In his State of the Union speech this week, President Obama spent a lot of time discussing energy and the country’s progress on clean technology and lowering carbon emissions. He specifically referenced the 2009 stimulus investments:
Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history. Here are the results. In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power. On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal – in jobs that pay better than average. We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy – something environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support. Meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly sixty percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.
As the New York Times reports, however, some experts are disputing these claims:
“That paragraph as it relates to energy and climate issues — I thought it was the most troubling paragraph of the whole speech,” said David Victor, an expert on energy policy at the University of California, San Diego. “It’s very hard to attribute the bulk of what’s happening now in terms of bending the emissions curve and increasing renewables specifically to the stimulus.”
The article does a good job going through the arguments on both sides.
To my mind, the stimulus was critical for boosting clean technology by extending existing tax credits for renewable investments and converting them to much-needed cash grants. It also provided life-saving loans for critical companies Tesla, as well as highly effective tax credits for electric vehicle purchases. Finally, it funded advanced research in clean technology through the most important new agency on climate change in the federal government, ARPA-E.
But it’s worth putting this progress in context. For example, California, an economy larger than India, has boosted demand greatly for solar through state policies, as have the majority of states in the union. China has brought down solar panel costs dramatically with manufacturing investments. And the switch to natural gas from coal, brought about by technology changes related to fracking, are largely responsible for the country’s reduction in carbon emissions.
Still, it’s been a confluence of events that has resulted in the progress we’ve made to date, and I think it’s fine for Obama to take credit as he did. The efforts of his administration have been a necessary — but probably not sufficient — part of that success.
Last month Berkeley and UCLA Law hosted a webinar on our new report “Planting Fuels,” which offers recommendations to boost low-carbon biofuel production in California. These biofuels will be vital to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector in the long-term, particularly for aviation and long-haul trucking. The video is now finally available on-line:
Since I did the look-back on 2015 yesterday, now’s the time to offer the three big things to watch in 2016 on the fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:
3. Presidential Election: This is huge, as the current leading Republican candidate would say. The November election will determine whether the US sticks with the Paris agreement, continues support for renewable technologies and corresponding lack of support for coal, and fights for the EPA Clean Power Plan. The EPA finally released this plan in 2015, as required by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, and the plan underlies the US commitment to greenhouse gas reduction enshrined in the Paris agreement. While the final legal outcome won’t happen for a few more years (it will assuredly go to the Supreme Court), a Republican administration will try to gut the proposed rule from within.
2. Electric Vehicle Progress: As I mentioned yesterday, electric vehicle sales were down in 2015. But with the new Chevy Volt coming out, a slightly improved LEAF, and the much-hyped Tesla Model X all hitting the road, it will be important to see progress on the sales front this year. As a related honorable mention, we’ll need to see continued decreases in battery prices, not just for vehicles but for energy storage more generally.
1. California’s SB 32 2030 Climate Goals: The state has been an international leader fighting climate change, thanks to 2006’s AB 32, which set carbon reduction goals for 2020. But the effort to extend and ramp up the targets by 2030 failed spectacularly in the Assembly last year. It’s vital for the climate fight that the law pass this year. Otherwise, existing legal authorities to continue carbon reduction beyond 2020 are weak, and the signal a failure would send to the country and world would be detrimental. Meanwhile, the state would risk undermining the progress it has made nurturing in-state clean technology industries. While federal action on climate is important, California’s role as the guinea pig and pioneer on climate has been central to showing leaders in advanced economies how to decarbonize while growing the economy.
And with that, let’s see what the new year brings.
Happy 2016! With the new year here, I wanted to reflect on some of the big environmental accomplishments of 2015. Here are my top three best pieces of news on climate change:
3. Paris Climate Agreement: Sure, it was mostly political theater, with a non-enforceable international agreement that could be undermined as soon as next year by a Republican U.S. president. But it was necessary theater. No international action can happen without it, and it’s sets the political foundation for domestic action on carbon reduction in countries and states all over the world. It was also an example of how China’s new commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions has changed the politics of climate change.
2. U.S. and California’s Continued Commitment to Solar: Solar PV has made huge gains in terms of efficiency and price competitiveness over the past five years. But its progress could have been badly undermined had the U.S. federal government not continued the policy of giving a 30% investment tax credit for solar PV (and other renewable energy) purchases. Meanwhile, California, solar PV’s largest market, could have dramatically killed demand by gutting the rate incentives for homeowners to go solar. Fortunately, both governments backed away from the brink. The new federal budget continues the investment tax credit, while California’s energy regulator appears committed to keeping the current rate incentives intact (although Severin Bornstein offers a compelling case for an alternative approach). The resulting demand will ensure that solar PV is here to stay and will only become more cost-competitive with fossil-fuel sources of power going forward.
1. Tesla’s Increasing Sales Rate: It was a down year for EVs, with cheap gas prices and not a lot of new models to choose from. Tesla vehicles may still be a plaything for the wealthy, but the company’s dominance at the top of the EV market will eventually lead to an energy revolution for all — and that’s no understatement. Encouragingly, Tesla sales were up 60% in 2015 over 2014, to over 50,000 units, blowing by Nissan LEAF’s sales of about 18,000. And with the new all-electric SUV Model X ramping up, we’re starting to see Tesla’s long-range plan take shape: start at the top, and then use the sales to fund a mass-market EV. When that model comes out, we’ll finally get the transition to a low-carbon economy we need: cheap battery electric transportation, coupled with mass energy storage from the batteries, both in and out of the vehicles.
We’ll see what 2016 brings, but for now, we certainly have something to celebrate as 2015 hits the books.
I have to admit to being perplexed about the opposition to Elon Musk’s and other’s plan to force Volkswagen to invest in electric vehicles. Public health and social equity advocates teamed up to write a counter-response to Musk’s letter [PDF] to the California Air Resources Board, which had urged the EV option. The equity and public health leaders instead focus on the wrongs to VW drivers as well as the impact on low-income communities. They want immediate reparations to these groups, among other demands. They also don’t seem to see the value in requiring VW to do more on EVs.
From my perspective, the two approaches don’t necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. Why can’t we craft a punishment that benefits these communities and drivers and also pushes VW toward electric vehicles?
Used LEAFs are going for under $10,000.
But the larger question is: what exactly is the long-term plan by these groups to clean up California’s highly polluted low-income communities and also provide them cheaper transportation? The answer to my mind is the immediate electrification of as much of our transportation system as possible, and Musk’s plan would help achieve that goal.
Cheap electric vehicles will dramatically clean the air for all Californians, and particularly for many low-income community members who live alongside busy highways. These vehicles are also cheaper to fuel on a monthly basis, leading to lower-cost travel for everyone. Yes, many power plants are disproportionately located in low-income communities of color, but the grid is getting cleaner and more reliant on utility-scale renewable power. And the pollution reduction benefits are still there with electrification.
Yes, electric vehicles are primarily for wealthy Californians — for now. But we need the wealthy to invest in batteries in order to bring the costs down for everyone, which is happening. In the next few years, we’ll see a number of mass-market options for long-range EVs.
And it’s not like many low-income people can’t afford an EV right now. Some used Nissan LEAFs are going for under $10,000, you can lease a Fiat EV for under $100 a month, and the state clean vehicle rebate program is now taking into account income levels to give lower-income Californians more money back on EV purchases. When you factor in the cheap transportation fuel from electricity, these are fantastic deals.
Finally, I share the concern that an EV-focused punishment could be rewarding VW with a new line of business. The NRG EV infrastructure “punishment” clearly has not gone well for the state. So any settlement along these lines truly need to be punitive, requiring VW to spend money it wouldn’t have otherwise, and on vehicles and infrastructure that won’t necessarily be good for the company’s bottom line but would be good for the public.
But getting VW to invest in electric vehicles as a general principle is not only a good thing for all Californians, it’s especially critical for low-income residents. Indeed, to my mind it’s the only viable way forward to clean their air and provide them vital economic benefits at the same time.
Last week the U.S. Congress came together to pass a big sprawling budget agreement. Environmentalists are touting the big wins, such as the extension of the 30% investment tax credit for renewables, plus a few other goodies like finally giving equal tax benefits for commuters who take transit as for those who drive to work.
Certainly there’s much for them to celebrate, especially what didn’t happen. Namely, Republicans wanted to repeal the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan.” In exchange for giving up this provision, Republicans secured a lifting of the ban on U.S. oil exports.
Certainly it makes sense for environmentalists to celebrate winning this battle over the Clean Power Plan, although it’s unfortunate that the oil export ban was lifted. But I would think they would be concerned about the precedent it sets. What will Republicans demand next year to avoid rolling back the Clean Power Plan? And the year after? The Republican majority isn’t going away anytime soon, at least in the U.S. House, so it seems like it will be an ongoing bargaining chip. Meanwhile, they’ll continue to attack the Plan in the courts.
But in the meantime, the Plan will live to see another day, and environmentalists can end the year on another post-Paris high note. For now.
I suggested a few weeks ago that the state punish Volkswagen by requiring them to support electric vehicle deployment, and apparently a bunch of clean technology folks like Elon Musk agree with me. They wrote a letter to the California Air Resources Board urging them to impose a zero-emission vehicle credit buying requirement on VW, as well as mandating that they build EVs here in California.
Of course it’s in Musk’s business interest to propose this idea, but I think it makes sense. It may not satisfy consumer advocates burned about customers now driving defective products, or environmental justice advocates upset about the localized pollution from these cheating vehicles. But look at the bigger picture: investment now in electric vehicles will bring down their cost, allowing most people in California to buy one by 2030 or sooner and cleaning the air and climate in the process.
My only concern, as I voiced in the original blog post, is that California has not proven to be effective at negotiating these “punishments.” The eVgo settlement requiring more electric vehicle chargers has been just short of a disaster, and it’s not clear anyone in state government is learning any lessons from that experience. But in concept, the idea makes sense for the California economy and environment, as well as for the affected communities.
In Paris this month, much of the talk related to California’s successful efforts to date in reducing carbon emissions while growing the economy. Certainly the state has made significant progress in areas like renewable energy and electric vehicles, and Governor Brown and his administration deserve a lot of credit.
But more progress will be needed to meet the state’s much more aggressive mid-century goals of reducing emissions 80 percent over 1990 levels. The state will need both to build on existing programs and to address new areas that are key to decarbonizing the state’s economy, such as natural resources, water and land use.
With just over three years remaining in Governor Brown’s final term, Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) is today releasing the new report “Climate Actions For California: Recommendations for Governor Jerry Brown’s Final Term.” The report details immediate steps that administration leaders, environmental and energy advocates, and other stakeholders can take to achieve additional short-term successes and create a foundation for long-term progress that endures beyond the administration.
“Climate Actions for California” contains recommendations based on interviews and a convening with Brown Administration officials, agency leaders, philanthropic representatives, and environmental experts.
Among the key recommended solutions:
- A state data platform to better share existing data and collect new data on pressing environmental challenges, particularly on water management and renewable energy planning;
- Improved inter-agency coordination on climate actions, particularly on demonstration projects to reduce emissions that can quickly scale statewide and for collaborating on efforts with new sources of funding;
- More collaborative regional conservation planning to facilitate advance mitigation for new projects and smart development going forward, among other benefits; and
- Enhanced transportation and land use planning that achieves greater co-benefits on water management and resource conservation.
The report provides more detail on these and other recommendations and also summarizes the key challenges that many of the experts we consulted identified, as well as possible next steps and partnerships. Ultimately, these actions could help Governor Brown build on an already-successful climate legacy and ensure that the progress to date continues, not just in California but now across the globe in a post-Paris world.
After two decades of fruitless UN climate gatherings, I finally attended my first one last week and clearly must have broken the stalemate. Because international negotiators now have a voluntary global commitment [PDF] to keep world temperature rise to possibly less than two degrees centigrade by 2100. It’s a big victory for the climate movement and for particular world leaders, like President Obama.
Why the agreement now? It was a confluence of politics and economics. On the political front, momentum had been building to this conference with everyone from the Pope to Obama to climate activists laying the foundation for broad public support and international cooperation.
On the economic front, the conversation has changed dramatically since 2009’s failure in Copenhagen with the decreasing costs of certain energy technologies. Specifically, the rapid decline in the price of solar panels, the ongoing investment in and cost decreases of battery technologies (particularly for electric vehicles), and the glut of natural gas, which has helped make the transition away from coal easier.
So what does the agreement portend? As mentioned, it’s a voluntary commitment without any penalties for countries that fail to comply. Current business-as-usual policies place the world on about a 3-degree temperature rise by 2100. So we’ll still need major advancements to meet the terms of the agreement going forward.
As I blogged previously, the decision-makers that really matter weren’t at the Paris conference. After all, who decides if carbon is taxed or fossil fuel reserves stay in the ground? It’s the legislators and party bosses in various nations around the globe, and in some cases, it’s subnationals, including local governments with land use authority. Will they act? We’ll have to wait and see.
But one promising provision in the agreement is the commitment to greater transparency, in terms of each country’s progress meeting the goals. Peer pressure can be very effective, and in certain parts of the world, some countries won’t want to be seen as lagging by their neighbors on the climate fight.
So between that peer pressure, and the continued determination of leading climate countries and states like Germany, Norway, and California that is pushing the price declines of clean technology, we have some reason to hope. Because as celebratory as the conversation has been around the Paris agreement, that is still the position the world is in.
As I blogged earlier this month, UC Berkeley and UCLA Law released a report on how to boost low-carbon biofuels in California. To learn more about the report and its recommendations, please join us for a webinar today from 11am to noon. Speakers will include:
- Tim Olsen, energy and fuels program manager at the California Energy Commission
- Lisa Mortenson, chief executive officer at Community Fuels
- Mary Solecki, western states advocate for Environmental Entrepreneurs
You can register via this site. Hope to “see” you there!
