How we generate, distribute and use electricity is key to meeting California’s environmental and greenhouse gas reduction goals. We need to be much more efficient with the electricity we use, while ensuring that it comes from greenhouse gas-free sources, like solar, wind, and geothermal, coupled with energy storage technologies. We also need to electrify almost everything, from transportation to home heating.
The state has ambitious goals in all these areas for 2030, including a 50% renewable energy mandate, a requirement that we double energy efficiency in existing buildings, a related energy storage target, and electric vehicle deployment goal, among others.
But with so many technology changes, uncertainty over federal energy policies, and challenges related to financing and cost, what will the grid of 2030 look like?
The State Bar’s environmental law section is hosting a conference to explore this question, on Wednesday, April 12th in downtown Los Angeles. Co-sponsored by Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment and the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA School of Law, the conference will feature:
- Keynote by new California Public Utilities Commissioner Cliff Rechtschaffen;
- Panel on the impact of the Trump Administration on California’s energy policies;
- Discussion of the rise of community choice aggregation as an alternative to the traditional utility model; and
- Speakers from leading utilities, renewable energy companies, public agencies and nonprofit groups.
You can see the full agenda and register at the State Bar’s conference website. Reduced rates are available for students and government/nonprofit employees. Register now to secure your spot!
Back in January, Berkeley Law and labor market researchers released a report on the economic and employment impacts of California’s ambitious climate policies on the San Joaquin Valley. The Economic Impacts of California’s Major Climate Programs on the San Joaquin Valley addressed compliance and investment costs as well as the benefits across the region.
Ultimately, our research team found that the economic benefits of California’s major climate programs exceed costs. It was the first comprehensive, academic study of the costs and benefits of these policies on this economically and environmentally distressed region.
To discuss the findings, the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE) at Berkeley Law will host a one-hour webinar with the report authors on Wednesday from 1 to 2pm. In addition to yours truly, the webinar will feature:
You can register for this event here. Hope you can tune in and ask your questions!
If there’s one area where Trump is likely to have legislative success, it’s probably the budget and taxes. A partisan majority of Republicans in Congress will go along with any tax and spending cuts, leaving Trump in a good position to get his way. And his current budget proposal is nothing less than a full-scale assault on environmental protections and public health.
It’s a bad combination of Trump’s seemingly genuine antipathy to government regulations and his party being captured by big polluters in the oil and gas industry.
My UC Berkeley Law colleague Dan Farber runs through the numbers on Legal Planet, but they basically include massive cuts to environmental enforcement, restoration and monitoring, including on climate data, as well as eliminating research in clean energy.
The last part on clean energy cuts is particularly frustrating. I’ve blogged before about the success of ARPA-E, the most important governmental agency you’ve never heard of. It’s the “moonshot” agency that is funding breakthrough technologies in batteries, solar power and other vital technology. Since 2009, it has provided $1.3 billion in funding to more than 475 projects, of which 45 have then raised $1.25 billion in private sector funds.
So of course Trump and his allies want to eliminate the agency completely.
But all is not yet lost. The budget will go through a lot of sausage-making in Congress, and even many Republicans are invested in some of these programs, given the benefits they provide their districts.
But environmental and public health advocates will be starting from a tough position, and this is one area where Trump is likely to get a lot of what he wants.
Tanzania exemplifies so much of the future of energy infrastructure in developing world countries, as Greenbiz describes:
The East African country of Tanzania faces a serious electrification challenge. Only 2 percent (PDF) of rural households have access to electricity, and most of the rural population relies on expensive, hazardous and low-quality fuels such as kerosene for lighting and charcoal for cooking.
Access to electricity and other modern energy services is fundamental to human well-being and to a country’s social and economic development. In many countries, electrification through off-grid applications has become a cost-effective alternative to conventional grid expansion in remote areas — and this could become a model that propels Tanzania’s next phase of economic growth. Already in the country, energy systems based on wind, small hydropower, biomass and solar resources are being used successfully to meet energy demand in isolated villages. By integrating these renewable-powered off-grid systems, rural communities are increasing their access to affordable energy supplies while contributing meaningfully to climate change mitigation.
Much like the leap to cell phones over landlines, many countries like Tanzania are better served going directly to decentralized, renewable technologies rather than building expensive and dirty traditional power grids with central-station power plants and far-flung transmission lines.
The upside is a cleaner, more resilient energy system with potentially few impacts on the land. It also means more immediate electrification for rural residents, rather than making them wait for government and utilities to build a centralized grid to reach them.
I note that in this article, batteries do not seem to be on the table for Tanzania’s rural areas, while biomass may make up a crucial portion of the electricity mix. I have nothing against biomass in concept, but depending on the technologies and incentives involved, it can sometimes lead to increases in emissions.
These opportunities in many ways come from the developed world’s investment in renewable technologies, which has brought prices down to the point where they are now viable options for poorer countries like Tanzania.
As the price of solar panels and batteries decreases, our electricity system is starting to look a lot cleaner and more decentralized. While some people think the rise of community-based electricity technologies will undermine utilities, utilities are in fact embracing one version of decentralized power: microgrids.
San Diego Gas & Electric delivers power to the town of Borrego Springs via a single radial transmission line running through the desert. Lightning strikes and desert flash floods threaten that line, resulting in historically poor reliability, Chief Engineer Thomas Bialek explained at the DistribuTech panel.
The utility needed to maintain or improve reliability for the nearly 2,800 Borrego Springs customers, but the traditional fix — building out a parallel transmission line — was pricey. A microgrid would be three or four times cheaper, Bialek said. So that’s what they did.The system, paid for by SDG&E, the Department of Energy and other partners, combines diesel generators, large and small batteries, and rooftop solar PV.
The microgrid has already proven itself in the face of adversity. When a flash flood in September 2013 downed transmission poles and lines leading to the town, the microgrid fired up and restored power to 1,056 customers while the grid repairs unfolded. That covered the core city center, so that those residents who didn’t have power yet could move to central facilities for shelter from the heat.
The future portends even more investment in microgrids, as Utility Dive notes:
Last year, GTM Research estimated there were 156 operational microgrids in the country, making up 1.54 GW of capacity, and that number is expected to rise to 3.71 GW by 2020. Globally, Transparency Market Research believes the microgrid market will be worth about $35 billion by 2020 — up from $10 billion in 2013.
But as microgrids — and the technologies that underpin them — become cheaper, utilities may be sowing the seeds of their own destruction. With a few additional breakthroughs, these technologies could eventually allow entire communities to defect from the grid, leaving utilities and their remaining ratepayers stuck with stranded assets.
But for now, these installations will provide an environmental and energy win, while furthering investment in the technologies needed to clean and decentralize the electricity sector.
No clean technology is more important than the battery (or energy storage more broadly, given that batteries are just one — albeit critical — version of storage). Batteries will soon help power almost all of our vehicles with cleaner electricity instead of fossil fuels. And they’ll help store our surplus renewable power to clean our electricity grids.
The PBS show NOVA just ran a fascinating episode on the subject, called The Search for the Super Battery. It features interviews with UC Berkeley colleagues Dan Kammen and Venkat Srinivasan, as well as car company representatives and other industry leaders. As far as shows on batteries go, this one is pretty fascinating and accessible and well worth the watch:
Happy Friday viewing!
The Trump presidency could have one significant silver lining in the fight against climate change. With most federal action likely to be negative on climate, it will motivate states and cities to take the aggressive action needed to curb emissions through innovation. Gone now is the fiction that the federal government will take the steps necessary to address the full scale of the challenge.
Of course, the Obama administration helped in critical ways, such as through stringent fuel economy standards and boosting investment in solar panels and electric vehicles, among other needed technologies. The Clean Power Plan, likely to be killed soon by Trump’s EPA, was a decent start but not nearly sufficient for what scientists say is needed to avert the worst impacts of climate change. But given federal politics, none of these steps were likely to be sufficient on their own.
So now is a good time for the “coalition of the willing” of states and cities to see what they can do on their own, without the political drag facing federal action. The California-led Under 2 Coalition is a good example of this collaboration at the international level among subnational jurisdictions willing to take strong action.
Here in the U.S., states could do a lot together, such as creating a common carbon market through cap-and-trade, jointly investing in clean technology research, and sharing grid resources to encourage more renewable development at a cheaper cost and with fewer emissions.
But there are constitutional limits to multi-state action. My Berkeley Law colleague Dan Farber describes these limits on Legal Planet, and he remains mostly optimistic about what states can do together while passing constitutional muster:
There are some legalities that have to be observed in designing regional efforts. The biggest issue is whether Congressional consent to a regional agreement is required under the compact clause, which provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power.” This language might seem to require congressional consent to all forms of cooperation between states. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has interpreted the compact clause quite narrowly.
Basically, states want to avoid having to get congressional approval for their multi-state actions, given the negative politics at the federal level. But, as Dan summarizes, as long as states create multi-state programs that aren’t binding on individual states, create superseding regulatory power, or negatively impact federal actions, they can proceed without congressional approval.
It actually gives states lots of leeway, which they should start using as soon as possible.
The New York Times offers a good rundown of the various environmental laws and regulations that Trump’s administration will likely attempt to roll back. The upside: many of these agency actions could take years to unwind, likely leaving the final call for efforts like the Clean Power Plan in the hands of the 2020 presidential election winner.
The downside: a number of executive orders, such as preventing coal mining on public lands, can be undone right away. Other rules, like the methane limits on oil extraction, can also be undone by Congress through the Congressional Review Act. And perhaps most significantly, the Trump administration can try to weaken fuel economy standards for automakers, although that too will take time and litigation.
Of course, if Congress can act to weaken the Clean Air Act and other environmental laws, all bets are off. But as long as the filibuster remains in the Senate, that may be hard to do.
Meanwhile, there may be some glimmer of hope on clean technology with the new administration. Trump’s nominee for Treasury secretary backed the production tax credit for wind power (the solar tax credit’s fate may be less certain, and both tax credits could be undermined by broader corporate tax reductions, but still). Tesla/SolarCity CEO Elon Musk also apparently has the ear of Trump on EV manufacturing, which can’t hurt. And while it’s been only a week since the inauguration, Trump hasn’t yet withdrawn the U.S. from the landmark Paris agreement on climate change, while Exxon, incoming Secretary of State Tillerson’s former company, just praised the agreement.
There is still little reason for environmentalists to get their hopes up, and the idea of actually proactively tackling our environmental challenges at the federal level is all but dead for the next four years. But the current legal environment on the environment may be a bit more stable than we might otherwise assume.
A number of prominent leaders in California’s San Joaquin Valley have opposed policies to combat climate change, in part due to the assumed economic costs on the region. But as our UC Berkeley/Next 10 study released last week shows, those policies are benefiting the regional economy to the tune of over $13 billion.
Over the weekend, the Sacramento Bee published an op-ed co-authored by me, Betony Jones and Noel Perry. Here’s a highlight passage on the benefits of renewables and cap-and-trade:
Renewable energy projects have brought $11.6 billion in economic activity to the valley. From 2002 to 2015, renewable programs created about 31,000 direct jobs here, as people were hired to build, operate and maintain generating facilities. Another 57,000 jobs were created indirectly, as suppliers and supporting businesses expanded. That’s 88,000 jobs in a part of the state that really needs them.
We also looked at California’s carbon cap-and-trade program, which affects the valley disproportionately because regulated industries are concentrated here. Cap-and-trade auction proceeds have been spent on high-speed rail, affordable housing, irrigation modernization, electric vehicle incentives and other emissions-reducing projects.
After subtracting compliance and other costs of cap and trade, we found direct economic benefits of $119 million and $200 million with indirect benefits included. Once auction proceeds that have been approved but not yet dispersed are spent, the region can expect $1 billion in direct benefits, plus $500,000,000 in indirect benefits. Cap and trade has netted the valley more than 700 direct and 1,600 indirect jobs from 2013 through 2015.
I’m glad to see these Valley outlets cover the findings, as residents of the region should be the first to learn of the data we found. The report dispels the common assumption that these environmental policies hurt the local economy. While certain Valley industries incur compliance costs, the deployment of clean technologies and other carbon-fighting programs are providing a much greater offsetting boost.