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:
Insurance often leaves homeowners with a devastating choice — to stay in the place where they lost so much, or to give up everything.

More people were displaced by wildfires between the start of this year and the end of July than in all of 2024. Globally, the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre puts the number around 496,000 wildfire displacements — more than half of which occurred in Los Angeles County during the Eaton and Palisades fires in January.
“Displacement,” of course, can mean many things, and often in the case of wildfires, “most people can return quickly” once the danger has passed, the IDMC writes. But many in Los Angeles County are now entering their 10th month of displacement — and still more may choose, or have chosen, never to return.
Though the former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan called this kind of internal displacement “the great tragedy of our time,” voluntarily deciding to move away after a wildfire in the United States is something of a luxury. There are only three states in the U.S. in which insured homeowners have the legal right to replace a wildfire-destroyed home by buying a new property instead of rebuilding; for many, mortgages anchor them to properties that are covered in rubble and toxic ash. Three-quarters of homeowners who believe they have adequate insurance discover only after a fire that they’re actually underinsured, meaning that their policies cover less than 75% of the cost of rebuilding.
While there is limited data about how people disperse after a wildfire, recent tragedies have shed light on those who’ve either cashed out, cut their losses, or remain displaced in what was intended to be temporary housing. In 2018, for example, the Camp Fire burned down almost the entire town of Paradise, California, and as of 2021, 80% of the local population still had not moved back. Nearby Chico became “the epicenter for Paradise’s long-term relocation,” Abrahm Lustgarten writes in his book about climate migration, On the Move: The Overheating Earth and the Uprooting of America, though “smaller numbers of people moved farther,” with survivors ultimately resettling across all 50 states. Cheryl Maynard, a Camp Fire survivor I spoke to for this piece, even told me she’d heard about Paradise residents making it as far as Ukraine.
In some cases, though, this dispersal can lead to a stigma against those who either chose to leave or decide against returning. In Lahaina, the fact that native Hawaiians are being forced to find housing elsewhere is viewed as a form of “climate gentrification.” Even in Los Angeles, “many survivors have been quietly selling due to the many obstacles they face,” Joy Chen, the co-founder and CEO of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, told me in an email. “Nearly all are reluctant to speak publicly. Locally, there’s been a lot of backlash to those who sell, and the folks I’ve spoken with just want to move on without drawing attention.”
Every story is different and personal, however — from being forced into temporary housing turned permanent to the reluctance of starting over. In an effort to better understand why people move away after a fire, I spoke to four California wildfire victims about their relocations and what they plan to do next. Their stories have been condensed and edited below.
Pasadena, California — Eaton Fire, 2025
I grew up in Pasadena. It was a nice community where you could ride your bike outside and there were other kids on the street — you could all get together, hang out, and get up to no good. It was an all-American town. I stayed, and I built my family there.
This was the third house I’d owned in Pasadena. I got married at 27, and when I was 30, we upgraded to a bigger house because we wanted to have kids. We bought a 1,700-square-foot house and we were really happy there, but at some point, we decided we needed something a little bigger. So we bought a house in 1990 that abuts the Eaton Canyon, about 300 yards from the Edison Tower where the January fire started. There is a wrought-iron fence in our backyard, and it goes straight down into the national forest. My husband and I were young and stupid, and we didn’t have any money, so we bought the worst house on a nice street. It was a real fixer-upper.
In 1993, a fire came through and burned right up to our backyard. We had only minutes to get out. When we came back and the house was still standing, we couldn’t believe our luck. So we moved back in; we got out our mops and brooms, and we cleaned it up. Five years later, my husband was dead of cancer. I don’t know if the toxins caused my husband’s death, but I don’t know that they didn’t. And I was left with a 6-year-old and a 12-year-old to raise by myself.
On the day of the Eaton Fire, my [second] husband and I were sitting and eating dinner when, at about 6:15 p.m., the TV went out. I said, “It must be Spectrum again.” We didn’t think much of it. Then we heard a loudspeaker, but we live right above the Eaton Canyon Nature Center, and they’re always rousing people at dark, saying, “The park is closed.” So that’s what I thought it was. But then there was a loud pounding on the front door, and it was my neighbor who’d just pulled into his driveway from work and saw a small fire directly underneath the tower across the canyon. The wind was blowing 70 or 80 miles an hour at the time, and he apparently rushed into his house and screamed for his wife to call 911 and to get the kids and the dog. And then he ran over and started knocking on doors.
We walked outside and there was the fire. I go, “Oh no, I know this drill.” Just then, a whole bunch of fire trucks pulled in, and I think that’s the only reason [the house] survived — because we were the first place burning, and the infrastructure wasn’t stressed yet. There are about eight to 10 houses in our cul-de-sac, and we had four huge fire trucks and probably 40 firefighters. I went back into the house, and I had a list from the last fire of the things I should take; I’d printed it up and taped it inside a closet door, but there was not going to be any time for that. We grabbed our hard drive, laptop, and three dogs, and got into our cars.
By then, it was black outside, with golf ball-sized embers flying by your head. It was like the videos of the fall of Saigon; it was the same damn way. Once I got out of the cul-de-sac, it was complete chaos. Nobody was obeying traffic lights or signs. My son had called — he lives in Monrovia, which is about 20 minutes away — and he was saying, “I saw the fire, I’m gonna come.” And I said, “There’s no time, forget it.” I finally made it to his house, and my husband was already there. And we have been there for seven months now.
The house in Pasadena is absolutely in the same condition as it was on January 7, when we left. It hasn’t been touched; it’s just full of all this toxic stuff that you can’t really see. State Farm’s adjuster came by with a little Kleenex box, and he wiped my hallway and said, “Oh, it’s not that bad. You just need a cleaning lady.” But we spent $6,400 to find out it’s full of lead, arsenic, and nickel. Seven months later, we still don’t have enough money to even start the cleanup. The original estimate, before we knew about the heavy metal contamination, was for $120,000. When we found out about the contamination, we got another estimate, and it’s up to $350,000 because everything has to be trashed. All the upholstered goods have to go. The hardwood floor has to go, because it’s grooved and distressed, and you can’t get the lead out of that. The carpets have to go. The window treatments have to go.
Fortunately, I get along with my son and daughter-in-law, but they’re a young couple and they’re relatively newly married, and they just bought that house in October. Then we move in with our three dogs, and it’s only a 1,000-square-foot house. I said, “We need to find someplace to rent. We can’t stay here.”
I talked to my financial planner, and he said, “We worked with people in Paradise after the Camp Fire, and people identical to you, with no fire damage but just smoke damage, they weren’t back in their house for one or two years.” And I said, “You’ve got to be out of your mind.” But it’s true, because you’re fighting with insurance the whole time. State Farm is still only okaying month-to-month rentals, and try to find a place to rent month-to-month with three dogs. So I asked my financial planner, “Is there any way we can buy another house right now?” And he crunched the numbers and said, “Everything’s got to be financed, but we can get a conventional loan and finance a mortgage, and then we can borrow against your portfolio for the down payment. You can survive for about two years that way before it gets financially untenable.”
So we put in an offer. We bought a house. We aren’t officially living there yet because it’s really dirty. We’re here every day, cleaning everything. But we’ll be in Monrovia, about seven or eight blocks from my son’s house, and the house wasn’t in the plume of the fire.
I worry that [the insurance company is] not going to give us enough money to clean up our house appropriately. I’m just not going to feel safe there anymore. My kids are, of course, advocating that we not go back. As my son says — because he’s so charming — he says, “Mom, you’re old now. You got out of two fires. Your luck has run out. The first one, you had a 10-minute warning. The second one, you had a six-minute warning. I don’t think you should push it.”
But it’s home, right? My whole life is there. Neighbors I’ve known for 35 years. I had saved up my nickels and dimes for about three decades to make it my Barbie’s dream house. I don’t know how much money we’re going to have to put into the house to get it into shape where we can either go back or sell it. But how could I sell it without making sure it’s clean? Somebody else is going to live there. What if they have little kids?
Kenwood, California — Tubbs Fire, 2017
Larry: Kenwood is beautiful wine country. We had been looking for a home where we could spend time with our family on weekends and in the summertime, and that’s why we bought the house. We lived there for about 12 years before we started renting it as an Airbnb on weekends, or sometimes for a week at a time. On the night of the fire, the last tenant had just moved out. Though the Kenwood house was our primary residence, we were luckily not living there at the time, so our most valuable possessions weren’t there, either.
We were awakened at 3:30 in the morning by a friend who had heard there was a fire up near Kenwood. We went to the TV, turned it on, and watched it. Coverage focused on the area around the Kaiser hospital, but we knew it was in our area because we’d heard from a neighbor who was running for his life and who said our house was on fire and there was no way there’d be anything left.
We didn’t get up there until two and a half weeks later. They’d completely closed the area off to get rid of all the dangerous brush. It was hard going back.
Jackie: In the beginning, we thought about rebuilding. It felt like we were fighting back. Like, “Just put the house right back where it was!”
Larry: We immediately got in touch with a contractor who could clean up the place. He went through the bureaucracy to get the okay to clean it all up. We got an architect. We were ready to rebuild.
Jackie: Then I looked at our lives and said, “Do I really want to start picking out doorknobs again? To go through two years of hassle trying to rebuild?”
Larry: At that time, we were in our late 70s. We just figured, This is just ridiculous. This is going to be such a heartache.
We were really careful and diligent, though. There are people out there who will deal with the insurance process for you, but they take 30% of the proceeds. You don’t want to do that, but some people don’t think they have the time or the intelligence to go through it all. We went through the whole thing, start to finish, and it took us two years and eight months before we were done. We had this house here in Marin County that we were renting, so we didn't have to worry about moving anywhere, and so we were able to go through the process slowly. It’s very emotional, but a few days after the fire, you’ve got to sit down and do your homework.
After we received the money for the trees and shrubs and the loss of the house, we still had the land, so we put it up for sale. A young couple — speculators — bought it, and they built a home in their style, and then they put it up for sale.
Jackie: The real problem is — like the new people who bought the house — they don’t know what Kenwood was like before. We were surrounded by the Trione-Annadel State Park, and when we looked out, we could see miles of trees. Now, when you look out, you see trees, but they’re all burnt. Every time we go up there, it just looks burnt to me.
Paradise, California — Camp Fire, 2018
I lived in the Paradise area for eight years. I’d lived in Magalia, which is just a few miles to the north of Paradise, but it was very cold — much colder than I was used to. So I sold my three-bedroom home and moved down to what they called the Banana Belt. We actually received some sunlight through the trees.
On the day of the fire, I had a friend visiting me from out of town. The day before, I had received a phone call from PG&E — a live person, not a recording! — saying that if there were high winds, they would be turning off the power. That morning, I got up and it looked kind of cloudy, but there was no smoke. My friend needed a prescription from CVS, and I told her, “You probably should call them.” But she was stubborn and looked at me like, I’ll do it when I want to. So we hung around for a little bit, and then I heard her calling CVS on her own terms. The guy there told her, “Lady, what are you doing here? The whole town is leaving. I’m locking up and I’m getting out of here.”
We thought, “Okay, we’d better leave.” I’d helped out in the condos there; I was on the safety committee, and we could evacuate 40 people in about 35 minutes. But they’d canceled the committee, so we didn’t have it on the day of the fire. I didn’t know if people were going to make it out or not. We had one person with no legs, married to a deaf lady, and I worried about them so much.
So I’m starting to panic. I took a quilt on the floor that I was trying to make for my son that had taken me forever — just a tie quilt, a $10 value. I took a picture of him in a frame that he and his girlfriend had given me. I took two salt and pepper shakers, one from each grandma. I left my china and my silver. I left a 100-year-old quilt, because it wasn’t in my line of sight. I left my mom’s wedding dress and my wedding dress.
Outside, the trees were burning behind the garages. One lady was in her garage next door, and I thought, “Oh my gosh, these people are inside there.” We stopped and asked if they needed help, and they said no, they had people coming. I should have made them get in my car. The condo manager drove around the parking lot a few times, honking his horn, but you couldn’t hear it because of the wind.
My friend said she was going to drive. I was holding onto my dog, who’s terrified of fire and things exploding. I told my friend, “Don’t go along the canyon because I don’t like it; it’s a drop off.” Well, the fire jumped over my car — like a rainbow — and went into the other median. I said to her, “Man, that was cool!” My dad raised me that way.
What my friend did then was, she went over into the wrong lane, and she went down against the upcoming traffic. At that point, they’d cut it off and made it that way. I was very blessed that we did not get trapped. She was doing about 70 going down that road and following a police officer. I said, “You’re going to get pulled over.” She said, “I don’t think he’s worried about me right now.”
At the bottom of the hill, another police officer directed us into a grocery store parking lot. It was packed with cars and people and dogs and animals, and we all got out and turned around and stared up at the mountain. There was just smoke and people coming down, people crying.
I went to my son’s in-laws with my friend, and on the third day, I found out that my condo was gone. So I booked a flight to where my family lived, and I’ve never been back. I went back to Chico a year later to pick up some things — I had a friend meet me there and we had lunch — but I never went back up the hill. There were so many people in the Facebook group [for fire victims] that were struggling mentally and emotionally because they were living in the burn scar, and there was no way I wanted to go up and see it. I’d talked to a tow truck driver before I left — I ran into one going into a store, and he was working up there hauling all the cars away — and I said, “How is it?” He said, “It’s bad. It’s bad.”
Recovery has been really complicated. A lady started the Facebook group after reading PG&E’s 2019 bankruptcy court documents, and she told people to vote against the plan. The $13.5 billion Fire Victims Trust was going to pay the 70,000 survivors of the Butte, North Bay, and Camp Fires — all sparked by PG&E — half in cash, half in the company’s stock. But it was approved by more than 85% of survivors. How do you get 70,000 people to agree on anything?
The day they signed the deal, PG&E’s stock was only worth $9 a share — so it was only worth $11 billion — and we had to wait for it to get to, like, $14 a share for us to break even at $13 billion. And we couldn’t sell until after shareholders were able to sell, which knocked the value of the stock down. All this was so complicated, and Wall Street manipulated the whole thing. We have been fighting to get the remaining 30% of the recovery settlement that we still have not received from PG&E. We got some preliminary payments, but most people can’t afford to stay in Paradise. Many people have a distaste because of being victimized, politicized, and not treated fairly.
There’s no hospital anymore; there’s not the medical facilities like they used to be. What are you going to do if you’re 75 and used to [a Kaiser Permanente hospital] down the street? You have to end up going to the Bay Area. Other people left because there is fire after fire in the state, and we couldn’t handle it for health reasons — the smoke, the PTSD. I’ve talked to many people who said, “There’s a fire outside my house, three miles away, and I can see smoke! Oh my gosh, I’m going to die!” Every once in a while, when the power goes out, I freak out. And imagine living in Paradise, where they have all those fires around them.
It’s been hard. Financially, I had been set up. My highest payment in Paradise was my [home owner’s association] fee — they’d just raised it to $320, and we were really complaining about that. Now I’m paying rent of $1,500-something a month, and with utilities, it’s like $1,900.
I worry about my future. I shouldn’t — I know God’s going to take care of me — but some days I do.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On ‘precariously low’ oil stockpiles, China’s ammonia milestone, and a PFAS destroyer
Current conditions: The wildfires in France and Europe are slowing, but three firefighters have died and the looming heat wave could bring yet more disaster • New York and New Jersey are facing flash floods as a storm system makes its way across the Northeast United States • Days of thunderstorms are causing floods across Vientiane, Laos’ sprawling capital.
Last month, I toured Commonwealth Fusion Systems’ headquarters in small-town central Massachusetts. The place was abuzz in activity. On the factory floor side, workers were assembling the magnets needed to ultimately form the torus-shaped reactor — think a giant doughnut with an interior that curves like the core of an apple — called the tokamak. On the actual reactor side, SPARC — the prototype that CFS expects will make history next year as the first private enterprise and only tokamak to ever generate more energy that it took to start the fusion reaction — was starting to look like a functional machine from my view on a second-story walkway overlooking the sterile assembly room. The old joke that fusion is the energy source of tomorrow — and always will be — certainly didn’t ring as funny now. I’ll tell you who isn’t laughing: All the new investors that just poured another $1 billion into CFS. The company announced its latest funding round early this morning, which brings the startup’s total fundraising since its launch as a spinout from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2018 to $4 billion. CFS now accounts for 30% of all the private capital that has flowed into fusion. What distinguishes this round, my colleague Katie Brigham wrote, is that the money is coming from a bunch of institutional investors, such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds, rather than venture capitalists. On a call with reporters this week, CFS’s newly-named chief financial officer, Lorence Kim, said it’s the first-time institutional investors comprised the majority of the new funding. When I asked the company’s spokeswoman for a percentage estimate breaking down the new versus old investors in this round, she declined to comment. Kim cautioned that the funding isn’t the kind of capital you raise before launching on a stock market. But his hire is notable. The former Goldman Sachs banker famously helped take the pharmaceutical giant Moderna public and held the top financial role through the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Meanwhile, a federal Superfund site at a facility in Kentucky once used to enrich uranium for atomic bombs is being transformed into a data center. On Wednesday, the Department of Energy announced a deal between investment giant Brookfield, utility behemoth NextEra Energy, and three local power providers to redevelop portions of the Paducah site into a $100 billion data center campus. “By transforming former DOE sites into engines of innovation and economic growth, we can revitalize communities with increased tax revenue and thousands of jobs, while also strengthening America’s energy security,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a press release.
The Federal Reserve held the country’s benchmark interest rate steady at Wednesday’s meeting of the U.S. central bank’s top brass. But three bank presidents voted to increase rates as renewed fighting in Iran sent energy prices upward. The dissent “underscored officials’ fraying patience with looking past another price shock on the heels of tariff-related increases last year and with robust demand stemming from the artificial-intelligence buildout,” The Wall Street Journal reported. That is, of course, bad news for renewables and other clean energy developers who rely on cheap upfront money to build, as my colleague Matthew Zeitlin has written.
But there are potentially bigger problems afoot for American energy consumers. U.S. crude stockpiles fell sharply last week as American refineries ramped up production to seize on surging fuel prices as fighting erupted in Iran. The stocks have now reached “precariously low” levels, analysts told the Financial Times, meaning there’s far less cushion if the war worsens the supply shock.
Last month, the energy team at the liberal policy shop Third Way assembled 100 swing voters from across the country to talk about the data centers that poll after poll shows are becoming less and less popular, to put it mildly. The conclusion of the discussions was this: “America’s opposition to data centers has less to do with their feelings about artificial intelligence and more to do with their anger and distrust of large corporations and government.” The findings, shared with me exclusively in advance, showed that most participants were open to a new data center if they believed it would come with tangible benefits for their communities. While some investors, such as “Shark Tank” star Kevin O’Leary, have tried to present those offerings, “the trust isn’t there.” While Emily Becker, the director of Communications for Third Way’s Climate and Energy Program, told me she was “not surprised by how much opposition there was, what was heartening is people understood that benefits were possible. They just didn’t think they would receive them.”
Speaking of data centers and the public trust: NV Energy has accused one of the biggest developers of data centers in Nevada of attempting to illegally bypass state regulators to determine through private arbitration how and when the Berkshire Hathaway-owned utility should provide power to its operations. The lawsuit, filed Friday in Washoe County’s Second Judicial District Court, alleges that the developer, Tract, is trying to skirt the usual process by which the state Public Utilities Commission determines what share of the utility’s electricity should go to the large power user. Tract, according to the complaint, “wants NV Energy to reserve and provide enormous amounts of power for Tract's private development while shifting the infrastructure and energy costs to Nevada families, small businesses, and existing customers who did not cause them.” Sorting out those questions through arbitration would help to “keep these issues hidden” from state regulators and the public, NV Energy said, according to The Nevada Independent.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:

When the Biden administration attempted to overhaul regulations on electrical transformers to make the key grid components more efficient, the proposal drew fierce bipartisan pushback amid a years-long nationwide shortage of the equipment. Ultimately, the Biden administration backed down and changed the proposal after receiving public comments. That would have seemed to provide some certainty for factories. But just two years after the final rule won acclaim from across the industry, the Trump administration is now considering revising the requirements for rules set to take effect in 2029. “We’re not aware of anyone asking for this,” Andrew deLaski, executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, told Utility Dive. The group supported the 2024 transformer rule and other stricter efficiency requirements DOE finalized during the Biden administration.
China has signaled it’s planning to take on what Bloomberg described as a bigger role in steering global negotiations over climate change. The 15th five-year plan published Monday by the Ministry of Ecology and Environment and other key agencies outlines how Beijing “will constructively lead the multilateral governance process to address climate change” and states that “China’s influence, guiding capacity, shaping power, and moral appeal in global climate governance will be significantly enhanced” through the end of the decade. Beijing is already looking to increase how much renewable energy it consumes, as I told you last week.
As you may recall, China is going all in on figuring out how to make green hydrogen work, especially now that the People’s Republic is throwing everything at the wall to diversify its domestic supply of fuels as the Iran War chokes off its regular supply of hydrocarbons. One of the trickier questions with green hydrogen is how to ship the world’s small molecules without leaks. A popular solution is to convert the hydrogen into green ammonia. On Tuesday, SPIC Green Energy announced the successful loading of 3,750 metric tons of green ammonia produced in Jilin Province onto a vessel at the Lianyungang Port in Jiangsu Province and shipped to South Korea. “The shipment represents the world’s largest single-batch delivery of green ammonia,” analyst Jian Wu wrote in his China Hydrogen Bulletin newsletter. “It marks China’s transition from technical demonstration to large-scale international commercial delivery.”
A company promising to put an expiration date on so-called forever chemicals just raised a bunch of money to bring its technology to market. Claros Technologies is developing a proprietary system that can break down the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, contaminating millions of Americans’ drinking water systems. This week, the startup closed a $55 million Series B financing round. “Over the past year, Claros has crossed the threshold from breakthrough technology to successful commercial reality,” CEO Michelle Bellanca said in a statement.
Risk-averse but deep-pocked institutional investors join the party.
When the Fusion Industry Association surveyed the sector earlier this month, it found that the industry’s 56 active companies had collectively raised more than $14.2 billion over the past five years. But an ever-larger share of that money is ending up in the hands of one startup: Commonwealth Fusion Systems.
With its latest $1 billion funding round, announced today, the MIT spinout now accounts for nearly 30% of all capital in the industry. The new financing, led by a wave of institutional investors entering the sector for the first time, will support construction of the company’s first commercial power plant in Chesterfield County, Virginia, which CEO Bob Mumgaard says is on track to come online in the early 2030s.
In a media briefing, Mumgaard noted that this latest raise marks “the largest single funding round among fusion energy companies since our last large round of $1.8 billion in 2021.” It brings the total capital raised by CFS to an even $4 billion as the company races to complete construction of SPARC, its demo reactor. If all goes according to plan, it should begin operating sometime next year, proving out the physics and engineering approach underpinning ARC, the planned commercial plant.
The new financing deviates from the typical venture capital round, as it brings in a broad but unnamed mix of “large pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, infrastructure funds doing project finance, and industrial corporates.” These risk-averse investors would typically steer clear of expensive, first-of-a-kind facilities, demonstrating the degree to which CFS has succeeded in building confidence in an industry long critiqued for overpromising and underdelivering.
The company credits the trust it built to its extensive peer-reviewed research as well as its decision to build a tokamak — widely regarded as the most mature fusion reactor design. “I don’t think there’s any other company that’s been as transparent and open with their physics and how it actually works,” Katie Rae, CEO and managing partner at Engine Ventures, told me. Rae has participated in every one of CFS’s funding rounds, and while she says her firm has evaluated virtually every startup in the sector, the company remains its only fusion investment.
But even flush with institutional capital, Mumgaard is clear that the company will need billions more to fully finance ARC and the numerous reactors to follow. It’s unclear where exactly that money will come from, though he’s pushing for government involvement. Alongside the Fusion Industry Association, Mumgaard is advocating for a one-time, roughly $10 billion federal infusion of cash into the broader industry to expand public-private partnerships, build shared research infrastructure, and help finance first-of-a-kind plants in an effort to keep pace with China’s rapidly growing fusion program.
According to reporting from Politico, a Department of Energy official told CFS and other fusion companies that such a level of federal funding is “unrealistic in this environment.” But though insiders argue it’s what the industry needs to scale, Rae says CFS doesn’t depend on it. “I think it is the right kind of investment to make, but we didn’t count on it from an investor perspective,” she told me.
One obvious alternative is the public markets. The IPO window for climate tech has reopened, with geothermal giant Fervo and nuclear fission startup X-energy both completing successful public offerings in recent months. SPACs have also made a comeback, as numerous nuclear companies are opting for this faster, though riskier, path to the public markets. But CFS’s newly appointed CFO, Lorence Kim, said during the briefing that this latest round proves “that the private markets have a lot of capital to deploy toward our mission.” Whether an IPO is in the company’s near future remains an open question, though he cautioned against interpreting his hiring as any indication of “IPO prep in a specific way.”
For what it’s worth though, Kim has taken another high-profile, pre-revenue startup public before: Moderna. As CFO from 2014 to 2020, he helped the company scale its mRNA platform and lead its blockbuster $600 million IPO in late 2018 — the largest ever in the biotech industry at the time. Notably, this all happened before Moderna had an approved product or the Covid pandemic made its signature vaccine a household name, similar to where Commonwealth finds itself today.
“Moderna was in this moment in time where the science worked, and the strategy was focused on execution and scale and deploying capital in a way that could enable real impact on the world,” Kim explained. CFS is now at the same juncture, he said. “And so in the same way that Moderna industrialized mRNA and made it inevitable and made it ubiquitous, it was really clear to me that CFS could do the same for fusion.”
Of course, CFS is not alone in its confidence — other fusion companies are equally bullish on their own approach. Take Inertia Enterprises, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory spinout, which last week unveiled its own commercial roadmap for a laser-driven fusion reactor. The company emphasized it’s the only one to have definitively demonstrated the viability of its underlying physics in a real-world experiment, rather than through theoretical work or simulations.
Or take Helion, which has raised $1.5 billion and secured a highly ambitious power purchase agreement with Microsoft to supply electricity to the tech giant by 2028. Or Pacific Fusion, which netted a staggering $900 million Series A to be doled out in milestone-based tranches. There are dozens of others — many with hundreds of millions in funding — pursuing a range of approaches that some of the field’s brightest minds consider technically feasible.
But when I mused to Rae about how exciting it is that institutional investors now appear willing to back an industry once viewed as bordering on science fiction, she was quick to correct me.
“They’re willing to bet on Commonwealth Fusion — that’s what you mean.”
At least one hyperscaler’s big bets seem to be paying off.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
Good evening. Let’s start with the news. Meta and Microsoft released their most recent quarterly earnings this evening, and Wall Street was watching to figure out if their enormous AI spending plans are paying off. We were watching because those proposals are shaping one of the most important energy stories today: the data center boom and the sharp return of electricity demand.
The returns were … mixed. Meta missed analysts’ estimates, and its profit fell 14% from the same quarter a year earlier. It increased the lower bound of how much it plans to spend on capital expenditures such as data centers this year, from $125 billion to $130 billion, but left the upper bound of $145 billion unchanged.
Microsoft, meanwhile, said its AI investments are starting to pay off. Revenue at its cloud business, which uses its data center space, increased by 43%, more than analysts expected. It spent $41 billion on capital expenses in the three months ending in June.
Meta’s stock was down 7% in after-hours trading, while Microsoft is up 8%. When Heatmap surveyed climate insiders last year, they ranked Microsoft as among the most decarbonization-friendly hyperscaler and Meta as among the worst.
Permitting odds up — thanks to Shift Key?
I do not regularly follow such things, but this afternoon I was told that the Kalshi market for “Will permitting reform become law this year?” surged to 77% today after trading for days around 50%:
I have no idea why it budged today, but perhaps what moved the market was our new episode of the Shift Key podcast (Apple, Spotify). On today’s show, I spoke with Daniel Palken, a former Capitol Hill policy staffer now at Arnold Ventures, about the current state of permitting reform negotiations in Congress. While we don’t know the exact shape of a deal yet, permitting reform is likely to be the biggest new policy for clean energy that we could get by the end of the year.
Daniel is a fantastic guide to the negotiations, and if you’re curious about the policy at all, I recommend that you listen. Here are few of my takeaways from the conversation:
1. A permitting reform deal will probably have six buckets.
They are (1) changes to the National Environmental Policy Act and the judicial review process that environmental studies face after completion; (2) reforms to the transmission process; (3) changes to the Clean Water Act; (4) a deal to make it harder for presidents to yank permits from approved projects; (5) changes to the National Historic Preservation Act, and (6) “everything else,” a grab bag of smaller fixes including to geothermal energy.
2. Wonky committee politics are shaping the deal.
The National Historic Preservation Act, for instance, is an archeological law that hasn’t been in the mix for previous reform proposals. It’s up for discussion now because Senator Mike Lee of Utah chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee — and the NHPA is the major environmental bill under his jurisdiction. Likewise, observers think that a permitting deal has a much better shot of passing during this Congress (as compared to next year) because of an expected series of changes to committee chairs.
3. It’s way, way better to hook data centers to the power grid than run them off behind-the-meter power plants — even if they run off 100% natural gas.
Any permitting reform proposal will seek to expand the transmission system. That could have big benefits for the emissions intensity of data centers. Why? I’ll let Daniel explain:
If you look at the data centers that are hooking up off grid — when they’re not using repurposed jet engines, they’re using 20% thermally efficient gas plants. Whereas if you’re hooked up to the grid, there’s really two types of gas plants that live on the grid. There’s like 60% efficient combined-cycle gas turbines, which are most of the gas power that’s generated, and then there’s peaker [plants], which have low efficiency, but are run at capacity factors of like 5% — so from an emissions perspective, they don’t matter all that much.
So even if solar and wind didn’t exist at all, and nuclear didn’t exist, and hydro didn’t exist, it would still be a much, much cleaner option [to connect data centers to the power grid]. Like we’re talking factors of three in efficiency to connect your data center to the grid if it was purely powered by gas, which is, I think, an important point to understand.
I thought that was an interesting point, and while I’d seen some of those ideas in isolation, I’d never seen them laid out in one place. (And even if grid-scale gas plants are much more efficient than behind-the-meter plants, it’s still even better to power data centers with solar, batteries, and other clean firm power plants — which is also easier when they’re hooked up to the grid.)
I’ll stop glossing the episode and just link to it one more time. Thanks for reading.