The California climate export catching fire in Trump's D.C.
With help from Alex Nieves and Jordan Wolman
CATCHING FIRE: California's wildfire tech companies are seizing their D.C. moment as Congress and President Donald Trump eye sweeping fire reforms.
Representatives from Truckee-based forest mapping company Vibrant Planet and Earth Fire Alliance, a nonprofit coalition working on wildfire-tracking satellites that includes Google and MuonSpace, backed the bipartisan Fix Our Forests Act in a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing in Washington D.C. on Thursday focused on wildfire policy and technology.
They had a receptive audience, with both Rep. Bruce Westerman, the Republican chair of the committee, and Rep. Jared Huffman, the Democratic ranking member, enthusiastically encouraging everything from drones to artificial intelligence to mapping software.
'There is no downside to scaling new technologies across the federal government, especially innovative technologies that improve wildfire suppression and response and facilitate more proactive land management,' said Westerman.
To be sure, there are still cracks. Though the bill passed the House, it's cooling its heels in the Senate, where Sen. Alex Padilla is co-sponsoring it, amid broader budget talks.
And on Thursday, while Westerman praised Trump's executive order seeking to consolidate federal wildfire agencies and encourage the use of privately developed technology, Huffman lambasted the Trump administration's jobs cuts that are hampering those same wildfire agencies ('This is where I feel like sometimes we must be living on different planets,' Huffman told his Republican counterparts.)
But the growing bipartisan embrace of fire technology gives California's climate exports an easy and rare win in the age of Trump — and the companies that stand to benefit are leaning in.
They engaged 'from the very start' to shape provisions of the bill, including a fire intelligence center and a pilot tech-testing program, said Matt Weiner, the CEO of nonprofit Megafire Action, which has allied with tech companies.
'This is an industry that was largely grown in California, and that's expanding nationwide now,' said Weiner. 'What you're seeing is policymakers nationwide seeing the potential and the need here…it's an exciting time.'
They might actually be having more success in D.C. than at home.
The Los Angeles fires triggered a wave of state legislative proposals focused primarily on immediate financial relief for victims and boosting Cal Fire staffing, but tech input has been sparse (the exception being Vibrant Planet's support for Sen. Josh Becker's SB 326, which bolsters wildfire planning and coordination among state agencies and utilities.)
And last month, a bill by Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris to set up an autonomous firefighting helicopter pilot stalled in the appropriations committee amid the broader budget deficit.
Part of the D.C.-Sacramento split-screen is because California's been taking small bites out of wildfire policy as wildfires began shattering records over the past seven years, spending billions to boost its firefighting force — including more than $4 billion for Cal Fire in this year's budget — and tweaking laws to improve prescribed burning and forest management. And partly it's because no one in Sacramento has attempted the type of sweeping reform gaining traction in D.C.
Dan Munsey, the San Bernardino County fire chief, testified at Thursday's hearing that he liked the spending on Cal Fire. But he also said that local agencies like his are ahead of the rest of government in embracing technology like firefighting drones. And he said tech can only go so far.
'The answer to this isn't the technology that is broadly available. The answer is leadership,' Munsey said. 'We lack interagency department collaboration. It's very bifurcated. I fully support President Trump's creation of the U.S. wildfire agency. We have to break down the barriers. We're slowly innovating. We are burdened by the regulatory process.' — CvK
Did someone forward you this newsletter? Sign up here!
GRID GAMES: Everyone from Microsoft to Rivian to IBEW is trying to save a proposal to create a West-wide electricity grid after state lawmakers tried to wrestle back control for California.
A broad coalition of business, environmental and utility groups urged state lawmakers to pass legislation to set up the regional grid in a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom, Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire and Speaker Robert Rivas on Wednesday.
Their fear is that amendments taken earlier this month to Sen. Josh Becker's SB 540 could alienate utilities in other states. The amendments aim to give state lawmakers more oversight of the regionalization effort, but according to the companies and groups, they risk turning off other states that fear giving California too much control over a unified grid.
'Without California's collaborative action on this policy, its partners will leave the current markets, making energy more expensive, less reliable, and making the state's climate goals more challenging and expensive to achieve,' they wrote.
Opponents of the bill, including some environmental groups and ratepayer advocates, fear regionalizing California's grid will cede control over its clean energy goals to less environmentally friendly forces.
The bill is still waiting for its first policy hearing in the Assembly. — CvK
START NEGOTIATING: The clock is ticking for the seven Western states fighting over their share of the dwindling Colorado River.
The Trump administration has told the states that border the critical water source that they have until November 11 to reach an 'agreement in principle,' or tell the Interior Department that a deal is unlikely, POLITICO's Annie Snider reports.
Scott Cameron, acting assistant secretary for Water and Science at the Interior Department, told state negotiators during a meeting of the Upper Colorado River Commission Thursday that the federal government prefers a state-led deal, but isn't afraid to impose unilateral cuts.
States have struggled for more than a year to agree on new rules governing water deliveries to replace those set to expire at the end of 2026. The fight has pitted California, Arizona and Nevada against the Upper Basin states of Colorado, New Mexico and Utah over how to divvy up water from a river that has shrunk by 20 percent over the past quarter century thanks to drought and climate change. — AN
RARE EARTH TROUBLE: The Trump administration's fight with China over rare earth minerals is sending a shock through automakers' electric vehicle supply chains.
China's tightening restrictions on the critical minerals used in electronics and heavy-duty motors found in electric vehicles and hybrids are already causing reduced parts supply for car companies, Hannah Northey and Mike Lee report for POLITICO's E&E news.
Not all automakers are in the same tenuous position. Ford was forced to shut down a plant in Chicago that makes Explorer SUVs for a week, while BMW and Suzuki have reported disruptions. General Motors, meanwhile, has found itself buffered from the growing trade war after stocking up on rare earth minerals early.
The disruption to rare earth supply chains comes as automakers warn that Trump's 25 percent tariff on imported cars and parts — and his threat to increase that levy — will lead to shortages and higher prices at dealerships. — AN
— 2024 was the hottest year on record, but it's only likely to get hotter this year.
— Longtime Elon Musk ally and top Tesla executive Omead Afshar has left the struggling automaker.
— Malaysia, a top destination for California plastic waste, says it will no longer accept shipments from the U.S.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
18 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Anna Wintour is hiring at Vogue. Here's how to thrive when your boss used to have your job.
Whomever replaces Anna Wintour in running day-to-day operations at American Vogue will have some enormous stilettos to fill. That's partly because Wintour, who's 75, has been at the job for nearly four decades and is a legend in the business. It's also because whoever comes next will report to her. Wintour, who became Vogue's editor in chief in 1988, is giving up that role. However, she'll remain global editorial director at the magazine and chief content officer for its parent company, Condé Nast, the company said Thursday. Taking on a senior role, similar to the one Wintour vacated at Vogue, is often challenging, especially when the predecessor remains on hand, leadership experts told Business Insider. Incoming leaders are wise to signal that they want to make changes without abandoning what makes an organization work, said Kevin Groves, a professor of management at Pepperdine's Graziadio Business School. "We're preserving what's most important to us, while recognizing our environment has changed," he said. Here are three pieces of advice on taking over after a leader who looms large — and who might still be down the hall. Don't be impatient Stepping into this position successfully starts with indicating sincere interest in the role and prioritizing what's best for the organization, Nancy Ho, an executive coach based in Singapore, told BI. "You cannot be impatient and rush into it. It should not be seen like you're power-hungry or claiming a role prematurely," Ho said. Instead, she said, new leaders need to focus on understanding a company's culture and how they can position themselves as an asset to the organization. James Reed, CEO of the UK-based recruitment company Reed, said there is no harm in declaring to your boss that you are ambitious and aim to lead an organization, "even if you avoid explicitly saying you're after their job." "Ask what you need to learn and what more you can contribute to support them," Reed said. "Then they will be aware of your ambition but appreciate that you are seeking to help and learn from them rather than undermine them." Don't rock the boat too early Ho said it's important not to make drastic changes too soon upon getting the job. Ho recommended that the first step is acknowledging the good work done before them. Then, they should gain the team's trust by carefully working with them and making small, gradual changes to improve the organization's effectiveness. "When there's a certain buy-in, and people are more comfortable with a different leader, then you introduce changes," she said. Sabina Nawaz, a US-based CEO coach, said new leaders should not make changes for at least the first three months because the first thing to do after receiving the title is "to be curious." "Go on a listening tour, excavate the reasons behind decisions or actions, try to make sense of things from the perspective of others: given that they're smart and well-meaning, what did they have in mind when they acted this way," Nawaz said. Christian Tröster, a professor of leadership and organizational behavior at Germany's Kühne Logistics University, told BI that new leaders can demonstrate they're becoming part of the organization by being careful not to suggest that everything should change. "Because then you're showing that you are not like them, that you cannot be trusted," Tröster said. "Then you don't have the commitment of your employees to actually go with you." Tröster said that when an incoming leader would have to report to the person who held the post in the past, it's important to have a conversation about expectations. He said that while org charts are often clear, layers are often not always evident, including what relationships people have and who they tend to go to for advice. "I would try to make that visible," Tröster said. That way, he said, workers know who they're expected to go to and leaders and employees can agree to the arrangement. Don't be afraid to be different For those taking over a new role while their predecessor is still around — especially someone as "established and admired" as Anna Wintour, it's important to take advantage of your access to them, Amanda Augustine, a career coach at told BI via email. "Start the job as a sponge, learning what you can from your predecessor and other colleagues," she said, adding that it's important not to stay in information-gathering mode forever. Jochen Menges, a professor of leadership at the University of Zurich and the University of Cambridge, told BI that new leaders should "be different" and avoid trying to replicate the exact leadership style or strategy of the person they're replacing. "If they're too close, then they'll seem to be a copy, and then they can never live up," he said. When new bosses are different in some ways, Menges said, they can be "a leader in their own right."
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
Few thought airstrikes could ‘obliterate' Iran's nuclear program. Then Trump said they did.
Experts long argued that airstrikes alone would not be capable of permanently ending Iran's nuclear program absent negotiations. WASHINGTON — A highly politicized debate is unfolding over the impact of June 21 U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, raising questions over the attack's goal and projected impact. President Donald Trump quickly claimed total victory in the strikes' wake, claiming that Iran's 'key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' Subsequent scrutiny of that claim amid early assessments from intelligence agencies has led Trump and his allies to double down on and even expand on his declarations of success. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed to CNN that the strikes 'obliterated Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons.' Iran itself has acknowledged the impact of the U.S. and Israeli attacks. But in the years since Washington's withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran, experts and analysts have emphasized that airstrikes alone would merely delay Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than permanently derail them. Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Illinois, reiterated that long-held understanding in a June 26 interview. 'The targets are hard targets, deep targets, mobile targets. So it was never meant to eliminate the program,' Quigley told USA TODAY. 'It was never meant to do anything but slow the program.' The congressman, who is on the House's intelligence committee and has regularly received briefings on Iran, added, 'We've always been told . . . the only way to end this (nuclear) program is with a lot of troops on the ground for a long time. A war.' The former head of the National Nuclear Security Agency's nonproliferation programs, Corey Hinderstein, struck a similar tone. 'The conventional wisdom that you can't destroy the Iranian (nuclear) program through air attack alone has actually held,' said Hinderstein, now a vice president at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 'While some are saying that the airstrikes were tactically and strategically successful, I think that the jury is still out on that, and we don't actually have the information that we need to believe that this program is gone.' Third nuclear site, hidden centrifuges, missing uranium Iran may have another nuclear site that, if equipped with enrichment centrifuges and conversion equipment, could continue the process of preparing uranium for use in a nuclear bomb, if the regime wishes to pursue one. Shortly before Israel began its air campaign against Iran, the regime told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had a third nuclear enrichment site but did not reveal details. Analysts believe an undisclosed underground facility at Pickaxe Mountain near the Natanz nuclear plant may be even deeper under the surface than the Fordow enrichment plant that was severely damaged in the U.S. strikes. The Pickaxe Mountain facility was first publicly revealed in 2023 by experts who spoke with the Associated Press. And it's unclear how much of Tehran's approximately 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium was destroyed or buried during the strikes — satellite images show cargo trucks parked outside the Fordow enrichment plant in the days before the U.S. attack. U.S. lawmakers briefed June 26 and June 27 on intelligence assessments of the strikes acknowledged the missing uranium and called for a full accounting of the material, according to CNN. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, told the news agency that the question of the uranium's whereabouts underscores the importance of Iran negotiating 'directly with us, so the (IAEA) can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there.' More: Where is Iran's enriched uranium? Questions loom after Trump claims victory. But whether Iran wants to negotiate is another question. Despite the country's obligations as a member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iran's Guardian Council approved a law June 25 halting the country's cooperation with the IAEA and its inspections of Tehran's nuclear sites 'until the safety and security of our nuclear activities can be guaranteed,' the country's foreign minister said on social media. Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook and Cybele Mayes-Osterman, USA TODAY Davis Winkie's role covering nuclear threats and national security at USA TODAY is supported by a partnership with Outrider Foundation and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
Stocks usually rise by 10% a year. Those days may be over.
Americans are wise to invest in the stock market, we are told, because stocks have yielded historical gains of about 10% a year. But not, perhaps, this year. Many analysts predict that the S&P 500 index will end 2025 essentially flat, or with only meager gains. In one June 25 roundup, Yahoo Finance charts several strategists with year-end projections that put the benchmark S&P index between 5,600 and 6,100. Those figures fall below, or only slightly above, where the S&P started the year, around 5,900. Some forecasts range higher, and forecasters have been growing more bullish about American stocks in 2025. But anyone who predicts double-digit returns this year risks being branded an outlier. If big investment firms expect the stock market to finish 2025 more or less where it started, how should armchair investors react? Is the investment landscape shifting beneath our feet? First, let's explore the reasoning behind those gloomy forecasts. Stocks opened high in 2025. Maybe too high. The stock market opened strong in 2025. The broad S&P index sat near its all-time high, following two years of conspicuous growth. That growth spurt, alone, was enough to seed caution in forecasters. A surging S&P means stock prices are relatively high. Some stocks are overpriced. Bargains are fewer. The index may not have that much room to grow. 'I believe that, given the strong returns over the past two years, some lower returns are expected,' said Eric Teal, chief investment officer at Comerica Bank. Comerica's own projections call for the S&P 500 to end the year at 6,400, a number toward the high end of forecasts. Wall Street prognosticators have been bearish on stocks in 2025 because of one overarching theme: uncertainty. 'It's all the volatile actors in our current economy,' said Catherine Valega, a certified financial planner near Boston. 'It's like you don't know from one day to the next: Do we have tariffs? Do we not have tariffs?' It's hard to predict how President Trump's import taxes will affect prices, and thus, inflation. The trade war, coupled with Trump's immigration crackdown, could slow economic growth. Recession fears are heightened. The Federal Reserve may or may not ease interest rates in response. 'We're assuming that we sidestep a recession, that interest rate cuts are on the horizon, but not immediate,' Teal said, reflecting a common view on Wall Street. 'And so, there is an element of cautious optimism that I think is in the market, but a high degree of uncertainty and macro policy unknowns that will keep markets contained.' Stock forecasters don't want to be wrong There's another big reason, analysts say, why year-end forecasts for the S&P 500 are trending low: Forecasters tend to err on the conservative side. 'The analysts have historically kind of underestimated S&P 500 returns,' said Kristy Akullian, head of iShares investment strategy, Americas, at BlackRock. 'People don't want to stick their necks out with a bold prediction and be wrong.' That impulse, she said, also explains why stock forecasts tend to bunch together. No one wants to stand out. 'It's hard being an outlier,' said David Meier, a senior analyst at Motley Fool. Meier cites yet another reason why stock forecasters tend to aim low: 'Being negative, let's call it bearish, tends to get more clicks,' he said. Readers gravitate to distressing news about stocks. So, stocks are having an off year. What can I do? Now, let's move on to the practical question: If the S&P 500 might not gain much ground in 2025, what should ordinary investors do about it? The easy answer, of course, is to do nothing. Stock market projections for next month, or next year, shouldn't matter much to an investor who is in for the long haul, advisers say. And that advice applies to just about everyone: If you aren't in for the long haul, experts advise, stocks might not be for you. 'If you need funds soon, don't have it invested,' said Randy Bruns, a certified financial planner in Naperville, Illinois. 'If you don't need the funds for 15 years, stop looking at the volatility.' Market downturns tend to be brief. Recessions are shorter than they seem. Anyone who is saving for retirement, or for other long-term goals, can generally ride them out. 'If you have the luxury of being a long-term investor, be one,' Akullian said. There is, however, a longer and more nuanced answer to the question of how to respond to those conservative projections for stocks in 2025. A gloomy forecast for 2025 -- and for 2035 It involves this complicating factor: Stock market forecasts are also surprisingly conservative for 2035. Vanguard, the investment firm, predicts the U.S. stock market as a whole will rise by an underwhelming 3.8% to 5.8% a year over the next 10 years. 'Growth' stocks, the likes of Nvidia and Amazon, are projected to rise by only 2.5% to 4.5%: not much faster than inflation. Those forecasts are based on the idea that many U.S. stocks are overpriced, in essence, and trading above their real value. In Vanguard's analysis, everyday investors who want the gaudy returns they have come to expect from American growth stocks would do well to look elsewhere: Global stocks. Small-cap American stocks, in companies with a lower market value. 'Value' stocks, trading below their intrinsic worth. 'I would say it's time to have a more balanced allocation,' said Teal of Comerica. Bruns, the financial planner, suggests average investors should 'diversify across all the broad asset classes that should comprise a textbook portfolio.' That doesn't mean you should sell all of your Alphabet stocks, experts say. But the time might be right to scrutinize your portfolio. Does it include foreign stocks? Small-cap stocks? Bonds? If not, then you might consider rebalancing your portfolio to make it more diverse. 'The easiest way to do that, if you are a 401(k) contributor, is to change your future allocations,' Valega said. That way, you don't have to tinker with your current investments. Not sure how to rebalance? 'Reach out to your adviser,' Valega said. 'That's what we're there for.'
