. Miller Jr. coal plant in Alabama, emitted in 2023, the most recent year for which data is available.
In a statement to Cleanview, an Amazon spokesperson said the company “believes in paying the full costs of powering our operations,” and that this Texas project “does just that: it’s powered by new on-site generation that won’t raise electricity costs for Texas families and designed to transition to grid-connected service as interconnection timelines allow.”
Some researchers disagree on that point, however. In an opinion piece for Utility Dive, Energy Innovation director Jeffrey Rissman and senior fellow Eric Gimon argue that the proliferation of off-grid natural gas generation for data centers will increase costs for regular people more than if the data centers connected to the grid, because they will be competing with utility companies for gas supply. “Data centers can buy gas in bulk and sign long-term contracts (as we’ve seen in Texas, Pennsylvania and New Mexico), giving them access to cheap gas, even if this unfairly drives up prices for everyone else,” they write.
Jane Flegal, a senior fellow at the Searchlight Institute, has also argued that building off-grid natural gas plants to serve data centers locks in emissions for decades because the plants don’t face competitive pressure from other resources. When a new natural gas plant is hooked up to the grid, by contrast, there’s a far greater chance that cheaper, cleaner resources will displace its generation over time.
The Rhodium Group recently developed a scoring system to help investors differentiate between projects that are likely to accelerate the energy transition, those that will have little effect one way or the other, and those that will actively slow it down. They used it to assess options for powering data centers, and found that off grid natural gas plants scored the worst, falling at the bottom of the latter category.
Regardless, Amazon still, somehow, asserts that it is committed to achieve net zero emissions by 2040.
The smoke pouring into Seattle from Spokane is particularly bad, but there’s also no such thing as good smoke.
I wrote this story from inside a cloud of smoke. Owing to some funky meteorology in the Seattle area this week — a pressure ridge paired with a thermal trough — the region’s usual westerly winds reversed, causing smoke from the fires burning in the eastern half of the state to pour through the mountain passes and river valleys of the Cascades and pool over the populous Puget Sound lowlands, where I live.
Though it’s cleared up some today, I’m still running my air purifier on full blast because I know what’s in the lingering smoke. Unlike the still blazing wildfires in Ontario that are burning through mostly uninhabited forests, the smoke in the Seattle area this week came to us partially from Spokane, where the Old Trails fire razed at least 700 buildings and homes last weekend. That means that beyond the usual organic matter associated with wildfire smoke, the pollution that has hung over Seattle has likely also contained particles and chemicals from burned plastics, batteries, cars, and household appliances.
But how can the average person be sure whether their wildfire smoke is the bad kind or the worse kind? (At least assuming that well-adjusted people do not obsessively watch the animations on AirNow.Gov, as I do.) I turned to Coty Jen, an associate professor of chemical engineering, and Albert Presto, a research professor of mechanical engineering, both of Carnegie Mellon University, to learn more about the chemistry of wildfire smoke.
“There is no safe smoke,” Jen said, setting me straight immediately. “It’s all bad. It will piss your body off.”
While it’s true that some smoke is more toxic than other smoke, what you might call the “all natural, organic” variety will still spike hospital emission rates and exacerbate pre-existing respiratory diseases, even if it is mostly burning trees.
Under ideal conditions, when cellulose or lignin — the main structural components of trees and plants as well as leaf litter and soil, the largest sources of carbon during a forest fire — heat up and combust, the chemical reaction creates carbon dioxide, water, heat, and light. But wildfires don’t burn cleanly, and the chemical reactions often stall midway through that process due to things like oxygen availability and temperature variation, producing intermediate products like carbon monoxide or partially broken-down bits of carbon, often called soot. The tiniest of these particles can be smaller than 2.5 micrometers across — 30 or more could fit across the width of a human hair — and are measured collectively as PM2.5, a catch-all term that refers to the size of the particle rather than what it is. What’s important, though, is that these particles are small enough to penetrate deep into our lungs and potentially enter our bloodstream, factors that add to the known mortality associated with PM2.5 exposure.
Different kinds of forests create different emissions — heavy duff, or leaf litter, which is common in pine forests, creates some of the densest smoke conditions. Wetter fuels also burn “dirtier,” creating more pollution. Different topographies also impact air quality in myriad ways; it’s no surprise that some of the worst pollution from the Spokane wildfires pooled in mountain valleys as a warm overhead layer of air trapped the particles near the ground.
Even “natural” wildfires can be extra toxic; burning eucalyptus, which grows in Southern California, is not something you want to inhale. Pine smoke can cause mutations in bacterial DNA, a common lab test for a substance’s potential to cause cancer. Wildfires that smolder are worse than those that burn fast; researchers have found that PM2.5 can be up to 70 times higher when fuels aren’t actively on fire. “You can even see this if you’ve ever built a fire yourself,” Presto explained. “There’s a period where everything is big and flaming, and then, if you’re burning a log, it eventually goes down to smoldering. The emissions are different.”
In the case of something like a house burning down in a wildfire, however, it’s not only cellulose and lignin combusting. “We’re good at engineering materials that are extremely robust, but when they burn, they release very exotic compounds,” Jen said. She pointed to the common plastic PVC, which is used for everything from exterior siding to plumbing and window frames. When it combusts, PVC releases chlorine, “which is very bad for you,” Jen told me. “It’s like how bleach is bad for you — it’s a pretty nasty chlorine compound. PVC isn’t releasing bleach, but it is releasing radical chlorine molecules that produce some crazy compounds.”
If you’re following a smoke event at home, the answer is “not really.” PM2.5 is measured in micrograms per cubic meter, which tells us how much small stuff is floating around, but not what that small stuff is. “It is pretty difficult to measure all the different compounds that wildfires, or broadly any pollution, will emit,” Jen said. “The easiest way to quantify it is to literally suck air onto a filter and measure how heavy it got.”
Measuring what exactly is in that mass requires instruments that cost in the ballpark of half a million dollars, which is not financially feasible at every air monitoring station, Jen went on. But while there are certainly academic applications for that kind of knowledge, a person trying to decide whether or not to go for their run in wildfire smoke doesn’t need that level of granularity.
“Some smoke is definitely more dangerous,” Jen said. “But as innocent bystanders, it’s not like we can pick and choose what smoke floats over to us. You just have to live with it, so the best mentality is to treat all smoke as bad.”
In a 2026 Science Advances study that attributed more than 24,000 deaths per year to wildfire smoke in the U.S., researchers found no safe threshold for PM2.5 exposure. Every 0.1 microgram per cubic meter increase in a county’s average annual PM2.5 from smoke was associated with nearly 5,600 excess deaths nationwide, even though most counties saw only trace amounts of smoke — about 0.4 micrograms per cubic meter a year. While it’s “orange sky” days, when the pollution spikes into triple-digit AQI numbers, that get the most media attention, even low exposure that you can’t smell or even see can be affecting your health.
PM2.5 is just one component of wildfire smoke — the other is gases, including benzene and formaldehyde. Many gases chemically transform as they move from where the fire is to where you inhale them. “The atmosphere is extremely oxidizing — it likes to add oxygen molecules onto compounds,” Jen said.
Some of those compounds react faster than others, “so it depends how downwind you are,” Jen went on. That’s why people closer to a wildfire — maybe a day or less downwind — get the distinctive campfire smell, mainly from the “young” vapors and volatile organic compounds. But for people on the East Coast who were subject to the Ontario smoke several weeks ago, the smoke had to travel several days to reach places like Pittsburgh and New York, and by then the sharper-smelling compounds had transformed into new pollutants like ozone.
The AQI only measures a few specific gases that are considered “criteria pollutants” under the Clean Air Act, which means, as Presto told me, “during these fires, you could emit a whole bunch of different other gases that don’t have an AQI number.”
Instead, you can look at the PM2.5 number to get the gist of how prevalent wildfire gases are. “If your PM 2.5 is high, it’s impossible for the bad gasses to be low,” Jen said. “The way we think about it is, there’s a bunch of junk on the particle, and if the same junk’s not also in the gas, it will evaporate off the particle into the gas. They always exist together.”
You might notice by now that I’ve written little about the actual AQI number, that score that appears on your weather app and runs from zero to 500 (or, confusingly, even higher). That’s because while the AQI is a great communication tool, it doesn’t offer us much in the way of the science of wildfire smoke.
The AQI measures five different pollutants — PM2.5, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide — with the EPA setting specific concentration thresholds for each one, as my colleague Emily Pontecorvo has explained. “If local concentrations of any one of them tick up above those protective standards, the AQI will jump from green to a more alarming color,” she wrote. “The higher the level of pollution is, the higher the AQI and the darker the color will be.”
If you want to impress your friends, though, you ought to zero in specifically on the PM2.5 concentration — again, because the prevalence of the tiniest particulates is a good indicator of all the other gunk you can assume is in the air, too. (You can find the specific PM2.5 concentration usually by clicking for more information about the AQI on your weather app or checking IQ Air’s widget.) For example, at the time of this writing, my local PM2.5 concentration is 50 micrograms per cubic meter, more than triple the World Health Organization’s 15 micrograms per cubic meter threshold for 24-hour exposure. (The EPA’s 24-hour threshold is much more lenient, at 35 micrograms per cubic meter.)
When I asked Jen how she stays sane knowing all she knows about smoke exposure, she laughed. “I have just generally become more terrified of all campfires and all barbecues, but people already think I’m weird, so I might as well add to it,” she told me.
In all seriousness, though, she told me the answer is air filters, and her confidence in their ability to work. When wildfire smoke rolled through Pittsburgh, she had two running that she moved from room-to-room with her family, as well as a whole-house air filter. “We were getting PM2.5 concentrations in our house of about 80 micrograms per cubic meter when it was 150 outside,” she said. “But with the air filter on, we could drop that down to less than eight.”
Jen pointed out, though, that many people do not run their air filters properly. Filters are rated at their highest blower level, “so for them to be effective, you need to crank them to their highest setting to get all the air through,” she said. Most people keep their filters on auto or low because they’re so loud — myself included, until I learned otherwise.
Additionally, while an air filter is a rather large appliance, it really ought to be placed in the center of your room to be the most efficient, rather than up against a wall. (Again, my bad.) “When these wildfire events happen, the most effective place for the air filter is where you are, and you have to run it loud, which kind of sucks,” Jen said. “But it is better than breathing in gross air.”