A series of powerful winter storms pushed British wind generation to an all-time high in January 2026, according to a new analysis by energy think tank Ember.
Data from the National Energy System Operator (NESO) reveals that wind power produced 10.6 TWh of electricity during the month, surpassing the previous record of 10.4 TWh set in December 2023.
The surge in clean energy was largely driven by the arrival of Storm Goretti and Storm Chandra, which battered British shores throughout January.
This record-breaking output allowed the UK to curb its reliance on fossil fuels significantly. Gas generation fell to 9.1 TWh: a 17% drop compared to January 2025, despite overall electricity demand rising by 2% to 29 TWh.
“Windy January weather may not be everyone’s cup of tea, yet it helped British wind power to set a new clean power record and keep expensive gas generation low,” said Josie Murdoch, Energy Analyst at Ember.
The environmental achievement also provided a substantial economic boost. Ember estimates that if the additional wind power had been generated by fossil gas instead, it would have cost the UK approximately £164 million in gas purchases for the month of January alone.
The milestone follows a record-breaking offshore wind auction (AR7), which recently secured 8.4 GW of new capacity across England and Scotland. Britain currently maintains a wind capacity of 33 GW, with an additional 4.7 GW forecast to come online by the end of 2026.
Combined with solar, renewable generation reached a new monthly peak of 11.1 TWh. As the UK continues to expand its green infrastructure, analysts suggest these records will become increasingly frequent, further insulating the economy from volatile international gas prices.
Based on total new-home sales closed last year, the community from Land Tejas and Starwood Land ranked No. 5 in the United States, with 1,024 sales. Although that figure was down 23% from 2024, it still made Sunterra the top-selling Houston-area MPC — a title it’s held since sales began in 2022.
Also in Katy, the Tamarron community from D.R. Horton ranked No. 9 with 974 sales, up 32% year over year, edging out Bridgeland as Houston’s second-ranked MPC. The Howard Hughes community, meanwhile, ranked No. 11 with 812 sales, down 13% year over year.
Other Houston MPCs in the top 50 were Anniston (No. 12) from Friendswood Development in Katy, with 775 sales; The Grand Prairie (No. 17) from EMBER in Hockley, with 639 sales; Meridiana (No. 24) from Rise Communities in Rosharon, with 527 sales; Sienna (No. 38) from Johnson Development and Toll Brothers in Missouri City, with 432 sales; Elyson (No. 41) from Brookfriend Properties in Katy, with 413 sales; Lago Mar (No. 46) from Land Tejas and Starwood Land in Texas City, with 380 sales; and Jordan Ranch (No. 50) from Johnson Development in Fulshear, with 361 sales.
As the Eaton and Palisades fires rapidly jumped between tightly packed houses, the proactive steps some residents took to retrofit their homes with fire-resistant building materials and to clear flammable brush became a significant indicator of a home’s fate.
Early adopters who cleared vegetation and flammable materials within the first five feet of their houses’ walls — in line with draft rules for the state’s hotly debated “zone zero” regulations — fared better than those who didn’t, an on-the-ground investigation from the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety published Wednesday found.
Over a week in January, while the fires were still burning, the insurance team inspected more than 250 damaged, destroyed and unscathed homes in Altadena and Pacific Palisades.
On properties where the majority of zone zero land was covered in vegetation and flammable materials, the fires destroyed 27% of homes; On properties with less than a quarter of zone zero covered, only 9% were destroyed.
The Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, an independent research nonprofit funded by the insurance industry, performed similar investigations for Colorado’s 2012 Waldo Canyon fire, Hawaii’s 2023 Lahaina fire and California’s Tubbs, Camp and Woolsey fires of 2017 and 2018.
While a handful of recent studies have found homes with sparse vegetation in zone zero were more likely to survive fires, skeptics say it does not yet amount to a scientific consensus.
Travis Longcore, senior associate director and an adjunct professor at the UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, cautioned that the insurance nonprofit’s results are only exploratory: The team did not analyze whether other factors, such as the age of the homes, were influencing their zone zero analysis, and how the nonprofit characterizes zone zero for its report, he noted, does not exactly mirror California’s draft regulations.
Meanwhile, Michael Gollner, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at UC Berkeley who studies how wildfires destroy and damage homes, noted that the nonprofit’s sample does not perfectly represent the entire burn areas, since the group focused specifically on damaged properties and were constrained by the active firefight.
Nonetheless, the nonprofit’s findings help tie together growing evidence of zone zero’s effectiveness from tests in the lab — aimed at identifying the pathways fire can use to enter a home — with the real-world analyses of which measures protected homes in wildfires, Gollner said.
A recent study from Gollner looking at more than 47,000 structures in five major California fires (which did not include the Eaton and Palisades fires) found that of the properties that removed vegetation from zone zero, 37% survived, compared with 20% that did not.
Once a fire spills from the wildlands into an urban area, homes become the primary fuel. When a home catches fire, it increases the chance nearby homes burn, too. That is especially true when homes are tightly packed.
When looking at California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection data for the entirety of the two fires, the insurance team found that “hardened” homes in Altadena and the Palisades that had noncombustable roofs, fire-resistant siding, double-pane windows and closed eaves survived undamaged at least 66% of the time, if they were at least 20 feet away from other structures.
But when the distance was less than 10 feet, only 45% of the hardened homes escaped with no damage.
“The spacing between structures, it’s the most definitive way to differentiate what survives and what doesn’t,” said Roy Wright, president and chief executive of the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety. At the same time, said Wright, “it’s not feasible to change that.”
Looking at steps that residents are more likely to be able to take, the insurance nonprofit found that the best approach is for homeowners to apply however many home hardening and defensible space measures that they can. Each one can shave a few percentage points off the risk of a home burning, and combined, the effect can be significant.
As for zone zero, the insurance team found a number of examples of how vegetation and flammable materials near a home could aid the destruction of a property.
At one home, embers appeared to have ignited some hedges a few feet away from the structure. That heat was enough to shatter a single pane window, creating the perfect opportunity for embers to enter and burn the house from the inside out. It miraculously survived.
At others, embers from the blazes landed on trash and recycling bins close to the houses, sometimes burning holes through the plastic lids and igniting the material inside. In one instance, the fire in the bin spread to a nearby garage door, but the house was spared.
Wooden decks and fences were also common accomplices that helped embers ignite a structure.
California’s current zone zero draft regulations take some of those risks into account. They prohibit wooden fences within the first five feet of a home; the state’s zone zero committee is also considering whether to prohibit virtually all vegetation in the zone or to just limit it (regardless, well-maintained trees are allowed).
On the other hand, the draft regulations do not prohibit keeping trash bins in the zone, which the committee determined would be difficult to enforce. They also do not mandate homeowners replace wooden decks.
The controversy around the draft regulations center around the proposal to remove virtually all healthy vegetation, including shrubs and grasses, from the zone.
Critics argue that, given the financial burden zone zero would place on homeowners, the state should instead focus on measures with lower costs and a significant proven benefit.
“A focus on vegetation is misguided,” said David Lefkowith, president of the Mandeville Canyon Assn.
At its most recent zone zero meeting, the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection directed staff to further research the draft regulations’ affordability.
“As the Board and subcommittee consider which set of options best balance safety, urgency, and public feasibility, we are also shifting our focus to implementation and looking to state leaders to identify resources for delivering on this first-in-the-nation regulation,” Tony Andersen, executive officer of the board, said in a statement. “The need is urgent, but we also want to invest the time necessary to get this right.”
Home hardening and defensible space are just two of many strategies used to protect lives and property. The insurance team suspects that many of the close calls they studied in the field — homes that almost burned but didn’t — ultimately survived thanks to firefighters who stepped in. Wildfire experts also recommend programs to prevent ignitions in the first place and to manage wildlands to prevent intense spread of a fire that does ignite.
For Wright, the report is a reminder of the importance of community. The fate of any individual home is tied to that of those nearby — it takes a whole neighborhood hardening their homes and maintaining their lawns to reach herd immunity protection against fire’s contagious spread.
“When there is collective action, it changes the outcomes,” Wright said. “Wildfire is insidious. It doesn’t stop at the fence line.”
A hiker clambers across a scorched landscape of ash, his footsteps crunching on charred earth as he peers over a ridge at a burn scar pocked with blackened stumps. Below are thickets of green chaparral and densely packed homes.
Suddenly, he stops. He zooms the camera in to wisps of white smoke rising from the dirt.
“It’s still smoldering,” he whispers — apparently to himself. No firefighters or state park rangers are visible.
The video of smoke on a hillside above Los Angeles’ Pacific Palisades was shot by a local resident above Skull Rock Trailhead at 11:30 a.m on Jan. 2 — nearly 36 hours after the Lachman fire ignited and long after the Los Angeles Fire Department deemed the fire “fully contained.”
The footage is one piece of a puzzle that has been the subject of so much anger, attention and investigation since the January firestorms: What happened between the time L.A. firefighters declared the Lachman fire out and when it rekindled into a catastrophic firestorm that burned huge swaths of Pacific Palisades?
The video could also be key evidence for attorneys working on behalf of thousands who lost their homes against a player that has so far not received much attention.
Ever since federal officials arrested Jonathan Rinderknecht Oct. 8 on suspicion of igniting the Lachman fire — and revealed that embers from that blaze rekindled into the Jan. 7 Palisades fire — LAFD has faced the brunt of criticism for failing to fully extinguish the New Year’s Day fire.
But lawyers representing thousands of Palisades fire victims are also focusing on another target.
They argue the state, which owns Topanga State Park, where the Palisades fire began, did not do enough to monitor the small Jan 1. Lachman brush fire and stop it reigniting six days later into the devastating Palisades fire that killed 12 people and destroyed more than 6,800 structures. Plaintiff attorneys are not alleging the state should have suppressed the fire; instead, they say it failed to make sure the area was secure.
The video, plaintiff attorneys say, corroborates the case they make in a master complaint filed earlier this month: that the state allowed a “dangerous fire condition” to exist on the Lachman burn scar. They allege the state allowed “embers from the Lachman Fire to smolder, rekindle and then re-ignite in dry brush” as the National Weather Service warned of dangerous Santa Ana winds.
California State Parks did not respond to questions on what actions it took to monitor the Lachman burn scar on Topanga State Park in the run-up to the dangerous wind event, or what role it typically plays in monitoring land after fires. It also did not respond to any of the allegations in legal filings or the hiker’s video showing smoke rising.
“California State Parks does not comment on pending litigation,” said a spokesperson for the agency.
Andrew Grinsfelder, 18, waters down the roof of his mother’s home, hoping to prevent the Palisades fire from destroying their house, on Jan. 8.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
Government officials typically have limited liability in fires. The legal doctrine of qualified immunity shields public servants from civil litigation, unless their actions violate “clearly established” law, so they can make judgments without constant legal threats and public funds are protected.
California government code specifically prevents public entities and employees from being held “liable for any injury resulting from the failure to provide or maintain sufficient personnel, equipment or other fire protection facilities.”
However, David Levine, a professor of law at UC San Francisco, said allowing a “dangerous condition” on your property offers lawyers a possible path around immunity.
“It’s going to depend on the facts,” Levine said.
It is unclear whether the smoldering depicted in the hiker’s video was on state land. Investigators from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined the Lachman fire ignited on a 160-acre sliver of land owned by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority before spreading to Topanga State Park. The video appears to have been shot near the border of the two properties.
Whether or not the smoke in the video was on the state portion of the burn scar, the plaintiff attorneys claim it was clear the Lachman fire was not fully extinguished.
“The rekindle happened on the State Park land and that’s what matters to our case,” said Alexander “Trey” Robertson, an attorney who represents 3,300 Palisades residents and is co-leading litigation on behalf of all victims in the Palisades fire.
Plaintiff attorneys claim California State Parks did not sufficiently monitor the smoldering earth — even as NWS warned repeatedly in the days before Jan. 7 of “critical fire conditions” and a “life-threatening, dangerous” windstorm across parts of Los Angeles and Ventura counties.
Protocol outlined in the state’s Department of Parks and Recreation Operations Manual indicates that staff should monitor burn scars: “Areas of a park unit which have burned will remain closed,” it states, “until appropriate Department staff have inspected the area and rectified any public safety, property or resource protection issues.”
Plaintiff attorneys argue that didn’t happen.
“The State failed to inspect and maintain its property and failed to provide proper fire protection on its property to allow embers from the Lachman Fire on its property,” the complaint states, “particularly in the presence of overgrown and poorly maintained dry chaparral, as well as knowledge of extreme fire weather conditions and predicted Red Flag Warning wind events.”
If a park ranger had inspected the Lachman burn scar and seen the smoke coming out of the ground, Robertson said, they could have urged LAFD to come back out and properly extinguish that fire.
It’s important to note the state has released few details about park rangers’ actions between the Lachman fire and the Palisades fire. It is possible state employees did monitor the burn scar and did not see smoke. California State Parks declined to provide details about ranger movements in the critical days between the two fires.
The area where the Lachman fire burned was not in a remote area, Robertson noted. It is just a couple minutes from a trailhead parking lot in an area popular with hikers.
“A park ranger could have very easily parked his or her truck, and walked a few-minute hike to top of the trail and just done a visual inspection,” Robertson said.
Spencer Pratt, a reality TV star who lost his home in the Palisades fire and has since become an advocate for accountability, said park managers have a duty to keep the public safe.
“It’s so obvious that they left it all smoldering — to the point where multiple hikers have videos of it still smoldering,” Pratt said. “We pay our taxes for it to be maintained. It’s in their policy manuals. It’s the law; it’s their government code: that it can’t create a danger to our town, our houses.”
What happened after the Lachman fire?
When flames lit up the hillside near Skull Rock on the Temescal Ridge Trail shortly after midnight on New Year’s Day, firefighters moved quickly to suppress the blaze.
Within minutes of getting the first 911 call, fire engines rushed to the nearest trailhead and LAFD firefighters hiked to Skull Rock on foot. County firefighters dug a handline to block the spread of the fire with the assistance of LAFD hose lines.
By 4:46 a.m., LAFD announced that firefighters had “completed the hose line around the perimeter of the fire” and it was “fully contained.” “Some resources will be released as the mop up operation continues,” it added, “to ensure no flare ups.”
The next day, when firefighters returned to collect fire hoses, “it appeared to them that the fire was fully extinguished,” according to an affidavit by a special agent with the ATF.
According to the ATF special agent, a firebrand became lodged within dense chaparral and then smoldered and burned within the roots of the vegetation. The underground burning, he stated, was not visible to firefighters or members of the public who visited the burn scar after the Lachman fire.
But that appears to be contradicted by the video taken Jan 2. A local resident shot footage showing smoke and no firefighters on site.
Five days later, the Palisades fire ignited in Topanga State Park about 20 feet south of the perimeter of the Lachman fire.
The legal case
Los Angeles firefighters have been widely criticized for their lack of preparation before the Palisades fire.
After the ATF announced this month that the Palisades fire was a holdover fire ignited by embers of the Lachman fire, Interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva told The Times that LAFD did not use thermal imaging technology to confirm the Lachman fire was out.
But attorneys face steep odds bringing legal claims against LAFD because California governmentcode gives public officials broad immunity against claims of negligent firefighting.
The case against the state, however, is different. Attorneys representing fire victims argue government immunity does not apply to the state’s failure to inspect its land in the days between the Lachman and Palisades fires to ensure that no smoldering embers remained that could reignite as meteorologists warned of dangerous Santa Ana winds.
The complaint cites a 1974 legal decision involving a fire at an airport owned and operated by the city and county of Imperial. The court found governmental immunity should not be used “to allow a public entity to escape responsibility from its failure to provide fire protection on property which it owns and manages itself, particularly where it has permitted a dangerous fire condition to exist on that property.”
After LAFD announced it had extinguished the Lachman fire, the complaint alleges, the state had a “non-delegable duty to inspect its property for dangerous condition given that embers in the root structure are a well-known phenomenon after such a fire, that there was heavy fuel in the form of dry overgrown, chaparral, and a serious known coming wind condition.”
It will be up to courts to determine whether state officials were actually neglectful.
Levine, the law professor not affiliated with the case, said the lawyers who filed the master complaint— a 198-page document that also targets L.A. Department of Water and Power and dozens of public and private entities — had put together an impressively detailed case. But the state could also offer counter evidence and experts might offer different opinions about how often the state would be expected to check the burn scar.
“I think what the plaintiffs are doing is saying, ‘We have a lot of ammunition here,’ and it’s kind of an invitation to consider settling,” Levine said. “It’s a high hurdle, but not an impossible hurdle, and they may have enough evidence to get over that hurdle.”
Even if they prevail, property owners might not actually get that much of a payout, Levine said, because so many of the homes that burned were insured.
“If a fire policy paid out a million dollars, say, on a house up there in Palisades, the insurance company is going to say, ‘We get our money back,’” Levine said. “So how much money would actually end up in the hands of fire victims, I think, would be somewhat open to question.”
The master complaint does not hold the MRCA liable for allowing a dangerous condition on the Lachman burn scar. But even if MRCA isn’t legally liable because the Palisades fire origin point was not on its land, the public agency dedicated to acquiring and preserving open space and parkland also faces questions about its protocol for monitoring burn scars.
The agency has its own fire crew, with 30 full-time, on-call and volunteer wildland firefighters. Its website says it deploys its fire crew on red flag days to prevent and assist in suppressing any fires and coordinates with local fire departments, which are better equipped for larger fire responses.
In a statement to The Times, MRCA said its fire crew “did not play a suppression or monitoring role in the Lachman Fire” and that LAFD “was the lead responding agency and managing authority for the Lachman Fire, working in coordination with the Los Angeles County Fire Department.”
