Some upcoming and recent events:
First, this morning at 10am PT I’ll be on KQED Forum to discuss the future of nuclear energy in California. I’ll be on a panel with energy reporter Sammy Roth of the Los Angeles Times and Jessica Lovering from the Good Energy Collective. Stream live!
Next, I’ll be on a lunch panel with Liane M. Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, on where California is going on climate policy and action. The event is entitled “Finding the Path to a Necessary Future: California, Climate, and Energy in the Coming Decades” and is being organized by the Environmental Law Institute. Register to attend in person at Baker Botts LLP in San Francisco or to access the livestream!
Finally, I appeared on EV Hub Live yesterday to discuss the state of domestic critical mineral supply for EV batteries, on a panel with Abigail Wulf, director of critical minerals strategy at SAFE (UPDATE: here’s an article on the subject in The Hill with some quotes from me). Video here:
UPDATE: Here’s an op-ed I wrote in CalMatters on this subject, published on June 14th. The Commission ultimately deadlocked on the decision and will revisit in October.
California is supposed to be a model for the world on how an advanced economy can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the state is not on pace to meet its legislated 2030 climate goals, and part of the problem is that state leaders are falling behind on deploying renewable energy. A recent controversy in the Mojave Desert over the iconic Joshua Tree is emblematic of the state’s challenges building the clean technology necessary to limit catastrophic climate change.
The goals are aggressive. The state requires its electricity grid to be completely carbon-free by 2045, including an interim target of 60% of grid power from renewable sources by 2030. This goal requires tripling the current annual build rate of solar and wind facilities. While state policy makers and industry leaders envision siting these clean energy projects all over the state, including offshore wind turbines and smaller-scale distributed solar resources in existing urbanized areas and brownfields, a substantial portion of that solar energy will need to come from utility-scale installations in the state’s vast, sun-soaked desert region. But the legal obstacles there could soon become formidable.
Specifically, the Center of Biological Diversity petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission in 2019 to list the iconic western Joshua Tree as a “threatened” species under the state’s Endangered Species Act. If state leaders were to affirm that petition, it would have the potential to undermine the state’s ability to meet its climate goals by effectively placing much of the Mojave Desert off limits to clean energy.
In its review of the Center’s petition, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife assessed the science last month and recommended not listing the species. It found that the trees are “currently abundant and widespread” with up to five million of them currently growing on a combined total estimated range of 3.4 million acres, in both their northern and southern desert areas. As with virtually all species, the department expects climate change to impact Joshua Tree habitat (though the species is still expected to persist in high numbers) through the end of this century. But as the temperature increases and rainfall patterns change (assuming it becomes more dry), lands to the north and at higher elevations could provide a refuge, with future climatic conditions similar to their present-day ones.
The commission will make a final determination in June. But if the commission overrules the department’s recommendation and lists the Joshua Tree as threatened, the consequences for California’s clean energy goals could be dire. Developers will either be prevented from building solar power in much of the Mojave Desert or will face costly mitigation measures to do so, which would diminish this needed deployment in one of the prime solar-generating areas of the state. Globally, it would hinder the state’s ability to show the world that a renewable build out in an advanced economy is feasible.
To be sure, these desert ecosystems are fragile, host unique species and are iconic in their majestic scenery – as is the Joshua Tree itself. No one (I would hope) enjoys seeing Joshua Trees cut down, even if it’s for a critical cause like climate change. But how much desert land are we talking about? The California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the state’s grid operator, currently has 19,000 megawatts of solar power and energy storage facilities in its queue that are located in the Joshua Tree’s southern range. Even if all these facilities were built (and some will almost certainly fall out), they would occupy only a tiny fraction of the range of the species. It’s a relatively small footprint for a technology that California desperately needs to deploy to benefit us all.
To put this desert deployment in context, a state energy agency report last year found that in tripling its annual build rate of clean energy, California will need to go from a 2019 deployment of 12.5 gigawatts of utility-scale solar to 69.4 gigawatts by 2045 – an almost 6-fold increase. Those 19 gigawatts of desert solar power and storage would therefore greatly help the state meet the long-term deployment needed to completely decarbonize the grid.
But perhaps worse, if the California Fish and Game Commission chooses to list the Joshua Tree as threatened for the sole reason of a warming climate, then under that logic, virtually any species could be listed as threatened, given the climate disruption the entire planet faces. That justification would in turn make it virtually impossible for the state to deploy precisely the clean technology we need to avoid making the situation worse, from energy storage to wind to solar.
All of us — humans, plants and animals — are threatened by the emergency of climate change, unless we take the necessary steps like deploying more wind and solar energy to combat it. The technology exists to stop climate change from worsening. What we lack is the political will to get it done. The Fish and Game Commission now faces that same test, whether to follow the department’s scientific findings or place yet another obstacle in the path of clean energy.
Now that Elon Musk has purchased Twitter with plans to take the company private, what are the potential consequences for the fight against climate change, the crucial issue of our time? Like him or not, the Tesla CEO has arguably been the most impactful private industry actor revolutionizing clean technology. Will the purchase affect his work on clean technology?
It would be hard to overstate Musk’s value to the global decarbonization effort. His company Tesla Motors, guided by his relentless and innovative vision, has helped revolutionize the automobile industry, completely transforming it in the face of legacy automakers who made only a token effort on electric vehicles at best for decades. Now they face extinction from their inability to embrace change. Given the transportation’s sector outsized role in contributing to climate change, Musk’s role in reshaping this industry has helped give the world a fighting to chance to avoid the worst of climate impacts.
As if that’s not enough, Tesla’s work on electric vehicles has also vastly accelerated energy storage deployment of lithium ion batteries, which are central to decarbonizing the electric grid along with intermittent renewables. What’s more, Tesla now has the promise to dramatically scale up heat pumps, an important all-electric means of heating and cooling spaces. The company has improved upon them for use in vehicles, with enormous upside for expansion to buildings.
And not to mention Tesla also has a solar division. Though it has admittedly languished since Musk purchased Solar City from his cousin a few years ago, in the long run solar panels pair perfectly with home battery storage and electric vehicles for consumers.
But all of that progress could be undermined going forward by Musk’s purchase of Twitter. The specific risk for the climate change fight is that Musk might become “distracted” running Twitter (i.e. absent at critical times, with his mental energy no longer devoted to providing critical vision and direction for the company, especially since he already runs a space rocket and tunneling company). If that happens, could Tesla lose its competitive edge?
Perhaps worse, Musk’s deal to take Twitter private is heavily leveraged, and his Tesla stock provides much of the collateral. If Twitter starts to sputter (the company lost $493 million last year, and Musk himself has acknowledged that this purchase is not about making money) and Musk defaults or has to sell, will that devalue Tesla stock, depriving that company of capital for its much-needed global expansion?
On the upside, given his track record, we could assume that Musk has the potential to work some magic for a social media site plagued by controversies over free speech and how it handles misinformation. If Musk can instill more confidence among social media users across the political spectrum in Twitter, while improving debates that counter climate misinformation, perhaps Twitter can be a force for positive climate education. But given the partisan entrenchment of views on both climate policy and science, this seems unlikely to occur.
If by some miracle Musk can turn Twitter into a cash cow, then another upside is that his additional resulting wealth could help bolster not only his proven companies like Tesla but potentially provide him extra funds to invest in new clean tech start-ups that could help reduce emissions in other industries. You never know.
On balance, a better Twitter could be a positive force for society. But given Musk’s key role in the climate fight, it’s hard to see the upside for the critical clean technology we need to reduce emissions and stave off the worst of climate change.
Of course, Musk is free to do what he wants with his billions. And he’s already arguably contributed more to the climate fight than any other company leader. But in the long run, a fight over social media won’t matter much if the world doesn’t get a handle on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Tonight on State of the Bay, we’ll talk about why fighting crime in San Francisco is more challenging than ever. Joining us will be Deepak Premkumar, Research Fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).
We’ll also learn about the latest UN report on climate change impacts and what it means for the Bay Area, with Dr. Patrick Gonzalez, forest ecologist and climate change scientist at UC Berkeley.
Finally, we’ll hear from an underwater portrait photographer Erena Shimoda and find out how she’s helping trauma survivors.
What would you like to ask our guests? Post a comment here, tweet us @StateofBay, send an email to stateofthebay@kalw.org or leave a voicemail at (415) 580-0718.
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. You can also call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show.
As 2021 draws to a close, I wanted to share some climate optimism. Climate and energy writer Dave Roberts interviewed carbon market analyst Kingsmill Bond, who is incredibly bullish on the long-term prospects for clean technology and bearish on fossil fuels.
In fact, he believes the world reached peak demand for fossil fuel, including coal and oil and gas, back in 2019, and that even as demand recovers, it won’t go beyond this peak. Meanwhile, clean technologies are plummeting in price and cost of deployment.
It’s worth reading the transcript of the full interview, but some highlights are below.
First, Bond notes that four of the crucial clean technologies (solar PV, wind, batteries, and electrolyzers to convert surplus electricity into hydrogen) are on established learning curves (the amount that their costs drop for every doubling in deployment) at between 16 and 34 percent. In practice, that means this already-cheap energy source is “a) going to get cheaper, b) going to spread globally, and then c) be followed up by these other technologies, also on learning curves, which will then provide us with the energy that we need at much lower cost.”
Second, he describes how fossil fuel incumbents are already pretty much on a death spiral. Specifically, he cites how legacy automakers were unprepared for the increasing shift toward new electric vehicles over old internal combustion engine (ICE) models:
You then look at the cost curves of the new stuff, and you realize that you’re going to have to change. You have to reallocate your capital out of ICE [internal combustion engine] cars and into electric vehicles. Meanwhile, you figure out that you’ve got continuous decline now coming for your ICE car sales, so suddenly, your ICE factory is a liability, not an asset. Furthermore, as your sales of ICE cars start to drop, you’ve got to allocate the same fixed-cost structure over a smaller number of cars, and your cost per unit increases. This is economics 101.
That’s what happens to the old people. What then happens to the new people, Tesla and BYD and the EV makers, is, as they produce more cars, the costs of the batteries fall because of these learning curves. As costs fall, demand increases, and as demand increases, they’re taking more market share, and they can then go to the second feedback loop, which is the financial markets.
Tesla can go to the financial markets and in an afternoon they can raise several billion dollars and build a new factory in Berlin, which increases their capacity to build at the same time the fossil fuel sector is finding it very difficult to raise capital, and is obliged by investors to change their strategic direction — as we saw, famously, with Engine No. 1.
The reason these incumbents struggle to adapt is relatively simple:
The answer is, incumbents, first of all, try and resist change. Then they struggle to put capital into these new technologies, because they’re not sufficiently profitable. You saw lots of examples of the oil center saying that over the last decade: we’re not going to put our money into solar and wind because we can get a 20 percent IRR on oil against a 5 percent IRR on solar. Why would we? The problem, then, is that by the time this stuff does get profitable and starts to eat into their old business, it’s too late, and other people have moved into this area. That’s exactly what’s happening now in the energy system.
Finally, Bond argues that the potential for cheap and abundant clean energy is massive: “If you look at the technical potential of solar and wind, which has been a lot in the last five years, it’s 100 times our global energy demand today.” It’s hard to imagine just how different our world would be if clean energy was essentially cheap and limitless.
Something to ponder as we head into the new year of 2022, with much work to be done to address climate change. May it be a good one for all of you!
It’s a double-shot of shows on KALW 91.7 FM today, my last two of the year. First, this morning on Your Call’s One Planet Series at 10am PT, we’ll discuss how climate science is being politicized in schools with investigative journalist Katie Worth, author of the riveting new book, Miseducation: How Climate Change Is Taught in America.
In the second half of the show, we’ll cover the mental health impacts of air pollution with reporter Kristina Marusic.
Then tonight at 6pm PT, I’ll be co-hosting State of the Bay to assess recent decisions rejecting or delaying housing projects by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. UC Davis Professor of Law Chris Elmendorf will help us understand the statewide legal implications of these anti-housing decisions, in particular the recent delay of a 500-unit housing development near BART.
Then we’ll discuss the state of the Bay Area’s “slow streets” movement, which close streets to most traffic for improved pedestrian and bike safety. What do you think about these measures? Ask our guests Eillie Anzilotti of the SFMTA and community planner Leah Chambers.
Finally, you’ll hear my interview with with Phil Ginsburg, General Manager of the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, who will discuss some of the holiday festivities available in the city’s public spaces.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 10am PT for Your Call and then again at 6pm PT for State of the Bay. What comments or questions do you have for these guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
On this morning Your Call’s Media Roundtable, we’ll discuss coverage of gerrymandering. From Oregon to Texas, states are finalizing new congressional district maps ahead of the 2022 midterms. According to an analysis by the Washington Post, as of late November, the new maps in 15 states have already netted a double-digit increase in solidly Republican seats compared with previous maps there.
And this week, the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Texas over the state’s redrawn congressional and state legislative districts. The lawsuit alleges that the Texas redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against the state’s “growing minority electorate.” Joining us to discuss will be:
David Daley, journalist, senior fellow for FairVote, and author of Unrigged: How Americans Battled Back To Save Democracy.
Then we’ll cover the Biden administration’s renewable energy policies. According to a new analysis by the nonprofit Public Citizen, the Biden administration’s average monthly permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands are up more than 35% from when Trump took office in 2017. To discuss this and other climate policies, we’ll be joined by:
Sammy Roth, climate and energy reporter at the Los Angeles Times, and writer of the weekly Boiling Point newsletter.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 10am PT. What comments or questions do you have for these reporters? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/55614127/rooftop_solar.0.jpg)
California regulators are in the process of revising the state’s incentives for rooftop solar installations and other small-scale renewables. The current incentives, known as “net energy metering,” compensate local producers for surplus energy fed back into the grid with a full retail credit, rather than a less-expensive wholesale or “avoided cost” rate.
Ratepayer advocates believe this full retail credit is a subsidy for wealthy homeowners who disproportionately have rooftop solar, while some environmental and solar groups argue they are a necessary tool to achieve California’s ambitious climate agenda and promote economic growth.
We’ll hear a debate tonight on the state’s approach to subsidizing this type of renewable energy tonight on State of the Bay at 6pm PT. Joining us will be:
- Severin Borenstein, Director of the Energy Institute at Haas School of Business
- Loretta Lynch, former President of the California Public Utilities Commission
Plus, as the Bay Area starts to emerge from the pandemic, will hunger finally subside? Tanis Crosby, Executive Director of the San Francisco Marin Food Bank, we’ll give us the latest.
And finally, we’ll hear from State of the Bay frequent contributor Lara Bazelon, Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice and Racial Justice Clinics at the University of San Francisco School of Law, about her new novel, “A Good Mother.”
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. Call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show!
President Biden yesterday unveiled his “infrastructure” plan, but it’s really his best and greatest shot to address climate change. I’ll be speaking about the plan and what it means for the climate at 10:20am PT on KQED’s Forum. You can also hear my thoughts on the electric vehicle charging aspect of the plan on yesterday’s NPR Marketplace.
The proposal calls for transformational investments in rail, bridges, and road repair, along with a decarbonized electricity grid, incentives for electric vehicles, an end to fossil fuel subsidies, and home energy retrofits, among other goals. The plan even seeks to end single-family zoning.
Tune in this morning to hear more!
All-electric buildings may soon become the norm, bringing benefits for indoor air quality, public safety, and greenhouse gas emissions. The technology has greatly improved to make this transition feasible: electric heat pumps, electric water heaters and induction cooktop appliances are widely available and becoming increasingly affordable.
But as communities phase out natural gas in buildings, who will be left paying for the existing natural gas infrastructure? For those unable to make the transition, costs will go up. As a result, states like California have an urgent need to develop a strategy for building decarbonization, as our January Berkeley/UCLA Law report on this subject described.
In a new op-ed published yesterday by CalMatters, Ted Lamm and I argue for such a strategy:
Policymakers should begin with high-priority communities, targeting incentives and programs for lower-income communities with the least financial resources and the most to gain from improved air quality; areas with new construction and/or aging gas infrastructure already in need of replacement; communities with an expressed willingness to transition; and areas rebuilding from wildfire damage.
This strategy should include a firm timeline for the transition to complete electrification, in order to limit the risk of developing stranded assets in the natural gas distribution network. Otherwise, these assets could increase costs for a shrinking group of customers who can’t afford to make the switch quickly and could undermine the long-term viability of utility investments and system maintenance.
State leaders should also develop a structured plan for a just transition for gas system workers, including funding and retraining support in fields that pay sustainable wages.
And for more discussion on the topic, here is a recording of a webinar that Berkeley / UCLA Law hosted last month with Michael Colvin of Environmental Defense Fund, California Public Utilities Commissioner Cliff Rechtschaffen, and Abigail Solis of Self Help Enterprises.
