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:
The Federal Reserve giveth and the Federal Reserve taketh away.
Shares in climate-related companies — green hydrogen, residential solar, renewables developers — have been flagging in the past few months, and it seems like the damage may have spread to the private markets as well, where fledgling companies seek funding from individual venture capital firms.
The S&P Clean Energy Index — a group of 100 “global clean energy-related businesses from both developed and emerging markets” — has declined around 30% so far this year, compared to the broader stock market going up 12%.
While there are many different types of clean energy companies, the widespread malaise across the sector’s shares can mostly be attributed to high interest rates and changing public policy.
Many in the environmental business, advocacy, and public policy worlds are optimistic that clean energy can eventually become — or even already is — cost competitive with fossil fuels (not to mention better for the planet), but much of the sector is still both largely future oriented and heavily tied to government-provided incentives and policy preferences.
This means in sectors like hydrogen or offshore wind, big fights over tax credits and contract adjustments can meaningfully impact the future profitability of, or at least investor excitement around, clean energy companies if those battles go the “wrong” way.
The hydrogen company Plug Power is down around 45% this year, as is the residential solar company Sunrun. The energy company NextEra, which has massive wind and solar investments and is looking to be a big player in hydrogen, is down by more than a third. The Northeast energy company Avangrid, which paid $48 million to get out of an offshore wind deal in Massachusetts, is down by about a quarter this year. Orsted, the Danish wind company with projects up and down the East Coast, many now in some form of limbo due to rapidly accelerating costs, is down almost 50% this year.
And there’s evidence that capital may be becoming scarcer in the private markets as well. According to the audit and consulting firm PwC, overall funding from venture and private equity investors for climate technology companies fell by about 40%, taking it down to a level last seen five years ago.
Much of the fall can be chalked up to an overall decline in start-up funding — which fell 50% — the PWC analysis said. Indeed, the portion of all start-up investment that’s devoted to climate investments has actually gone up in the last year. This might be welcome news for the long-term prospects of the sector, but it’s still cold comfort for climate tech companies hunting for cash to stay afloat or expand.
While stock prices and business outlooks are not always the same — a stock price can decline because investors decided they were overly optimistic about a company’s prospects even if it’s still growing — there are some unifying causes to the troubles the clean tech industry is facing.
The one that pops up everywhere is interest rates, which are at the highest level in decades in the United States.
When the Federal Reserve raises interest rates and keeps them high, money becomes more expensive to borrow (just ask anyone who’s trying to buy a house right now). This matters a lot for a bevy of clean energy companies, because they often need to spend now — to, say, build a utility-scale solar array — in order to secure flows of payments in the future. When interest rates are high, funding is not only costlier, but future payments are less attractive compared to, say, buying low risk government bonds, which can offer a sizable return with less risk.
“Recently investors have been concerned that higher interest rates mean shrinking NPV, or value creation, for new renewable projects … lack of access to capital, prohibitively high renewables costs, lower renewables demand, and significantly lower value of future growth pipelines,” Morgan Stanley analysts wrote in a note earlier this week. (They ultimately described the sell-off as “overdone”).
Much of the sell-off, the Morgan Stanley analysts said, was attributable to an announcement made last month by NextEra, which is both a leading renewables company and the owner of a Florida utility. NextEra said that the growth rate of dividends paid out by an affiliated company that buys its renewable projects would be cut in half in order “to reduce financing needs and better position the partnership to continue to deliver long-term value for unitholders.”
That’s a mouthful, but it essentially means that a source of capital for a leading renewables developer is less optimistic about the business and decided to cut what it paid to its investors instead of acquiring another solar, wind, or battery project.
This announcement led to a quick, sudden decline in the company’s stock price, knocking around $30 billion off its market value and dragging the broader sector’s valuations down by about 12% soon after the announcement.
For specific companies and sectors, they’ve had their own challenges that have brought down stock prices.
Publicly traded residential solar companies have seen their valuations fall dramatically in the last year, which can be chalked up to, Morgan Stanley analysts argue, “the combination of higher interest rates and policy changes in California,” referring to a new state policy which dramatically cuts back payments to homeowners selling solar power to the electric grid. “Overall, we expect another rough quarter for residential solar companies,” Citi analysts said, in a note downgrading two solar companies, SunPower (stock down two thirds this year) and Sunnova (down 47%).
“Interest rates are highly relevant for the renewables space as installers are effectively financing companies and as renewable project expected returns are sensitive to interest rate changes,” analysts at Citi said in a note this week.
In August, Sunrun, a leader in residential solar, told investors that “recent interest rate increases, inflationary pressures, and working capital needs have prevented us from generating meaningful cash generation.”
And in offshore wind, there have been declines across the board. “The U.S. offshore wind market has run into challenges as project returns have declined due to cost inflation and higher cost of capital,” Morgan Stanley analysts said in a note. “While some offshore wind projects have proven to be NPV-negative and companies have cancelled contracts, we do not see risk of onshore wind, solar, and storage contracts facing these same issues.”
For companies looking to invest in green hydrogen, there is a lot of money being poured into the sector by the federal government, but also a lot of uncertainty around which projects will qualify for tax benefits. Morningstar analyst Brett Castelli described Plug Power as “a high-risk high-reward investment in the green hydrogen economy” with “operating losses and heavy capital investment associated with its green hydrogen network.” The company, Castelli said, would do better, “the more flexible the [federal] rules.”
There is still, of course, a tidal wave of money from the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act set to flood into the energy sector, but there’s no guarantee it will go to specific companies or startups. Meanwhile, the rollout of the bills has been, well, let’s say methodical, as rules get written and spending programs get built out.
And that leaves investors asking “show me the money.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Though it might not be as comprehensive or as permanent as renewables advocates have feared, it’s also “just the beginning,” the congressman said.
President-elect Donald Trump’s team is drafting an executive order to “halt offshore wind turbine activities” along the East Coast, working with the office of Republican Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, the congressman said in a press release from his office Monday afternoon.
“This executive order is just the beginning,” Van Drew said in a statement. “We will fight tooth and nail to prevent this offshore wind catastrophe from wreaking havoc on the hardworking people who call our coastal towns home.”
The announcement indicates that some in the anti-wind space are leaving open the possibility that Trump’s much-hyped offshore wind ban may be less sweeping than initially suggested.
In its press release, Van Drew’s office said the executive order would “lay the groundwork for permanent measures against the projects,” leaving the door open to only a temporary pause on permitting new projects. The congressman had recently told New Jersey reporters that he anticipates only a six-month moratorium on offshore wind.
The release also stated that the “proposed order” is “expected to be finalized within the first few months of the administration,” which is a far cry from Trump’s promise to stop projects on Day 1. If enacted, a pause would essentially halt all U.S. offshore wind development because the sought-after stretches of national coastline are entirely within federal waters.
Whether this is just caution from Van Drew’s people or a true moderation of Trump’s ambition we’ll soon find out. Inauguration Day is in less than a week.
Imagine for a moment that you’re an aerial firefighter pilot. You have one of the most dangerous jobs in the country, and now you’ve been called in to fight the devastating fires burning in Los Angeles County’s famously tricky, hilly terrain. You’re working long hours — not as long as your colleagues on the ground due to flight time limitations, but the maximum scheduling allows — not to mention the added external pressures you’re also facing. Even the incoming president recently wondered aloud why the fires aren’t under control yet and insinuated that it’s your and your colleagues’ fault.
You’re on a sortie, getting ready for a particularly white-knuckle drop at a low altitude in poor visibility conditions when an object catches your eye outside the cockpit window: an authorized drone dangerously close to your wing.
Aerial firefighters don’t have to imagine this terrifying scenario; they’ve lived it. Last week, a drone punched a hole in the wing of a Québécois “Super Scooper” plane that had traveled down from Canada to fight the fires, grounding Palisades firefighting operations for an agonizing half-hour. Thirty minutes might not seem like much, but it is precious time lost when the Santa Ana winds have already curtailed aerial operations.
“I am shocked by what happened in Los Angeles with the drone,” Anna Lau, a forestry communication coordinator with the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, told me. The Montana DNRC has also had to contend with unauthorized drones grounding its firefighting planes. “We’re following what’s going on very closely, and it’s shocking to us,” Lau went on. Leaving the skies clear so that firefighters can get on with their work “just seems like a no-brainer, especially when people are actively trying to tackle the situation at hand and fighting to save homes, property, and lives.”
Courtesy of U.S. Forest Service
Although the Super Scooper collision was by far the most egregious case, according to authorities there have been at least 40 “incidents involving drones” in the airspace around L.A. since the fires started. (Notably, the Federal Aviation Administration has not granted any waivers for the air space around Palisades, meaning any drone images you see of the region, including on the news, were “probably shot illegally,” Intelligencer reports.) So far, law enforcement has arrested three people connected to drones flying near the L.A. fires, and the FBI is seeking information regarding the Super Scooper collision.
Such a problem is hardly isolated to these fires, though. The Forest Service reports that drones led to the suspension of or interfered with at least 172 fire responses between 2015 and 2020. Some people, including Mike Fraietta, an FAA-certified drone pilot and the founder of the drone-detection company Gargoyle Systems, believe the true number of interferences is much higher — closer to 400.
Law enforcement likes to say that unauthorized drone use falls into three buckets — clueless, criminal, or careless — and Fraietta was inclined to believe that it’s mostly the former in L.A. Hobbyists and other casual drone operators “don’t know the regulations or that this is a danger,” he said. “There’s a lot of ignorance.” To raise awareness, he suggested law enforcement and the media highlight the steep penalties for flying drones in wildfire no-fly zones, which is punishable by up to 12 months in prison or a fine of $75,000.
“What we’re seeing, particularly in California, is TikTok and Instagram influencers trying to get a shot and get likes,” Fraietta conjectured. In the case of the drone that hit the Super Scooper, it “might have been a case of citizen journalism, like, Well, I have the ability to get this shot and share what’s going on.”
Emergency management teams are waking up, too. Many technologies are on the horizon for drone detection, identification, and deflection, including Wi-Fi jamming, which was used to ground climate activists’ drones at Heathrow Airport in 2019. Jamming is less practical in an emergency situation like the one in L.A., though, where lives could be at stake if people can’t communicate.
Still, the fact of the matter is that firefighters waste precious time dealing with drones when there are far more pressing issues that need their attention. Lau, in Montana, described how even just a 12-minute interruption to firefighting efforts can put a community at risk. “The biggest public awareness message we put out is, ‘If you fly, we can’t,’” she said.
Fraietta, though, noted that drone technology could be used positively in the future, including on wildfire detection and monitoring, prescribed burns, and communicating with firefighters or victims on the ground.
“We don’t want to see this turn into the FAA saying, ‘Hey everyone, no more drones in the United States because of this incident,’” Fraietta said. “You don’t shut down I-95 because a few people are running drugs up and down it, right? Drones are going to be super beneficial to the country long term.”
But critically, in the case of a wildfire, such tools belong in the right hands — not the hands of your neighbor who got a DJI Mini 3 for Christmas. “Their one shot isn’t worth it,” Lau said.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that the Québécois firefighting planes are called Super Scoopers, not super soakers.
Plus 3 more outstanding questions about this ongoing emergency.
As Los Angeles continued to battle multiple big blazes ripping through some of the most beloved (and expensive) areas of the city on Friday, a question lingered in the background: What caused the fires in the first place?
Though fires are less common in California during this time of the year, they aren’t unheard of. In early December 2017, power lines sparked the Thomas Fire near Ventura, California, which burned through to mid-January. At the time it was the largest fire in the state since at least the 1930s. Now it’s the ninth-largest. Although that fire was in a more rural area, it ignited for some of the same reasons we’re seeing fires this week.
Read on for everything we know so far about how the fires started.
Six major fires started during the Santa Ana wind event last week:
Officials are investigating the cause of the fires and have not made any public statements yet. Early eyewitness accounts suggest that the Eaton Fire may have started at the base of a transmission tower owned by Southern California Edison. So far, the company has maintained that an analysis of its equipment showed “no interruptions or electrical or operational anomalies until more than one hour after the reported start time of the fire.” A Washington Post investigation found that the Palisades Fire could have risen from the remnants of a fire that burned on New Year’s Eve and reignited.
On Thursday morning, Edward Nordskog, a retired fire investigator from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, told me it was unlikely they had even begun looking into the root of the biggest and most destructive of the fires in the Pacific Palisades. “They don't start an investigation until it's safe to go into the area where the fire started, and it just hasn't been safe until probably today,” he said.
It can take years to determine the cause of a fire. Investigators did not pinpoint the cause of the Thomas Fire until March 2019, more than two years after it started.
But Nordskog doesn’t think it will take very long this time. It’s easier to narrow down the possibilities for an urban fire because there are typically both witnesses and surveillance footage, he told me. He said the most common causes of wildfires in Los Angeles are power lines and those started by unhoused people. They can also be caused by sparks from vehicles or equipment.
At more than 40,000 acres burned total, these fires are unlikely to make the charts for the largest in California history. But because they are burning in urban, densely populated, and expensive areas, they could be some of the most devastating. With an estimated 9,000 structures damaged as of Friday morning, the Eaton and Palisades fires are likely to make the list for most destructive wildfire events in the state.
And they will certainly be at the top for costliest. The Palisades Fire has already been declared a likely contender for the most expensive wildfire in U.S. history. It has destroyed more than 5,000 structures in some of the most expensive zip codes in the country. Between that and the Eaton Fire, Accuweather estimates the damages could reach $57 billion.
While we don’t know the root causes of the ignitions, several factors came together to create perfect fire conditions in Southern California this week.
First, there’s the Santa Ana winds, an annual phenomenon in Southern California, when very dry, high-pressure air gets trapped in the Great Basin and begins escaping westward through mountain passes to lower-pressure areas along the coast. Most of the time, the wind in Los Angeles blows eastward from the ocean, but during a Santa Ana event, it changes direction, picking up speed as it rushes toward the sea.
Jon Keeley, a research scientist with the US Geological Survey and an adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles told me that Santa Ana winds typically blow at maybe 30 to 40 miles per hour, while the winds this week hit upwards of 60 to 70 miles per hour. “More severe than is normal, but not unique,” he said. “We had similar severe winds in 2017 with the Thomas Fire.”
Second, Southern California is currently in the midst of extreme drought. Winter is typically a rainier season, but Los Angeles has seen less than half an inch of rain since July. That means that all the shrubland vegetation in the area is bone-dry. Again, Keeley said, this was not usual, but not unique. Some years are drier than others.
These fires were also not a question of fuel management, Keeley told me. “The fuels are not really the issue in these big fires. It's the extreme winds,” he said. “You can do prescription burning in chaparral and have essentially no impact on Santa Ana wind-driven fires.” As far as he can tell, based on information from CalFire, the Eaton Fire started on an urban street.
While it’s likely that climate change played a role in amplifying the drought, it’s hard to say how big a factor it was. Patrick Brown, a climate scientist at the Breakthrough Institute and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, published a long post on X outlining the factors contributing to the fires, including a chart of historic rainfall during the winter in Los Angeles that shows oscillations between wet and dry years over the past eight decades.
But climate change is expected to make dry years drier and wet years wetter, creating a “hydroclimate whiplash,” as Daniel Swain, a pre-eminent expert on climate change and weather in California puts it. In a thread on Bluesky, Swain wrote that “in 2024, Southern California experienced an exceptional episode of wet-to-dry hydroclimate whiplash.” Last year’s rainy winter fostered abundant plant growth, and the proceeding dryness primed the vegetation for fire.
Get our best story delivered to your inbox every day:
Editor’s note: This story was last update on Monday, January 13, at 10:00 a.m. ET.