Why should Nevada voters support Question 6 on the November ballot?

In November, voters in Nevada will be asked to decide whether they want to step it up and accelerate the clean electricity transition. The Nevada Renewable Energy Standards Initiative or “Question 6” would raise the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 50% by 2030. Nevada’s current RPS is 25% by 2025 and given that in 2017 nearly 22% of the state’s net electricity generation came from renewable resources, primarily solar and geothermal, the current RPS is unlikely to do much to help Nevada make additional investments in clean electricity. A YES vote on Question 6 is the only way for Nevada voters to guarantee more clean, renewable electricity for their state.

Voting yes on Question 6 will improve air quality

More renewable electricity for Nevada will not only help address climate change, it will reduce dependence on natural gas-fired electricity, which is contributing to the state’s poor air quality. In 2017, natural gas generation supplied a whopping 70% of Nevada’s electricity needs.

This year, the American Lung Association gave Clark and Washoe counties a failing grade “F” for air quality, and Las Vegas and Henderson had the 12th-worst level of smog in the nation out of 227 cities. A study jointly conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), NextGen, and GridLab estimates that a 50% RPS would cut nitrogen oxides (NO_x) emissions from power plants by 55% compared to 2017 levels, and reduce sulfur dioxide (SO₂) emissions by 74%. When power plants emit less NO_X and SO₂, Nevadans breathe less soot and smog, resulting in fewer asthma attacks, ER visits, and premature deaths. That’s why this mom is stepping out and urging people to vote yes on Question 6.

Nevadans want more clean and affordable renewable electricity and the jobs that come with it

According to the 2017 State of the Rockies poll (see question 30), 80% of respondents in Nevada want to encourage the use of solar energy. Why is this? Nevada has world-class solar power generation potential, and Nevadans want to take advantage of this resource. In addition, costs of solar generation have fallen by 78% since 2009 making solar power one of the cheapest—if not the cheapest—electricity resource for the state.  Finally, the NRDC/NextGen/GridLab study also estimates that raising Nevada’s RPS to 50% will support new green-collar jobs. Nevada already supports over 6,500 solar workers. New investments in local solar to meet the RPS could support up to 11,170 new clean energy jobs in Nevada.

The grid can handle more renewables

Opponents of clean energy like to say that wind and solar generation depend on the weather, so they will make the grid unreliable. This is not true. Grid operators are constantly managing for fluctuations in both the supply of and demand for electricity. Large quantities of renewables on the grid make balancing supply and demand more challenging, but we have the tools to handle this.

Making sure renewable installations are spread out, creating financial incentives to shift electricity demand towards times of the day when renewable generation is abundant, and investing in energy storage like the batteries Tesla is building in the Gigafactory near Sparks are all examples of these tools. I’ve written a lot about grid integration solutions for the California RPS and all of the same issues apply to Nevada; folks interested in learning more should check out this blog.

UCS urges Nevada voters to get to the polls early or head to the ballot booth on November 6 and vote YES on Question 6. Check here to find the location and hours for early voting near you (early voting ends on November 2). It’s truly time for Nevada to turn its world-class renewable energy resource into clean electricity that will benefit its residents, economy, and environment.

Rebecca Behrens, 2018 UCS Schneider Fellow

Keep your eyes and ears open for Community Choice Aggregation, already a major player for consumer energy choice in California and spreading rapidly. In the post below, 2018 UCS Schneider Fellow Rebecca Behrens explains how CCAs work, where CCAs are forming, and what you should be on the look-out for as more communities get involved.

It’s late summer, which means ice cream season is coming to an end. A coworker and I have made it a habit of exploring the (many) ice cream shops around our office each week, and for something as simple as ice cream, it’s amazing how many choices we have. I can choose what ice cream I want based on price, proximity, flavor, or even the company’s business practices.

This got me thinking: if I have so many choices for something as simple as ice cream, what about bigger choices in my life—like where my electricity comes from? Like most of the US, I’m served by one utility. If I don’t like the way they’re sourcing electricity or setting rates, I have limited options.

But that story has been changing, in part due to the growth in Community Choice Aggregation (“CCA”). CCAs offer an alternative to traditional utilities and are designed to give communities a voice in where their electricity comes from. In California, many CCAs are striving to provide their customers with more renewable energy at lower costs than traditional utilities. Let’s break down the what, when, where, how and why of this new body.

What are CCAs?

Community Choice Aggregation allows local governments to purchase electricity on behalf of their residents, aggregating the electricity needs of everyone in the community to increase purchasing power.

The investor-owned utility (“utility” or “IOU”) that used to supply and deliver electricity is still there, but it plays a different role. Now, the utility is just in charge of delivering the electricity through its transmission and distribution lines (the utility still owns and maintains the “poles and wires”) and billing customers. This partnership distinguishes a CCA from a municipally-owned utility, which takes over both electricity procurement and electricity delivery (aka the poles and wires).

CCAs are in charge of procuring electricity while the utilities are in charge of delivering the electricity to you. (Source: Cal-CCA)

When and where have CCAs formed?

So far, CCAs are allowed in seven states: Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Illinois and California. Within a state, the decision to form a CCA is up to the community and local government. California has seen the most recent growth in CCAs, so I’ll be using it as an example here, but know that CCA formation and growth looks a bit different in each state.

Most of the seven states that allow Community Choice Aggregation passed bills legalizing CCAs in the early 2000s: California passed AB 117 in 2002. However, it wasn’t until years later, in 2010, that the first CCA in California launched in Marin County.

Since 2010, the number of CCAs in California has grown significantly. In 2016, there were five CCAs serving 915,000 customers. In 2017, there were nine CCAs. By the end of 2018, there will be 20 CCAs, serving over 2.5 million customers. And more local governments are considering the option.

The regions CCAs serve in California as of September 2018. Because CCAs are growing quickly in California, this map changes quickly, too. (Source: Cal-CCA)

Even if no more CCAs launch after 2018, CCAs are expected to serve 16% of the electrical load in California in 2020. But, it’s highly likely more CCAs will launch in the coming years, which could put this number at over 50% in 2020.

How do CCAs work?

In California, once the local government votes to form a CCA, a nonprofit agency is formed to carry out its duties. The agency goes through a rigorous planning process and once the CCA is ready to launch, they line up the customers.

And who are those customers? Anybody who wants to be. CCAs are “opt-out” in California, and in most other states, meaning that the default is for customers to be automatically served by the CCA. Customers have 60 days to opt-out for free and are notified about the change four times before this deadline. After 60 days, customers can opt-out for a fee to account for the power the CCA had bought in advance for them.

And that’s it! Customers are now served by the CCA. In California, if customers were receiving discounts because of particular circumstances, they will automatically continue receiving those discounts. This includes California Alternative Rates for Energy (“CARE”), Family Electric Rate Assistance Program (“FERA”) and Medical Baseline customers. Customers with rooftop solar systems who are on a net energy metering program are automatically enrolled to continue.

In terms of electricity service, as a CCA customer, nothing else changes. Your lights stay on, your TV still works, and your freezer stays cold.

The biggest difference is that the existence of CCAs allow customers to have more of a choice in the type of electricity they receive. Not only can customers choose between being served by the utility or the CCA, but if customers are unhappy with the electricity options or rates offered by their CCA, they can provide feedback to the CCA at its board meetings, which allow for public participation in California.

CCA communities can also benefit from the reinvestment of CCA profits, given that CCAs are nonprofits. CCAs can offer additional programs beyond what the utility offers. These could look like free energy efficiency audits, rebates for electric car charging stations, incentives for low-income customers to install solar, or really any program that helps customers better manage their electricity usage.

In some cases, customers could lose access to programs run by their utility by joining a CCA, although in California, most utility programming is still available to CCA customers. In any case, it’s smart to reach out to your local CCA and ask if you’ll still be eligible for programs you rely on.

Why do CCAs matter?

In California, every CCA (so far) has chosen to provide customers with more renewable energy than the competing utility and has done so at lower rates. However, how much new renewable energy CCAs are contributing to the grid varies a lot from community to community.

The devil is in the details here: A CCA that uses mostly short-term contracts to buy renewable energy or renewable energy credits (“RECs”) is likely buying from projects that already exist. Electricity purchases from existing renewable energy projects do not increase the supply of clean electricity on the grid, and customers that used to consume electricity from those renewable projects may now be consuming electricity from a dirtier source. This is called resource shuffling. On the other hand, a CCA that uses long-term contracts is helping new renewable projects develop, which means that more clean power is being added to the grid.

If you live in an area served by a CCA, it’s up to you to make sure your CCA is sourcing electricity in a way you support and providing programming you can use. Here are some questions you can ask to see how well a CCA is doing:

1. Is the CCA providing more renewable energy than the competing utility, and are they sourcing their renewable energy from long-term contracts for energy and RECs? By buying “bundled” renewable energy through long-term contracts, CCAs can more directly support the development of additional renewable energy projects and add more clean electricity to the grid.
2. Is the CCA making use of local resources and supporting the local community? Having a sustainable workforce policy and hiring locally and from unions can help bring the broader benefits of renewable energy to a community.
3. Is the CCA leveraging grants and their revenue to provide programs designed to help customers reduce or better control their energy use? More renewable energy is just one piece of the puzzle; we need a host of solutions for a clean energy transition. Programs that invest in electric vehicle infrastructure and energy efficiency are equally important.
4. Is the CCA proactively reaching out to its community? Programming needs to be accessible, useful and reach all members of the community—especially those that historically have not received the full benefits of energy programming and renewable energy.

CCAs have the potential to empower (and quite literally power) communities. But it’s up to residents to hold their CCAs accountable and ask them to provide equitable and fair climate solutions. By staying engaged and informed, you can make sure your CCA is providing your community with the best options.

CCAs are a growing movement in California but they aren’t the only way consumers are making choices about their electricity. While not every utility or state offers choices in electricity sourcing, it is worth seeing if yours does. You may even be surprised on what your options are: home in Vermont, through my utility I can choose to buy Cow Power! What sets CCAs apart from other choices is their ability to localize decision making and let communities invest in what is best for themselves, which has made them a powerful new player at the table.

There’s Senate Bill 100 (De León) which would raise the Renewables Portfolio Standard to 60% by 2030 and create a longer-term goal to reach 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045.  Assembly Bill 813 (Holden) would lay the groundwork for the California Independent System Operator (the grid manager for most of the state) to transition to a regional electricity market. Senate Bill 64 (Wieckowski) would improve energy agencies and air regulators’ understanding of how natural gas power plant operations are changing over time and how those changes may impact air quality.

Swirling around all these issues is whether and how the Legislature is going to weigh in this year on utility wildfire liability.

No matter what happens in Sacramento this August, it seems clear to me that California will need to make some big decisions in the coming years. Will we continue our clean energy progress? Will we seek more ambitious solutions as climate change impacts worsen?

Creating a robust, resilient, and low-cost supply of carbon-free electricity is critical to reducing the global warming and air pollution that results from consuming fossil-based sources of energy across many sectors of our economy. Here are 7 issues (in no order of importance) at the top of my mind that I think need to be addressed in the near future:

1. Set a long-term clean electricity goal, but don’t take our eyes off 2030: it takes time to make the necessary investments in carbon-free generation and other supporting infrastructure like transmission lines and the distribution grid. We’ll need long-term signals—like SB 100—to help guide the research and investment that will be needed to make this transition a reality. At the same time, we need to make sure our nearer-term (2020 and 2030) clean energy goals are met in ways that allow Californians to experience the environmental and economic benefits of these early actions.
2. Plan to transition away from natural gas: coal is used less and less in California and by 2020 all direct imports of coal power will be phased out. But we still depend on natural gas generation to meet about a third of our electricity needs and that number will not decline enough without a concerted effort. If Californians truly want to take the carbon out of our electricity sector, we need a plan for how to wean ourselves off this fossil fuel. UCS just released an analysis that we hope begins a longer conversation about how to transition away from gas and how to make sure we go about reducing natural gas generation in the most cost-effective and socially equitable way possible.
3. Make the grid more flexible with clean technology: wind and solar generation vary with weather patterns, which means the clean grid of the future must be flexible enough to adapt to greater variability in electricity supplies. This flexibility needs to come from clean technologies like energy storage, that can control their power output. We also need more strategies, like time varying electricity rates, to shift our electricity use towards times of the day when renewables are most abundant. The debate over AB 813 may be fierce, but regardless of this year’s choice to launch a Western regional grid or not, grid operators in the future need to be able to share resources and access renewables throughout a wider geographic footprint. It’s just more efficient and the grid will be more flexible and able to accommodate more carbon-free electricity if California can sell its excess solar power to other states during the day, and buy excess wind power from its neighbors at night.
4. Unlock the value of distributed energy resources: there are unique and valuable localized benefits to clean energy investments like rooftop solar and small-scale storage that, when installed in the right locations, save us money by postponing or avoiding upgrades to the distribution system. Smaller, more local clean energy resources can make the grid more resilient when a big power plant or transmission line goes down because of extreme weather or some other type of grid emergency. We need a better way to quantify the value of these resources to make paths to market clearer for technology innovators.
5. Do more to reduce carbon in the building sector: heating water and space in California’s homes and buildings with natural gas emits as much global warming pollution as all in-state power plants. And, this doesn’t count methane that leaks from gas pipelines. California’s policies and programs to reduce natural gas usage in buildings lag behind other clean energy efforts. In the next few years, decision makers need to identify ways to lower the cost of technology that can reduce energy use in buildings, and transition away from fossil fuels for the energy we need.
6. Use renewables to charge electric cars: millions of electric vehicles on the road are a key part of the state’s vision for clean energy in the next decade. We need to make sure we charge all these electric cars when renewables are most abundant. This means building new charging infrastructure and creating consumer habits that will maximize daytime charging and staggering when cars draw power from the grid to minimize surges in electricity demand.
7. Make the clean energy transition equitable: Talented and skilled workers will be needed to create California’s clean energy future – in infrastructure, manufacturing, software, construction, maintenance, and more. The public, private, and non-profit sectors, including educational institutions, should collaborate to train and develop the workforce needed to fuel this growth. As new business models for the clean energy grid are developed and tested, workers should benefit from the industry’s growth and be paid fairly.

Advancing all this good stuff will require robust and cross-sectoral communication, information sharing, investment planning, and risk-management processes that engage all stakeholders. This is especially important as California’s electricity and transportation sectors have grown and become more diverse, and as California strives to make deeper cuts to global warming emissions throughout all sectors of its economy, including the goods and services we use.

Legislators and advocates are busy working on the future laws and regulations that will make a clean energy future a reality. But all of us have a part to play in this transition if we want California to be a global leader. All eyes are on California to show the world how to wean millions of people and an enormous economy off fossil fuels. It’s imperative we get this right.

But California also has a lot of natural gas-fired power plants that release greenhouse gas emissions and pollute our air. After the state deregulated its electricity market in 1998, a combination of market manipulation and price caps led to skyrocketing electricity prices and rolling blackouts in 2000 and 2001. To make sure the state would never be left in the dark again, utilities and independent power plant owners built more natural gas power plants.

By the time this new generation capacity came online, the Great Recession was underway, the economy was slowing down and the state had also committed to greater reliance on clean, renewable electricity to address air pollution and climate change concerns. In 2002, renewables supplied just 11 percent of the state’s electricity needs. But in 2011, the state passed a law to reach 33 percent renewables by 2020, and in 2015 increased that to 50 percent by 2030. Today, clean energy advocates, including UCS, are supportive of 100% clean energy goals that would push renewables even higher.

For a while, renewable energy generation and natural gas power plants largely coexisted on the California grid. In some cases, it’s been a symbiotic relationship. The generation patterns of wind and solar are weather-dependent, making it necessary to find additional sources of power to meet energy and grid reliability needs when those resources are not around. In the past, California has used natural gas to play that role.

But as the state doubles down to reduce global warming pollution throughout all sectors of its economy, this means transitioning away from fossil-fueled electricity generation. Clean electricity will be a central strategy for reducing emissions associated with traditional electricity use as well as reducing emissions associated with transportation and buildings. Replacing vehicles currently running on gasoline and diesel with vehicles powered by renewable electricity will significantly reduce air pollution. In addition, the state now depends on natural gas to heat most homes and buildings; affordable renewable electricity will also provide a cleaner fuel source for those needs.

California still uses a little bit of coal, but most of it will be phased out by 2020. In 2017, natural gas still supplied about a third of state electricity demand. If our goal is to decarbonize the electricity sector and reduce air pollution, we must continue to ramp up renewables while at the same time turn down the gas.

How much gas could California retire?

Click to enlarge.

To understand what a cost-effective transition away from natural gas might look like, UCS analyzed the operations of the 89 combined-cycle (CCGT) and peaker natural gas plants located in the territory of the California Independent System Operation (CAISO), the grid operator that manages the electricity flow for about 80 percent of the state. UCS used an investment optimization model to identify how much gas generation could be economically retired between 2018 and 2030 while meeting the state’s mandated global warming emission reduction target and maintaining grid reliability.

According to the UCS analysis, California does not need to build any additional gas generation capacity in the CAISO territory to meet 2030 energy or grid reliability needs. In fact, nearly 24 percent of both CCGT and peaker capacity could be retired without negatively affecting grid reliability. This translates into 28 natural gas plants retiring by 2030. In addition, 12 of these plants are located in communities that are disproportionately burdened by air pollution.

In addition, the UCS analysis found that many more peaker plants could be retired if clean energy investments—like energy storage—were strategically located in certain areas on the grid that need local generation capacity to keep the grid reliable during power plant or transmission line failures.

What happens to the remaining plants?

UCS also analyzed how the operations of the remaining natural gas plants by 2030 would change over time.  UCS’s results indicate that even as natural gas generation decreases over time as California ramps up renewable generation, many natural gas power plants may turn off and on much more frequently in 2030 than they did in 2018, potentially resulting in an increase in criteria air pollutant emissions like nitrogen oxides or NOx. This is because more solar generation will be available in the middle of the day, making natural gas generation less needed.  But in the evening, as the sun sets, gas plants will have to be turned back on to meet evening electricity demand, unless cleaner technologies like other renewables, energy storage, and shifting load to reduce demand are substituted. In the most likely 2030 scenario, 16 of the 23 remaining CCGT plants modeled would go from starting and stopping close to zero times in 2018 to at least 200 times per year by 2030.

Many combined-cycle natural gas plants will start and stop much more frequently in 2030 compared with today. Some plants will go from close to zero starts today to starting once nearly every day of the year.

This increase in natural gas cycling could be a problem for air quality and the communities living near these plants because the NOx emissions associated with starting up a natural gas power plant can be much higher than a plant constantly running in steady-state operations. More analysis is required to understand how changing gas plant operations will impact air pollution and public health, in order to avoid a potential unintended consequence of more air pollution from natural gas plants as the state strives to reach future renewable energy and climate change goals.

In order to start getting a handle on how the natural gas fleet is changing in real-time, UCS is co-sponsoring Senate Bill 64, which would make more accessible the data associated with the hourly startup, shutdown, and cycling of California’s gas fleet and require local air districts to analyze how changing power plant operations may be impacting air quality. SB 64 would also require state energy agencies to conduct a study that plans for how the state will reduce natural gas generation and accelerate the eventual retirement of gas plants, placing a priority on reducing natural gas generation in communities most impacted by air pollution.

Steps California can take today to reduce reliance on natural gas generation

• Shift more evening electricity demand to daytime hours and target energy efficiency to lower evening demand.
• Invest in more energy storage that saves excess solar generation for use after sundown.
• Invest in a more diverse portfolio of renewable generation technologies to spread clean energy generation evenly throughout all hours of the day to reduce evening ramp needs and the need to cycle in-state gas plants.
• Allow California’s grid operators greater access to clean energy generation resources outside the state to help further reduce the need to cycle in-state gas plants.
• Target specific locations for clean energy investment so that new generation resources can meet local capacity needs, which can hasten the retirement of natural gas.

If we’re truly committed to reducing carbon emissions, cutting air pollution and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, then we must move away from natural gas in a way that both makes sense for the communities most affected and keeps everyone’s lights on. All eyes are on California to show the world how to wean millions of people and an enormous economy off fossil fuels. It’s imperative we get this right.

——————————–

On June 13th, the Union of Concerned Scientists worked with the California 100% Clean Energy Coalition to bring more than 100 people to Sacramento to lobby in support of Senate Bill 100 (De León) and California’s transition away from fossil fuels. SB 100 would accelerate the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 60% by 2030 and require that the remaining 40% of the electricity mix come from RPS-eligible resources or zero-carbon resources by 2045.

Last year, SB 100 passed the California State Senate, but stalled in the Assembly. A day after lobby day, the Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy scheduled SB 100 for a hearing on July 3rd!

Meeting 100% of California’s electricity needs with zero-carbon resources is a bold goal, but achieving it is within reach. In 2016 California received about 25% of its electricity from eligible renewables. Another 19% came from a combination of nuclear and large hydropower, which are zero-carbon resources that would be eligible under SB 100. Statewide we are already on track to exceed the current RPS requirement of 50% renewables by 2030.

California has led the nation in the transition from coal to clean energy resources and demonstrated that a cleaner electricity system need not come at the price of a growing economy. We have the technology to run a flexible and efficient grid with even more renewables, and the prices for energy storage are coming down. The time is right to double down on this clean energy momentum.

Climate change is the biggest threat to the health and economic stability of Californians. With more extreme weather events threatening the livelihoods of frontline communities, it is time to pass legislation that will prevent further damage to these communities. Cleaning up our electricity grid will also provide a blueprint for significant cuts in global warming emissions.

———————————————————–

On March 4, California set a new record by supplying nearly half of the state’s electricity needs from renewables. That’s just the latest payoff of the state’s admirable clean energy investments, thanks to plentiful solar power and strong policies like the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS).

But California still relies on fossil fuels, via natural gas power plants, to provide 33 percent of annual electricity needs. In fact, in-state natural gas generation comprises about 10 percent of greenhouse gas emissions statewide. Natural gas–fired power plants supply a substantial portion of California’s current electricity demand and support grid reliability, natural gas generation will continue to play a role on California’s electricity grid for some time. But reaching our long-term energy and climate goals means ramping up renewables and at the same time turning down our gas. (More information about the role of natural gas in California’s clean energy future can be found in UCS’s new analysis.)

In many cases, gas plants will be turned off during the day, when renewable generation is most abundant. However, as the sun sets, solar generation decreases and natural gas plants must be turned on—or, if they’re already operating, they must ramp up generation to meet the evening demand spike.

The solution to this evening ramp problem is to:

• Build cleaner alternatives to gas that can produce power in the evening
• Build more energy storage
• Use load shifting and increased energy efficiency to reduce evening electricity demand
• Enhance coordination between grid operators to gain access to a larger pool of resources to provide evening electricity needs

Many of the state’s natural gas power plants were constructed to provide baseload power, meaning they were designed to stay on all day, nearly every day. Most of California’s natural gas plants were not designed to be turned on and off daily, nor was their frequent cycling anticipated in their original air quality permits. A natural gas plant starting up can produce as much as 30 times more nitrogen oxide (NO_x) emissions than it will after it has been running for a few hours.

Nitrogen oxides are the particles visible in smog. They irritate lung tissue, exacerbate asthma, and make people more susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases like pneumonia and influenza. Starting up gas plants more often could increase air pollution concentrations and should be considered in their air permits.

To make sure California’s clean energy transition also reduces criteria air pollution from natural gas plants, UCS is proudly co-sponsoring legislation—Senate Bill 64 by Senator Bob Wieckowski—with the California Environmental Justice Alliance, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, and the Clean Power Campaign. The legislation aims to do three things:

• Require data that is currently reported to the US EPA on facility hourly startups, shutdowns and cycling to be made available for local air districts and the public on the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) website. The data reported to EPA is not in a user-friendly format and it’s difficult to ascertain how power plant operations are changing over time without some complex analysis. More accessible information about how power plants are actually operating, as opposed to how they were predicted to operate when they were first permitted, is an essential first step to better decisions about how dispatch of natural gas power plants are impacting local air quality.
• Require local air districts to report on hourly emissions from cycling, impacts of cycling on ambient air, and current permit limitations related to cycling.
• Require the state agencies to work together to identify ways to reduce global warming and criteria air pollution emissions from natural gas plants, with a priority on reductions in communities most impacted by air pollution.

California is charting new territory for other states and countries in terms of the level of renewables on the grid, and making a dramatic shift away from natural gas generation will not happen overnight. But, Californians are already starting to feel the impacts of climate change, and communities in California breathe some of the unhealthiest air in the country.

For these reasons, it’s critical that the state shift to cleaner sources for all of its energy needs including electricity. The state needs better tools to understand how changing natural gas plant operations may impact air quality. SB 64 is an important step towards ensuring that California’s ramp-up in clean generation does not lead to the unintended consequence of frequently cycling natural gas power plants in a way that leads to increased air pollution.

Right now, California relies heavily on natural gas to back up the grid during the times of day or seasons of the year when solar and wind power are not as readily available. But that’s not a sustainable solution both for climate change reasons, and because ramping the gas plants up and down frequently is not good for air quality or the people breathing that air.

In California, one better option to improve grid reliability, which is getting much attention from proponents and opponents right now, is regional energy market integration—also known as the creation of a western grid.

Who keeps the lights on today?

Grid reliability across the country is managed by entities called balancing authorities. These balancing authorities keep the lights on by balancing electricity supply and demand every four seconds. Regional reliability in the West is currently managed by 38 separate balancing authorities (Westerners like their independence, and that is reflected in the fragmentation of western balancing authorities). Compare the West to the Eastern Interconnection, where the majority of the power east of the Rockies is managed by six regional transmission organizations (RTOs).

There are 38 balancing authorities just within the western interconnection. Source: Western Electricity Coordinating Council

If balancing authorities can pool their resources together into one western grid, we will need fewer power sources to keep the system reliable. This has the added benefit of keeping costs low and making it easier to integrate more renewables into the electricity grid.

It’s not that there is zero coordination in the West today among the balancing authorities. California currently receives about 30% of its electricity from outside the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the largest balancing authority in California. But as we increasingly rely more on solar and wind, the CAISO will need more tools in its toolbox to make sure we don’t rely too heavily on the California gas fleet to keep the lights on.

A regional market looks good from several angles

The tool currently being discussed at the California Legislature is the integration of the CAISO with other balancing authorities in the West to create a western independent system operator. Combining the resources of several western balancing authorities into a larger, more integrated regional energy market will make it possible to go farther and faster with renewable deployment in three important ways:

1. Bigger, cleaner supply: A regional grid makes it easier to access flexible generation from a larger pool of resources, which will make it easier to meet electricity demands when renewables are not as plentiful (like when solar generation declines in the evening).
2. Cheaper options: A regional grid helps California take advantage of low-cost renewables in other states where solar and wind make environmental and economic sense to build. More states equal more clean energy.
3. Less waste: A regional grid helps California access a larger energy market to absorb the excess solar generation California customers cannot consume or is not cost-effective to store.

But is it a silver bullet?

There are lots of different ways California can create its low-carbon electricity future. There are efforts underway now to shift more electricity demand to times when renewables are most abundant, build more energy storage and local distributed resources to reduce congestion, make the grid more resilient, and reduce the need to rely on natural gas peaker plants, especially ones in disadvantaged communities. Efforts to establish a western regional energy market should not detract from these important efforts. We need all of it. And in some ways these strategies are even more important than a regional market for accomplishing certain climate and clean air objectives, like reducing the need to rely on specific in-state natural gas plants that provide local capacity.

Regional integration is not a silver bullet to our energy woes. But every day that we add more solar and wind power and come closer to reaching our climate goals, we need more flexibility on our grid to show the rest of the country and world that a clean energy transition can happen.

None of those other clean energy strategies can provide the level of flexibility that a regional energy market can.

What would a western energy market mean for coal?

California enacted a policy in 2006 called the Emissions Performance Standard which has helped to dramatically reduce the amount of electricity California receives from individual coal plants in the West. But coal generation also makes it into California’s power supply by way of unspecified market purchases for bundles of electricity, which is different than electricity purchases from specific plants. Unfortunately, today there’s not much we can do about that through direct California regulations.

However, one thing we can do, which has been the most important driver for coal plant retirements across this country, is expose that generation to more market competition from cheaper resources, like renewables. Having access to a western regional energy market is going to make it much easier for California to buy and build more renewables and help drive dirty coal off the market.

A regional grid also has the benefit of added transparency. Coal that currently makes it to California as unspecified power would have to be disclosed if the plants were located in a western ISO. Right now, our cap and trade program is forced to assign unspecified market purchases a carbon cost that reflects a lower carbon content than coal because we can’t actually see which plants are providing that generation. If we can see the coal, we can accurately assign its carbon value if that electricity is serving California load.

It’s complicated

I don’t want to give the impression that integrating western balancing authorities is an easy step. The CAISO board of governors is appointed by the governor of California and confirmed by the State Senate. If a western ISO is created, the board of governors will not all be California political appointees and that makes some people nervous.

But regional integration is a tool the CAISO needs. It will further expand the market for renewables and will help push California closer to our 100% clean energy goals.

But lately, the weather in California and electric sector policy developments seem unseasonably hot. For example, it’s currently 75 degrees outside my office in Oakland. And below are some of the things happening in the policy world that also seem particularly “hot”:

CPUC approves a 2030 clean energy blueprint.

Late last week, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a blueprint laying out the electricity sector investments through 2030 that will be necessary to reach greenhouse gas reduction goals consistent with the statewide requirement to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

This system-level blueprint is the first phase of what’s called the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP); the next step is for all investor-owned utilities (IOU) and community choice aggregators (CCA) to submit their individual plans, which are due in August. More information about the IRP and individual IOU and CCA progress can be found here. The publicly-owned utilities (POUs) in the state will submit their plans to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and progress can be tracked here.

UCS conducted analysis in the IRP proceeding to underscore a key blind spot in the CPUC’s own work: the fact that all of the gas generation capacity that exists today was assumed to still be around in 2030 to provide energy and grid services.

It’s well known that California has an excess of natural gas generation capacity on the grid, and it remains a significant source of global warming pollution in California. We built a lot of natural gas plants in the 90s and early 2000s, and we don’t need it all now. Our own analysis showed that a significant portion of the natural gas peaker generation capacity may not have much value to the grid in 2030. But, we also know that some gas will be important for reliability through 2030.

The question is, which plants stay and which plants go? The IRP decision underscores the need to understand the role of gas in California’s clean energy future, to make sure that the inevitable downsizing of the fleet does not jeopardize grid reliability, and benefits people that are most impacted by gas plant pollution, especially “fenceline” communities that bear the brunt of this pollution. UCS is planning some additional analysis on this issue, so stay tuned.

Big bills are being discussed in Sacramento.

Senate Bill (SB) 100, a bill that would set a bold and achievable target of getting 100% of California’s electricity from carbon-free resources by 2045 is still alive, and waiting to be taken up for a vote in the Assembly. Although there is a lot of public support for SB 100, the policy is getting hung up by potential amendments that deal with the treatment of distributed energy resources. UCS is trying to do what it can to break that logjam and in the meantime, communicate to the Assembly that we’d like to see SB 100 move forward without additional amendments.

Assembly Bill (AB) 813 is a bill that would make it possible for the California Independent System Operator (CAISO)—which operates the grid that serves about three quarters of California’s electricity needs—to expand and include other western states. Pivoting California’s energy market into one that’s west-wide is ambitious and complicated, but worth the effort. Expanding the pool of resources that a grid operator has to manage the system is one of the most cost-effective ways to incorporate more wind and solar generation onto the electricity system.

Energy storage and small-scale renewables are giving natural gas a run for its money.

In early January, the CPUC issued a resolution that authorizes PG&E to hold competitive solicitations for energy storage or “preferred resources” (e.g. demand response and distributed solar) to meet local reliability requirements that have previously been met with gas power plants. This decision, combined with the CEC’s recent decision to reject NRG’s request to build a natural gas peaker plant in the Oxnard, is evidence of what will hopefully become a very significant shift away from the assumption that gas plants are the best and most cost-effective way to provide grid reliability services in the future.

These are just three examples of major clean energy advancements that have unfolded in the last six months. And, many decisions are still developing about whether the state will pass SB 100 and nearer-term plans we’ll need in order to move towards a cleaner grid. Clearly, there is more work to do. But there’s no doubt in my mind that we are making meaningful progress on these “hot topics,” and UCS will be working to make sure California continues its clean energy momentum and climate leadership to “cool down” global warming.

What does the solar tariff do?

The decision imposes a 30% tariff on imported cells and modules in 2018, and declines 5% each year for 4 years, settling at 15% by 2022. The first 2.5 GW of imports are excluded from the tariff every year. GTM Research estimates that a 30% tariff amounts to an additional $0.10-$0.15/watt. For those wanting more details on the tariff and its potential implications for the US solar industry, SEIA put together an informative frequently asked questions webpage.

What does this mean for California?

California has the largest solar market in the country and accounts for more than one-third of workers in the US solar industry.

Source: Solar Jobs Census 2016, Solar Foundation

More than half of those jobs are installing solar modules, which means that these workers become vulnerable, solar costs rise, and as a result fewer people decide to put solar panels on their homes and businesses.

Solar jobs and solar installations have grown rapidly in California in the past few years because we have strong policies in place to promote clean energy investments, but also because scaled-up solar cell manufacturing around the world has helped bring prices down dramatically, making solar PV competitive–and sometimes cheaper–than natural gas generation.

Source: Lazard; Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis 2017

If the Trump Administration wants to protect US workers, making things more expensive for the great majority of the solar industry is not the way to go. According to the Solar Foundation’s 2016 National Solar Jobs Census, the solar industry created jobs in 2016, 17 times faster than the rate of job growth for the overall economy, and accounted for nearly 2% of the 2.07 million jobs added by all US employers in 2016, equal to one in every fifty new US jobs.

Is this really about saving a few thousand solar jobs or about stalling meaningful progress to lower greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change? To me, it looks like another reason why California’s leaders and not the federal government must continue to lead the world on climate change and clean energy policies.

Since Friday was the deadline to move bills for the regular 2017 legislative session, the bill is stalled but not dead. In fact, Assembly member Chris Holden, the chair of the committee for which the bill failed to be brought for a vote, has said the issues will be revisited in 2018.

Let’s take stock of where we are today: in 2016 California received about 25% of its electricity from eligible renewables. Another 19% came from a combination of nuclear and large hydropower, which are zero-carbon resources that would be eligible under SB 100. Statewide we are already on track to exceed the current RPS requirement of 50% by 2030. In the past several years California has made great strides to continue its position as a worldwide clean energy leader, and current policies in place ensure that the momentum will continue.

I am disappointed, but not discouraged. I spent a good bit of time working on SB 100 this year, and to me the fact that we couldn’t pass it in one year is not cause for despair. As I’ve said before, setting a goal to completely decarbonize California’s electricity sector by 2045 is bold and aspirational, and it should not be a surprise that a big new energy policy will take multiple legislative sessions to hammer out some of the details.

I am also encouraged that conversations at the end of the year were not about whether a zero-carbon electricity grid is the right path for California’s future but rather what that path should look like. I look forward to continuing the discussion and negotiation in January when the legislature returns. Reducing carbon emissions and air pollution by transitioning away from fossil fuels is one of the most important actions our country and world must take to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. While California’s share of global emissions is relatively small, transitioning completely away from fossil fuel-based electricity for the world’s sixth-largest economy would break new, important ground for other states and countries to follow. 2018 should be an exciting year.

A total solar eclipse happens about every 18 months, but most of the time the moon’s shadow appears in remote places where very few are around to witness the spectacle. The coming August eclipse will be the first in the nation’s history to completely occur over the continental United States.

Source: LA Times

Given that the US, and especially states like California, are using more and more solar power to meet electricity needs, the prospect of a temporary moon shadow has caught the attention of electricity grid operators as well.

California currently receives more than 8% of its annual electricity needs from large-scale photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal plants. The state also has more than 5 GW of small-scale PV (rooftop solar) installed—meeting approximately 2% of annual electricity demand—and that number is growing rapidly. On some days, solar energy generation has supplied as much as 40% daily electricity needs. So, it’s not surprising that the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) is looking into the effects the eclipse will have on generation that day.

CAISO expects generation from large-scale solar plants to start dropping around 9 a.m. and be reduced by about 64% at the height of the eclipse (assuming it’s a clear morning and potential solar generation is not already reduced by cloud cover). Output from rooftop solar systems will also drop appreciably. Once the eclipse is over, it will take about 90 minutes for solar generation to return to its pre-eclipse level.

Source: CAISO

Why the eclipse is not a problem for the grid

So, is losing all that solar energy during the eclipse a big deal for the grid? Turns out, no. Grid operators routinely plan for events where major power sources or transmission lines are lost unexpectedly because of a storm or equipment failure. The eclipse is a rare, significant reduction in solar power, but because it is predictable it is not like an unexpected failure or shut down.

Grid operators will have a range of options at hand while the sun takes a brief vacation. Since California had a wet winter, we can ramp hydropower up and down as needed. CAISO can also use natural gas generation to provide additional grid flexibility, though that fossil power would emit greenhouse gas emissions.

However, many clean energy nerds, including me, are hoping that we can back-fill the lost solar power by harnessing the power of our own energy flexibility and using less power during the 2-hour eclipse window. The California Public Utilities Commission is asking all Californians to pledge to use slightly less electricity during the eclipse to reduce the need to rely more on fossil fuels like natural gas.

From the caleclipse.org website:

“While our utilities and grid operator have all the tools necessary to manage the grid during the eclipse, what if millions of Californians stepped in to allow our hard working sun to take a break, rather than relying on expensive and inefficient natural gas peaking power plants.

The ‘Do Your Thing for the Sun’ campaign is an effort to engage Californians and demonstrate that when we come together to do one small thing to reduce energy usage, we can have a major impact on our environment.”

Take the pledge here.

CAISO and other grid operators around the country have been planning for the eclipse for months, so rest easy and enjoy the totality. (That is, of course, unless you happen to be on a solar-powered train with no brakes, in which case you should plan accordingly.)

Right now, much attention is focused on the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2017 (“SB 100” for short). SB 100 would accelerate the state’s primary renewable energy program—the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)—which was created to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and improve air quality. The RPS currently requires every utility in the state to source 50% of its electricity sales from renewables by 2030.

The program has been a major driver of renewable energy development since its inception in 2002, and has helped us significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air pollution associated with electricity generation. In 2016, California generated approximately 25% of its electricity from RPS-eligible renewables like solar, wind, geothermal, bioenergy, and small hydropower.

California renewable energy mix in 2016. Source: California Energy Commission

SB 100 would accelerate the RPS requirement to 60% by 2030. Getting to 60% renewables by 2030 is certainly achievable. Many of the major electricity providers in the state are already on track to meet or exceed the 50% RPS; raising it to 60% by 2030 will help take advantage of the renewable energy federal tax credits that are set to expire or significantly step down between 2019 and 2022.

SB 100 would also establish a path to decarbonize the remaining electricity used in California (aka the 40% not subject to the RPS).  It does this by directing the state’s energy agencies to study and plan for an electricity grid that utilizes 100% “zero-carbon” resources by 2045.

In other words, 60% of California’s electricity would be generated by RPS-eligible renewables while the remaining 40% would be generated by additional renewables or other types of electricity generation that don’t qualify under the RPS, but also don’t require the combustion of fossil fuels. For example, California’s existing fleet of large hydropower facilities is not RPS-eligible, but would count as “zero carbon.”

Powering the most populous and prosperous state in the country on 100% zero-carbon electricity is bold and aspirational, but also achievable. Technology is already available to help the grid to run on very large quantities of renewables, and the cost of investments needed to make this happen are coming down.

One of the biggest challenges we must overcome to reach a zero-carbon electricity future is eliminating our dependence on natural gas to provide energy and grid reliability services. Natural gas-fired generation still makes up 36 percent of California’s electricity mix and emits greenhouse gases and air pollutants.

To jump-start the research effort to securely ease us off fossil fuels, our electricity providers and energy regulatory agencies need a signal from the legislature that Californians demand a carbon-free future.

We have a lot at stake. As climate change intensifies, peoples’ health and economic stability are being threatened by extreme heat, water shortages, forest fires, and sea level rise. Showing the world how to run a grid on 100% carbon-free generation  would provide a blueprint for significant cuts in global warming emissions. In addition, California continues to have the worst air quality of any state in the country; by electrifying the transportation sector with carbon-free electricity, we can cut the largest source of toxic air pollution in the state—cars and trucks.

California has firmly established itself as a clean energy leader by reaching for goals that at first seemed unattainable. At first glance, a 100% zero-carbon electricity goal may seem like a moonshot. But I say let’s do it.  We won’t know how close the stars actually are unless we reach for them.

Governor Brian Sandoval waited until the very last minute to decide, but ultimately vetoed AB 206, a bill that would have raised Nevada’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 40% by 2030. The current RPS is 25% by 2025.

On June 3rd, AB 206 passed the final hurdle in the legislature with bipartisan support. Doing so sent a clear message that Nevada lawmakers want the state to benefit from cleaner air and more renewable energy jobs.

Raising the RPS would also help Nevada diversify its electricity portfolio, which is extremely heavy on natural gas, making residents vulnerable to shortages and price spikes.

UCS Western States Director Adrienne Alvord with Assemblyman Chris Brooks during the Interwest Energy Alliance lobby day.

All eyes were on the Silver State this year as the legislature debated and ultimately passed 11 bills to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the electricity sector. Despite the RPS veto, 9 of those bills were signed into law. They will help the state advance electric vehicles, boost the adoption of rooftop solar, and accelerate energy efficiency efforts. These new laws are significant wins for the state and should be celebrated. But Governor Sandoval’s veto of the 40% RPS bill will prevent the state from unleashing its full economic development potential.

Kudos to Assemblyman Chris Brooks for spearheading this bill and to UCS members for sending action alerts to their representatives to support Nevada’s acceleration towards a cleaner energy future. Tonight’s veto is certainly a blow, but I have no doubt that Nevada will be motivated to revisit this issue in the near future. The state’s public support for renewables continues to grow, and will soon be hard to ignore.

The Department of Energy released a graphic last week that highlights six facts we may not know about coal, as if cheerleading the coal industry will minimize the fact that coal-fired electricity is the largest source of global greenhouse gas emissions and a significant contributor to air pollution that makes us sick.

Compared to where many states and cities across this country are headed, the focus on coal is at best nostalgic and misguided, and at worst desperate and dangerous. There is no question; coal is on the decline.

Contrast that silly graphic with a new report also released last week indicating that the transition to clean energy is picking up speed across the country. The 2017 Clean Tech Leadership Index report by Clean Edge ranks activities and investments in the clean-tech space (think electric vehicle adoption and investments in energy efficiency and renewables). For the second year in a row, wind and solar comprised almost 17 gigawatts of new power sources in 2016, representing more than half (61 percent to be exact) of all new electricity generation capacity installed in the US.

Three states, Iowa, South Dakota, and Kansas, generate at least 30 percent of their electricity from renewables and another three states, Oklahoma, California, and North Dakota, get at least 20 percent.

Perhaps most surprising and exciting is the number of cities across the country that are investing in clean electricity and transportation, and benefiting from the jobs and capital that come with it. The California cities of San Francisco, San Jose San Diego, and Los Angeles were standouts in the reports’ top-ten metro rankings. Others making it into the overall top-ten were Washington D.C., Portland, Boston, Seattle, Salt Lake City, and Austin.

But just looking at the map below shows that clean energy leadership is not confined to the coasts nor to blue states.

Source: Clean Edge, Inc.

Evidence of California’s clean energy leadership was on full display last week when it broke two new renewable energy generation records. On Tuesday, May 16, renewable energy supplied an all-time high of 41 percent of total electricity demand for the day, and on Saturday, May 13th, more than two-thirds of demand were satisfied by renewables during the 2pm hour.

The graph below from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) shows how much of the state’s electricity came from renewables for each hour of the day on the 16th.

Hourly production in CAISO footprint for May 16, 2017. Source: CAISO Renewables Watch

The Clean Edge report is just the latest proof that cities and states around the country are setting their sights on clean energy, despite the Trump Administration’s misguided affection for coal. Our recent analysis Clean Energy Momentum: Ranking State Progress is further confirmation of that (encouraging) trend. California continues to blaze ahead and break new records, but many other areas in the country are picking up speed.

In an age where basic environmental issues are becoming hyper-political, I am encouraged by a new analysis UCS released that proves just how much progress we’ve made across the country to lower pollution—both the kind that makes us sick and the kind that warms our atmosphere—by investing in electric vehicles, energy efficiency, and clean, renewable sources of electricity.

Wind power on the San Gorgonio Pass. Source: Flickr/Clark

The report looks at clean energy progress across all 50 states, and ranks them in terms of leadership on a number of policies and programs, including advancement of renewable energy and energy efficiency, jobs created in clean energy, and programs that limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Not surprisingly, California earned the top spot overall by performing well in a number of categories that were analyzed, including placing first on electric vehicle adoption and second on the amount of residential rooftop solar per capita. It also ranked high on other metrics, such as electricity savings, clean energy jobs per capita, and the strength of its renewable energy and global warming emissions policies.

Following California were Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Oregon, Maine, Washington, New York, and Iowa. Progress was so widespread that 35 states demonstrated enough clean-energy momentum to score in the top 10 in at least one metric, while 21 states scored in the top 10 in at least three categories.

While California’s leadership on renewable energy and energy efficiency already serve as a model for other states, the Golden State should not rest on its laurels. The state has a large economy—the sixth or seventh largest in the world depending on the year. Investments we make here ripple throughout the world. With so much at stake or stalled at the federal level, California will play an extremely important role in making sure clean energy momentum across the country does not lose ground.

Unfortunately, the state’s clean energy progress has stalled, as the state’s main policy driver, the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), greatly underestimates the amount of renewable energy potential in the state. The current standard would only require that utilities source 25% of their electricity from renewables by 2025.

Fortunately, there’s a proposed bill that could help. Assembly Bill (AB) 206 would increase Nevada’s RPS to 50% by 2030 with a pathway to 80% by 2040. Passing AB 206 would place Nevada in the camp with other clean energy leaders like Hawaii, Vermont, California, Oregon and Maine, and send a strong signal to the clean energy and clean technology industries that Nevada is open for business.

A solar PV array in Gerlach, NV. Photo: BlackRockSolar

There are several reasons why the time is right for Nevada to take the next step on clean energy:

Nevada has one of the best solar resources in the country. This Department of Energy map showcases how strong the solar resource is in Nevada. Costs of solar generation have fallen by 78% since 2009 and there is no question that Nevada can and should take full advantage of this clean energy resource.

The state is over-reliant on natural gas. In 2015, Nevada relied upon natural gas to meet almost three quarters of its electricity needs. Relying on one type of generation is never a smart idea, especially gas, whose price is notoriously volatile. The degree to which Nevada relies on natural gas exposes utilities and its customers to price spikes, and adds significantly to carbon emissions and air pollution. Bringing a diverse supply of renewable energy technologies online will help reduce reliance on costly and polluting natural gas.

Reducing natural gas generation will help Nevadans most vulnerable to pollution from fossil fuels. Most of the gas-fired power plants in Nevada are located in low-income communities whose residents are disproportionately impacted from pollution from fossil fuels. Ramping up renewables will reduce the amount of natural gas and air pollution generated in the state.

Nevadans want more clean energy. According to the 2017 State of the Rockies poll (see question 30), 80 percent of Nevadans want to encourage the use of solar energy.

The grid can handle more renewables. Opponents of clean energy like to say that wind and solar generation depend on the weather, so they will make the grid unreliable. This is not true. Grid operators are constantly managing for fluctuations in both the supply of and demand for electricity. Large quantities of renewables on the grid make balancing supply and demand more challenging, but we have the tools to do it.

Making sure renewable installations are spread out, creating financial incentives to shift electricity demand towards times of the day when renewable generation is abundant, and investing in energy storage like the batteries Tesla is building in the Gigafactory near Sparks are all examples of these tools. I’ve written a lot about grid integration solutions for the California RPS and all of the same issues apply to Nevada; folks interested in learning more should check out this blog.

It’s truly time for Nevada to turn its world-class renewable energy resources into sources of clean energy generation that will benefit its economy and environment. I’ll be watching AB 206 closely and hope that the Legislature supports this effort, which will help Nevada realize its potential as a clean energy leader.

I am an energy wonk, so inevitably my thoughts about the future turn to what the electricity grid will look like. The technologies that keep our lights on, heat and cool our homes, and run our appliances may look different in the next 15 to 20 years. Indeed, they will need to be different if California is going to do its part to rein in climate change and avert the catastrophic impacts of extreme heat, droughts, floods, fires, and sea level rise. Thankfully, our state passed a bill last year—Senate Bill (SB) 32—that established strong targets to dramatically cut carbon emissions: 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.

Students learn about solar energy as they gather around a pond at a California school, with water circulated by a solar-powered pump. Source: Sharon Danks, Green Schoolyards America

In the next year, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will map out a plan for how the state will achieve these critical carbon reduction targets. That plan, called the 2030 Target Scoping Plan, will identify on how the different economic sectors in the state, including the electricity sector, will need to evolve by 2030. Together with my climate, water, and clean vehicles colleagues at the UCS, in December 2016 we submitted details of our vision for how California can succeed in achieving the ambitious climate targets. Here are elements of my vision for the modern, upgraded, and clean energy grid:

• We will use significantly less electricity to power daily needs. The state is on an ambitious path to double the electricity savings we currently achieve through existing energy efficiency programs for homes and businesses. Consumers will see savings on their electricity bills because they will be using fewer electrons. The California Energy Commission recently took an important step in this direction by establishing the nation’s first energy efficiency standards for computers and monitors.

• Much more of our electricity will come from clean, renewable energy generation. At the end of 2015, California was satisfying about 27% of its electricity needs with renewables. By 2030, this will grow to at least 50%, thanks to SB 350, a law that California passed in 2015. The cost of renewables, especially solar PV, continues to drop, so it’s feasible that by 2030 we could rely on renewables for an even higher percentage of our electricity needs.
• Many more buildings will host rooftop solar. There are more than 625,000 small-scale solar PV projects installed in the state, representing nearly 5 GW of generation capacity. There is no end in sight to the state’s appetite for rooftop solar, and I think it’s safe to say that by 2030, it will be hard not to spot rooftop solar panels in any city.

• We will heat and cool many of our homes with electricity, not natural gas. A key strategy for reducing carbon emissions is reducing our reliance on natural gas. In addition to replacing gas-fired electricity generators with renewables, we need to be swapping our gas furnaces and water heaters for electric heat pumps and electric water heaters.

• Batteries and other energy storage technologies to make the most of wind and solar power. Energy storage will help us to rely on electricity from wind and solar resources, even when the sun is shining or the wind not blowing. Tesla’s Gigafactory has begun to churn out lithium-ion batteries and there is no question that production at this scale will help to bring down the cost of this technology.

• Appliances will be smarter about when, and when not, to run. Companies like Stem and OhmConnect are already tapping into the vast potential benefits of reducing electricity demand when the cost to generate is high, when the generation sources are dirty, or when slight adjustments in electricity demand can mimic grid reliability services traditionally provided by fossil fuels. Consumer tools, e.g. time-varying rates and programmable appliances, can help shift electricity demand towards times of the day when renewables are most plentiful (like the afternoon when solar power is at its peak).
• Electric vehicles will be a much larger part of the vehicle fleet. Moving away from gasoline powered cars and light-duty trucks and buses and towards ones powered by clean electricity will make a dramatic dent in the carbon and air pollution that these vehicles emit today. If done the right way, EVs can actually help to integrate larger quantities of renewables.

California already has policies in place to achieve many of the carbon reduction measures I’ve described. The state has established goals for energy efficiency and at least 50% renewables through 2030, and has made increased vehicle electrification a priority. But other objectives such as installing more energy storage may need additional policy support to gain momentum so UCS is urging the CARB to pay greater attention to areas where the state still has work to do.

[Note: My UCS colleagues Adrienne Alvord and Don Anair with expertise in specific sectors are also writing blogs describing our vision for achieving California’s climate goals by 2030 through a deep decarbonization roadmap and better transportation choices.]

I’m grateful my daughter lives in a state that is leading the transition to an electricity system that provides clean, safe, and reliable power for all of its residents. I want her to be able to recognize a solar panel and electric car as quickly as she can spot a cow or a pig from her farm books today. Anyone know of a kid song about programmable smart thermostats?

In California, where we are planning to satisfy at least 50% of our electricity needs with renewables by 2030, we are working on accelerating the solutions that will enable us to integrate large quantities of clean energy onto the grid. One of the most exciting strategies—using renewables to provide the grid reliability services traditionally provided by natural gas—just got a little closer to reality.

A new study released by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) (aka the grid operator for most of the state) finds that large-scale solar plants, with the right type of inverter technology, can provide many of the essential grid reliability services the grid needs. The study concludes that “It may in this way mitigate the impact of its variability on the grid, and contribute to important system requirements more like traditional generators.”

In a nutshell, the CAISO is saying it has found a strategy for operating renewables in a way that supports further integration of renewables onto the system. Renewables can now be part of the integration solution.

The test was conducted in August on one of First Solar’s 300 MW PV plants. According to the CAISO, the data demonstrates the capability of PV plants to provide various grid services. From the report: “This data showed how the development of advanced power controls can leverage PV’s value from being simply an intermittent energy resource to providing services that range from spinning reserves, load following, voltage support, ramping, frequency response, variability smoothing and frequency regulation to power quality.”

This finding is a real-world validation of research we completed last year which found that enabling renewables to provide grid reserves, especially in the downward direction, could be a particularly useful and cost-effective way to reduce grid management issues and greenhouse gas emissions. After all, gas plants have to be running to provide these services, which means they are emitting carbon, and potentially crowding out renewable generation.

At the time we published this report, the CAISO was skeptical. This pilot project has been very helpful to help them seriously consider renewables as part of the integration solution. I am beyond thrilled with the results and will be working with my clean energy colleagues to identify the economic and contractual incentives that will encourage large-scale solar plants to provide more of these grid services in the future. If we are serious about dramatically ramping up renewables and ramping down natural gas, we will need these grid services to come from carbon-free technologies, including large-scale solar plants.

For me, the election was also a strong reminder that the clean energy transition needs to improve the lives of all Americans, regardless of where you live or how much money you make. One of the most exciting aspects of solar PV is that it’s modular enough to be installed virtually anywhere, be it a dense urban city or a remote, rural town.

Solar PV installed at a low-income housing complex for tribal elders in the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Oregon. Photo: DOE

But installing solar PV in low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities has been challenging for several reasons. These include lack of access to credit, customers that may not control of their electricity bills or what goes on their roofs because they live in apartment buildings, and lack of effective community outreach.

Yet a recent announcement from the Department of Energy gives me a bit of hope. The DOE’s SunShot Initiative just awarded $1.73 million to the Clean Energy States Alliance to work with Connecticut, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia to develop new solutions for solar penetration in low- and moderate-income (LMI) communities. The grant will allow these states to explore the best ways to increase LMI community adoptions of solar in a way that addresses each states’ unique circumstances.

Now, I realize that $1.73 million is not much by itself to make headway on this important issue. The good news is that it’s just one example of several efforts across the country to develop new policies and programs that will bring solar to LMI communities and in turn, help create better jobs, cleaner air, and lower electricity bills. The attitude on renewables at the White House come January may be murky, but it’s clear that across the country, people see the benefits of clean energy like solar PV, and continue to be dedicated to making it it happen for their communities.

Source: Environmental Defense Fund/YouTube

In addition to releasing a tremendous quantity of a potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, the methane sickened nearby residents for weeks, causing headaches, nausea and severe nosebleeds.

The Aliso Canyon leak and its impacts on local residents is an unwelcome reminder of the many risks of California’s overreliance on natural gas. Overreliance on a single energy resource leaves communities vulnerable to supply shortages and price spikes. And, in addition to the ever-present prospects of gas leaks and explosions, the state’s dependence on natural gas is an increasingly large barrier to meeting its greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Despite the downsides, California’s natural gas fleet provides an important source of generation capacity and flexibility for when renewable energy is not readily available. Therefore, one of California’s biggest challenges is to figure out how to maintain grid flexibility and reliability while reducing dependence on natural gas and dramatically ramping up renewable energy power generation.

Fortunately, the tools are available to provide many of the renewable energy integration and grid reliability needs that natural gas plants currently provide, making us less vulnerable to gas supply shortages like the one caused by the Aliso Canyon leak. These include:

1. A diverse renewable mix – Because different types of renewables generate power at different times, procuring a diverse set of renewables will create a more consistent flow of electricity, reducing the need to rely on gas to fill in gaps in generation.
2. Increase coordination between grid operators – Pooling generation across a larger area makes it easier to obtain flexible generation reserves. This makes better use of existing natural gas assets, which means that more renewables can be integrated without building new plants.
3. Target energy efficiency in evening hours – Implementing programs to save energy at night, when California’s world-class solar resource is not available, will reduce the need to ramp up natural gas plants.
4. Deploy energy storage – Pumped hydropower, compressed air, and batteries can be used to store excess renewable generation. This helps extend the amount of time we depend on renewables–not gas–for energy needs. Storage can also provide some fast-ramping grid balancing services currently provided by gas.
5. Shift electricity demand to align with peak renewable output – Demand response technologies, which enable electricity users to shift consumption toward times of the day when renewable generation is high and reduce the need for ramping up gas plants during other periods of the day. Load shifting can happen manually, or automatic signals can be sent to industrial equipment, home appliances, and electric vehicles so that the usage shifts happen imperceptibly (without affecting usability), avoiding the need for electricity users to make decisions. Demand response technologies can also be used to provide grid balancing services by adjusting levels of electricity demanded in smaller segments for shorter periods of time.
6. Enable renewables to provide grid balancing services – As the state moves to a grid where the majority of the generation units are renewables, these facilities should have the option of providing some of their own grid balancing services. Providing some of these services with renewables will reduce the need to rely upon other forms of flexible generation, like natural gas.

As we contemplate the fallout from Aliso Canyon, the need to transition away from natural gas is crystal clear. The good news is that California has all of the tools it needs to achieve a much cleaner electricity supply while maintaining a consistent and affordable flow of electricity. By investing in low-carbon technologies that provide grid flexibility and reliability services, California will reduce its dependence on natural gas and ensure its renewable energy integration efforts succeed.

Last week, as a visible first step, the government of Saint Lucia installed solar panels on its Government House. The island is working with Solar Head of State, a nonprofit helping world leaders become clean energy role models by installing solar PV on prominent government buildings, to put more panels on the island. Ultimately, the partnership intends to install enough solar to power 5 percent of the national energy demand.

Saint Lucia’s officials first announced their intention to install the panels on Government House at the Paris COP21 Climate Conference in December 2015. The country was part of a group of 15 climate vulnerable countries which became the first nations to ratify the Paris Climate Agreement in April. Saint Lucia is particularly vulnerable to climate change, facing damage from rising sea levels and increasingly strong and frequent tropical storms.

Obviously, these solar panels are more a symbol than a dramatic strike against climate change; the country is responsible for about 0.0015 percent of global carbon emissions. But by leading on renewable energy, the island is taking a moral stance and setting an example for other developing island countries to follow.

Right now, Diablo Canyon supplies a large, very inflexible amount of generation onto the grid 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That consistency used to be a desirable attribute of nuclear power. But integrating significant amounts of renewable energy is made much easier when grids are flexible and can be managed more dynamically. The state will need that flexibility in the future as we prepare to reach 50 percent renewables by 2030.

PG&E supported the bill last year that raised our RPS to 50 percent by 2030 and is now taking another huge step forward as a clean energy leader.

The analysis compares the economic benefits of installing a solar photovoltaic (PV) system coupled with battery storage against a stand-alone solar installation on nine affordable housing units in California. Fifteen-minute interval electricity data from the buildings’ common spaces was used to to model the potential bill savings of both options under current rate structures.

Adding battery storage to solar installed on affordable housing units can result in significant savings to buildings owners and tenants

The study found that solar+storage installations can result in significant savings to building owners beyond what can be achieved with solar-only installations if the owners have to pay “demand charges.” These charges are different from the charges associated with the kilowatt hours actually consumed, which can be offset by solar installations through net energy metering (NEM).

Demand charges are tied to the highest level of electricity demand over a billing period and are not usually eliminated by adding solar alone. This is because a building may need to draw large amounts of power when the sun is not shining. The analysis showed that the addition of battery storage can reduce or eliminate demand charges, which results in significant bill savings to the building owner.

Source: Clean Energy Group

Solar + storage can also benefit the tenants of affordable housing units

The study demonstrates that adding battery storage to a solar PV system can help owners of affordable housing units save money. But what about the tenants of these buildings? California residential rates do not have demand charges, so what’s in it for them?

If building owners can save money using storage, a greater percentage of the solar that would be installed to offset common area load can be used to instead offset residents’ electricity bills. Solar+storage installations can help make buildings more safe and resilient during extreme weather events or other emergencies that bring down the power grid. Finally, coupling solar and storage helps preserve the value of solar as we move away from net metering and towards time-of-use rates that will charge more for electricity when solar PV resources are not generating power.

There is much left to do to make sure the benefits of solar PV reach the communities that are most in need of a clean energy transition. Policies must be in place to make sure affordable housing units are in good physical shape to host solar systems and that residents of these buildings see direct bill savings as a result of going solar. Coupling battery storage with solar can reduce or eliminate demand charges which directly benefits building owners, but if done the right way, these benefits can flow to residents as well.

The UCS analysis assesses states’ overreliance on natural gas that could expose electricity customers to financial risk and prevent states from making deeper reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over time.

While each metric looks at a dimension of state natural gas overreliance, adding it all up makes for a pretty interesting picture of risk. (And the animated version is even more fascinating.)

California’s complicated relationship with natural gas

California has more online natural gas generation capacity than any other state except Texas. Part of the reason for that is simply because California has such a large population to serve. This gas fleet supplies a large portion of electricity needs: nearly 60 percent of in-state electricity generation in 2014 came from natural gas.

And yet, California has made great strides to reduce its reliance on natural gas, and fossil fuels in general. Renewable energy production has ramped up significantly in recent years, and is now supplying about 25 percent of the state’s retail sales—and lowering reliance on natural gas.

As far back as 2006, the state enacted Assembly Bill 32, which established a program to reduce greenhouse gasses throughout the economy. And Senate Bill 1368, passed the same year, phases out the state’s long-term coal investments.

Just last week, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 350 into law, which requires the state to double energy savings in buildings and rely on renewable sources to meet half of its retail electricity needs by 2030.

Natural gas and renewables should complement, not compete with, each other

California’s natural gas fleet provides an important source of generation capacity and flexibility, which can be relied on when renewable energy is not readily available. But the state has to make sure that natural gas doesn’t crowd out renewable energy on the grid.

If large quantities of renewable energy and natural gas resources are generating electricity at the same time, supply could exceed demand, forcing grid operators to curtail some of the excess renewable electricity to maintain grid stability.

That issue—how to use natural gas in smart way—was the subject of a recent UCS analysis. When we looked at scenarios of 50 percent renewable energy on the California grid, we found that renewable energy curtailment will be exacerbated if grid operators continue to rely upon gas for fast-acting grid reliability services. This is because these gas plants have to be online and generating at all times to provide many of these services, crowding out renewables and generating global warming emissions and air pollution.

Fortunately, many of the non-fossil grid management that exist today—demand response, storage, even renewables—are capable of offering grid reliability services; several are able to respond even faster than a natural gas plant. Our 50 percent renewables report shows how we can take advantage of non-fossil sources of flexibility to integrate larger quantities of renewables and maintain grid reliability.

Cutting natural gas overreliance

California’s natural gas fleet has helped the state bring on large quantities of renewables in a relatively short timeframe and reduce reliance on imported coal. And although this fleet will continue to play an important role providing power and reliability to the grid, the additional investments we make in non-fossil grid reliability services will help us minimize our use of natural gas and maximize renewable generation potential, which will help the state achieve our long-term carbon reduction goals.