Category Archives: Greenhouse Gas Reduction
California law now requires developers of new projects, like apartment buildings, offices, and roads, to reduce the amount of overall driving miles the projects generate. Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) authorized this change in the method of analyzing transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), from auto delay to vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
In response to SB 743, some state and local leaders are seeking to create special “banks” or “exchanges” to allow developers to fund off-site projects that reduce VMT, such as new bike lanes, transit, and busways. These options could be useful when the developers lack sufficient on-site mitigation options.
A new report from Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE), Implementing SB 743, provides a comprehensive review of key legal and policy considerations for local and regional agencies tasked with crafting these innovative mechanisms, including:
- Legal requirements under CEQA and Constitutional case law;
- Criteria for mitigation project selection and prioritization;
- Methods to verify VMT mitigation and “additionality”; and
- Measures to ensure equitable distribution of projects.
The report recommends that decision makers launching new VMT banks and exchanges consider including:
- Measures to verify the legitimacy of claimed VMT reductions, as well as their “additionality”;
- Prioritization of individual mitigation projects, in order to ensure that reductions are achieved as quickly and efficiently;
- Rigorous backstops to ensure that disadvantaged communities are not negatively impacted by—and ideally can benefit from—the ability of developers to move mitigation off-site; and
- Demonstration of both a reasonable substantive relationship and financial proportionality between the proposed development and the fee or condition placed on it.
Ultimately, SB 743 implementation will require a range of approaches from jurisdictions of varying sizes, densities, and development patterns throughout California. Local, regional, or even statewide mechanisms may evolve as mitigation programs mature and potential efficiencies are identified. Implementing SB 743 offers a guidebook to agencies and developers navigating the law’s new approach.
For more information, join CLEE’s webinar on Tuesday, October 30th from 10-11am with Governor’s Office of Planning and Research senior planner Chris Ganson and report co-author Ted Lamm and me. You can register for the free webinar today.
Last month at the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco, California Governor Jerry Brown made headlines announcing the launch of his “own damn satellite” to monitor climate pollution. The idea is not far-fetched, as a Montreal company has already launched satellites to detect methane leaks.
California’s satellite launch could be revolutionary for combating climate change, as it could greatly simplify the monitoring and enforcement challenge, saving money in the process and in turn allowing developing world countries to be more effective at reducing their emissions.
As E&E News reported [pay-walled]:
California’s aim is to launch the probe by the end of 2021, though state officials said a number of key details have yet to be finalized — notably funding for the project.
One big question is how much it will cost. The state has not released an estimate. Another is who is going to pay for it.
The governor’s office wants to rely on private donors and philanthropists to foot the bill, rather than taxpayers, and one Brown aide said California has yet to line up the necessary rainmakers.
But “our discussions with interested parties have been very, very positive,” Ken Alex, one of the governor’s senior advisers, said in a phone interview.
Brown will likely tap San Francisco-based Planet Labs Inc., founded in 2010 by three former NASA scientists and with Google as an equity stakeholder, to build it.
The upside is multi-fold. Specifically, the satellite could:
- Pinpoint hard-to-detect emissions from sources like landfills and fossil fuel wells, giving policy makers a more accurate way to assess where resources or policies are needed to reduce these emissions;
- Catch polluters in the act of misreporting their emissions, making enforcement easier; and
- Reduce the costs and lack of transparency in monitoring emissions, as the present methods are often opaque (in the name of protecting industry trade secrets) and burdensome.
And for countries and states less wealthy than California, the relatively low-cost satellite also means they won’t have an excuse not to invest in data collection on carbon pollution, if not mitigation measures, too.
All in all, it was a fitting — and potentially meaningful — end to the summit and to the near-close of Governor Brown’s term in office helping California fight climate change.
Most buildings today use natural gas in some fashion, typically for three purposes:
- Space heating
- Water heating
- Cooking ranges
Yet if we could find electric substitutes for these uses, we could save a significant amount of money and pollution. With an estimated 70 million American homes and businesses burning natural gas, oil, or propane just to heat space and water, the result is 560 million tons of carbon dioxide emitted each year, or one-tenth of total US emissions.
In the Rocky Mountain Institute’s new report, The Economics of Electrifying Buildings, authors Sherri Billimoria, Leia Guccione, Mike Henchen, and Leah Louis-Prescott examine various scenarios to analyze the economics and carbon impacts of electrifying residential space and water heating, both with and without demand flexibility. As they summarize in an accompanying blog post:
In many scenarios, notably for most new home construction, we find electrification of space and water heating and air conditioning reduces the homeowner’s costs over the lifetime of the appliances when compared with performing the same functions with fossil fuels. Costs are also reduced for customers in several retrofit scenarios: for customers switching away from propane or heating oil, for gas customers who would otherwise need to replace both a furnace and air conditioner simultaneously, and for customers who bundle rooftop solar with electrification. New homes and homes currently lacking natural gas service also avoid the cost of gas mains, services, and meters not needed in all-electric neighborhoods.
It’s going to take all sorts of electrification strategies to decarbonize our economy, and removing natural gas from buildings represents one of the most promising, for both the economic and environmental reasons cited in this report.
The critics are out for California’s groundbreaking climate and energy goals. Cal Matters (and former Sacramento Bee) columnist Dan Walters criticizes the state’s new 100% renewable energy and carbon neutrality goals by 2045:
It’s theoretically possible to build enough solar and windmill farms to [achieve a 100% greenhouse gas-free grid], albeit at immense cost, but there’s a corollary problem. They mostly generate during daylight hours, so having their power available 24 hours a day would require huge amounts of storage, presumably in massive battery banks.
Battery technology hasn’t advanced to that stage yet, at least at a viable cost. After Brown signed the 2045 legislation, Moody’s, the big credit rating organization, called it a “credit negative” for the state’s electrical utilities, citing battery storage capacity.
Walters fails to acknowledge here that “energy storage” to capture surplus renewables includes a diverse array of technologies beyond just batteries. Furthermore, with the carbon-free target date of 2045 still a generation away, industry has plenty of time to innovate in response to this challenge. We’ve already seen battery prices decline about 80% in 10 years. So why use today’s numbers to criticize a critical long-term mandate?
Walters then attacks California’s zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) goals:
There are only about 200,000 ZEVs on the road now, so replacing all gasoline- and diesel-fueled cars at $30,000 each by 2045 would cost California motorists (and/or taxpayers) about a trillion dollars, or an average of $37 billion a year.
Again, Walters refuses to assume any cost decreases in the price of ZEVs by 2045, or the availability of inexpensive used vehicles in the meantime. This flies in the face of price trends to date. Walters also neglects to mention the fuel and maintenance savings from these vehicles.
Finally, he criticizes the push for electrification of transportation based on how much more power the state will need to deliver:
Driving 100 miles in a ZEV consumes 30 kilowatt-hours of electric power, according to the federal government. Therefore, assuming they were still traveling 330 billion miles each year, recharging 30 million ZEVs would expand annual electric power consumption from 300 terawatt-hours to at least 400, and that extra juice also would have to come from solar, wind and other renewable resources.
Moreover, since the ZEVs would be mostly recharged at night, the carbon-free electrical grid would need even more battery storage to keep them running.
Fun numbers, indeed.
Walters omits some key details. First, the state also has a goal of increasing energy efficiency, including a doubling of efficiency in existing buildings by 2030, which would reduce energy demand overall. Second, state leaders are trying to reduce driving miles per capita by investing in more transit, walking and biking infrastructure, while attempting to build more homes close to jobs and transit. If successful by 2045, driving miles would decrease, along with projected energy demand. Finally, state regulators are pushing for electricity rates that will encourage more daytime charging, to avoid the problem Walters cites.
Overall, Walters’ entire analysis fails to factor in the cost of inaction. What about the public health impacts of more pollution? What about the cost of addressing climate impacts, such as more fires, sea level rise, and droughts?
Walters raises some legitimate questions, but his analysis in response is selective and incomplete.
As climate change destroys homes, infrastructure, and sometimes whole settlements, the insurance industry will be on the hook. To address the subject, UC Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) partnered with the California Department of Insurance (CDI) and Dr. Evan Mills to release Trial by Fire: Managing Climate Risks Facing Insurers in the Golden State.
Trial by Fire offers a comprehensive review of the nature and extent of the risks and opportunities faced by insurers and residents in California.
My colleague and CLEE co-author Ted Lamm has an op-ed in today’s San Francisco Chronicle along with California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones and Dr. Mills to summarize the report’s key findings. The basic policy recommendations include:
Enact more legislation like state Senate bills 894 and 824, both recently signed by the governor, which protect consumers by requiring insurers to offer policy renewals after a declared disaster and enhanced insurer data reporting regarding fire-related issues;
Enact legislation to require insurers’ fire risk models to be evaluated by the Department of Insurance to ensure that they account for the evolving harms of climate change and home- and community-level protective measures to reduce fire risks;
Conduct pilot projects to test the viability of making insurance available for higher-risk homes if the homeowner and community meet strict risk-mitigation standards;
Increase the availability and sale of insurance products that incentivize better fire-defense measures at homes and businesses and emission-reduction efforts; and
Disclose to the public insurers’ fossil fuel holdings, divest from thermal coal holdings, and actively invest in renewable energy and climate-change-mitigating projects.
Climate impacts will only worsen in the coming years. But with these steps, policy makers can help the insurance industry — and the general public — avoid the worst while ideally becoming part of the solution.
“Green” investing in environmentally friendly companies has become a lucrative investment strategy. With legislation in California demanding huge increases in clean, renewable energy and the requirement of pension funds to divest from fossil fuels, portfolio adjustments not only make financial sense, they’re now a fiduciary responsibility.
How are individual and institutional investors reacting to the changing legal and financial landscape? I’ll be moderating the discussion tonight at 7pm live on City Visions with guests:
- Betty Yee, California State Controller
- Reverend Kirsten Spalding, Senior Director of the Investor Network at Ceres
- Sandy Emerson, Board Member of Fossil Free California and Head of the “Move Your Money” campaign
- David Ellison, Creator of CleanPortfolios
Tonight’s show is the final one in our three-part series on climate change. You can listen live on 91.7FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or on the web. Please tune in and ask questions!
In a surprise move ahead of this week’s Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco, Governor Brown issued an executive order directing state agencies to achieve statewide carbon neutrality by 2045, with negative emissions thereafter.
Previous gubernatorial executive orders on long-term emissions goals focused on reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. So the new 2045 target represents a significant acceleration, which will likely require massive deployment of “negative emission technologies” that sequester carbon at a scale most policy makers have not yet contemplated, as well as purchased offsets such as forest projects.
Significantly, the order does not require California to be zero-emission by 2045, which is basically impossible without yet-to-be-deployed carbon capture and storage technologies. So instead the state will continue its path-breaking greenhouse gas reduction efforts, and anything left over will have to be offset.
On one hand, executive orders do not carry the force of legislation and can be overturned by subsequent governors with the stroke of a pen. But on the other hand, executive orders on greenhouse gas emissions in California have tended to precede legislation that codifies them. So Governor Brown’s move today lays down a strong marker for the legislature to follow.
The order also represents a reaction to the growing urgency of climate change, as effects are felt worldwide in ways that are exceeding many scientific projections. And it also signifies optimism that the business community and international leaders (if not federal leaders here in the United States) can muster the investment and innovation necessary to deploy the needed technologies.
KTVU News in the San Francisco Bay Area covered the story last night of California’s new legislation requiring a 100% greenhouse gas-free grid by 2045, including an interview with me:
Governor Brown today signed SB 100 to put California on a path to achieve a carbon-free electricity grid by 2045. I’ll be interviewing bill author and candidate for U.S. Senate State Senator Kevin De Leon on tonight’s City Visions at 7pm, KALW 91.7 FM.
We’ll also discuss the Global Climate Action Summit this week in San Francisco, hosted by California Governor Jerry Brown. The Summit will highlight achievements from around the world as policymakers, businesses leaders and grassroots organizations share the ways they’re working together to achieve the goals of the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
Joining me in the studio will be:
- Sen. Kevin de León – California State Senator representing District 24 in Los Angeles
- Secretary Matthew Rodriquez – California Secretary for Environmental Protection
- Louise Bedsworth – Executive Director for the California Strategic Growth Council
This show will be the first of a three-part series on California’s groundbreaking clean energy policies and the fight against climate change. Tune in with your questions! You can also live-stream or listen to a recorded version of the show afterwards.
Next week leaders from around the world will be in San Francisco for the Governor Brown-convened Global Climate Action Summit. The event is designed to showcase climate progress globally and help leaders share best practices and ideas on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
As part of the summit, many nonprofits, businesses and universities are hosting affiliate events (not part of the formal summit programming) on various climate issues. The Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE) at UC Berkeley Law and the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA Law are partnering on an event to discuss how subnational governments can leverage the coming “3 Revolutions” in shared, electric, and automated transportation to meet climate goals:
Transportation technologies are evolving rapidly, and the course of their evolution will determine whether greenhouse gas emissions dramatically increase or drop as a result. Which outcome we see in the future depends on our policy decisions in the present. The driving question of this session will be: What policies will steer the 3 Revolutions toward climate goals? This event will empower states, regions, and cities with policy tools needed to harness these revolutions to reduce climate emission.
The session will run from 2 to 5:30pm at 555 Market St. in San Francisco (+ Google Map) and will be immediately followed by an evening reception through 7:30pm. The agenda is available, and you can register here ($15).
The law centers are co-organizing the event with:
- UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, the Environment, and the Economy & the Institute of Transportation Studies
- Uber
- Metropolitan Transportation Commission
- Georgetown Climate Center
The event is also co-sponsored by Bank of America as part of the grant-funded Climate Change and Business Series. Hope to see you there!
