I’ll be guest hosting today’s Your Call’s Media Roundtable, where we’ll talk about what the midterm election means for President Biden’s climate and clean energy agenda, including investments in alternative sources of energy that are clean, accessible, affordable and sustainable.
This topic is especially timely given the runoff election victory this week for Georgia senator Raphael Warnock, plus Arizona senator Krysten Sinema’s announcement this morning that she’s leaving the Democratic party.
Joining us will be:
- Marianne Lavelle, award winning reporter covering environment, science, law, and business for InsideClimate News
- Jason Mark, editor of Sierra and the author of Satellites in the High Country: Searching for the Wild in the Age of Man
Then at 10:30am PT, we discuss two cases in front of the Supreme Court this week that could have major impacts on LGBTQ rights and federal election rules. The case 303 Creative v. Elenis involves a challenge by a Colorado website designer to a state law that bars public-facing businesses from discriminating against gay people or announcing their intent to do so. The designer, Lorie Smith, argues that subjecting her to the law would violate her right to free speech. The justices also considered Moore v. Harper, a case that would give state lawmakers unfettered power to set rules for voting and elections, without state constitutional limits.
Joining us to analyze the potential impact of these two cases will be Mark Joseph Stern, a senior writer covering courts and the law for Slate Magazine. Mark has covered the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appellate and district courts, and state and local courts since 2013.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 10am PT. What comments or questions do you have for our guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
Today I’m doing double duty on KALW 91.7 FM San Francisco Bay Area. First, at 10am PT, I’ll be guest hosting Your Call’s One Planet Series, where we’ll discuss ConocoPhillips’ massive oil and gas Willow Project in Alaska’s fragile western Arctic. Joining us will be Adam Federman, investigative reporter and a reporting fellow with Type Investigations, and the author of Fasting and Feasting: The Life of Visionary Food Writer Patience Gray.
Then in the second half of the program, we’ll cover the Biden administration’s recent $1.1 billion lifeline to California’s last nuclear power plant at Diablo Canyon. Sammy Roth, climate and energy reporter at the Los Angeles Times and writer of the weekly Boiling Point newsletter, will explain the situation.
Then on State of the Bay at 6pm PT, my co-host Grace Won will interview me over my recent trip to Egypt for the just-concluded UN climate conference. I’ll explain what happened at the conference and provide some analysis on what it means for the climate fight. Then later in the program you’ll hear Grace’s interview with former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson about her efforts to combat sexual harassment in the workplace.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 10am PT for Your Call and then again at 6pm PT for State of the Bay. What comments or questions do you have for our guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
This post is co-authored by Ross Zelen.
As California and other leading climate jurisdictions move toward all-electric buildings, replacing older gas-powered furnaces and air conditioning units with heat pumps can reduce carbon emissions and indoor air pollution while increasing efficiency, comfort and resiliency, especially as extreme heat events increase. Heat pumps are a highly efficient technology that provides all-electric space and water heating and cooling, acting essentially as a two-way air conditioner.
Today, the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) at Berkeley Law and the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA Law are releasing a new report, Hot, Cold, & Clean: Policy Solutions to Promote Equitable and Affordable Adoption of Heat Pump Retrofits in Existing Buildings, which highlights key policy solutions to ensure that California’s push to decarbonize existing homes and buildings will support equitable deployment of electric heat pumps.
Top-priority strategies include setting a clear phaseout timeline for natural gas space and water heaters, protecting low-income tenants from inadvertent rent increases or increased utility costs, and supporting “high road” job training programs to turn heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) installers and contractors into heat pump champions.
The stakes are high: California’s residential and commercial building sector accounts for nearly a quarter of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions and combustion of fuel for heating and cooling buildings generates more than 10 percent of state emissions. Electric heat pumps provide a deployable solution to reduce emissions from furnaces, water heaters, and other building appliances. To achieve state goals of 40 percent greenhouse gas emission reduction (below 1990 levels) by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045, California must significantly reduce emissions from the built environment.
Earlier this year, the California Energy Commission set out an ambitious target of deploying 6 million heat pumps by 2030. With more than 14 million existing residential homes in the state, more than 75 percent of California’s existing buildings built before 1978, and heat pumps installed in only 6 percent of new construction, the state has a long way to go to meet its goals.
Hot, Cold, & Clean is based on a convening of state, local, utility, housing and environmental leaders aiming to identify point-of-purchase, installation, and financing challenges that stymie heat pump deployment. The report captures the progress since our 2021 report Building toward Decarbonization and identifies additional policy solutions to overcome remaining barriers. For example, state leaders could:
- Set a clear timeline for the long-term phaseout of natural gas space and water heaters to provide certainty for utilities, homeowners, tenants and investors.
- Set zero-emission air quality standards for space and water heaters to make heat pumps the baseline technology.
- Enhance funding for low-income homeowners and affordable housing providers to improve electrical infrastructure to facilitate heat pump deployment, in a manner that prevents displacement and rent increases.
- Scale educational models and training programs for high road installer, maintenance, contractor and electrician positions and financially support deployment through midstream incentives for heat pump installations
This is not only a California issue. At the federal level, heat pumps have been recognized as a key technology to reduce reliance on fossil gas. On June 6, President Biden invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA) to rapidly expand domestic manufacturing of heat pumps to reduce building energy use and reduce U.S. reliance on oil and fossil gas. Current domestic U.S. HVAC manufacturing suppliers are not producing heat pumps at the rate needed. Additionally, the Department of Energy announced the first major update on gas-burning furnaces in 30 years, spurring more homes to move to heat pump solutions or adopt more efficient units. These actions should help address key barriers discussed in the report, such as the lack of heat pump supply and the need for increased manufacturer focus on educational workforce training.
To learn more, please join us next Tuesday, July 19 at 1:00 PM PT for a webinar to discuss the report and equitable heat pump deployment, featuring:
- Commissioner Andrew McAllister of the California Energy Commission
- Chelsea Kirk of Strategic Actions for a Just Economy (SAJE)
- Jose Torres of the Building Decarbonization Coalition.
Some upcoming and recent events:
First, this morning at 10am PT I’ll be on KQED Forum to discuss the future of nuclear energy in California. I’ll be on a panel with energy reporter Sammy Roth of the Los Angeles Times and Jessica Lovering from the Good Energy Collective. Stream live!
Next, I’ll be on a lunch panel with Liane M. Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board, on where California is going on climate policy and action. The event is entitled “Finding the Path to a Necessary Future: California, Climate, and Energy in the Coming Decades” and is being organized by the Environmental Law Institute. Register to attend in person at Baker Botts LLP in San Francisco or to access the livestream!
Finally, I appeared on EV Hub Live yesterday to discuss the state of domestic critical mineral supply for EV batteries, on a panel with Abigail Wulf, director of critical minerals strategy at SAFE (UPDATE: here’s an article on the subject in The Hill with some quotes from me). Video here:
UPDATE: Here’s an op-ed I wrote in CalMatters on this subject, published on June 14th. The Commission ultimately deadlocked on the decision and will revisit in October.
California is supposed to be a model for the world on how an advanced economy can reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But the state is not on pace to meet its legislated 2030 climate goals, and part of the problem is that state leaders are falling behind on deploying renewable energy. A recent controversy in the Mojave Desert over the iconic Joshua Tree is emblematic of the state’s challenges building the clean technology necessary to limit catastrophic climate change.
The goals are aggressive. The state requires its electricity grid to be completely carbon-free by 2045, including an interim target of 60% of grid power from renewable sources by 2030. This goal requires tripling the current annual build rate of solar and wind facilities. While state policy makers and industry leaders envision siting these clean energy projects all over the state, including offshore wind turbines and smaller-scale distributed solar resources in existing urbanized areas and brownfields, a substantial portion of that solar energy will need to come from utility-scale installations in the state’s vast, sun-soaked desert region. But the legal obstacles there could soon become formidable.
Specifically, the Center of Biological Diversity petitioned the California Fish and Game Commission in 2019 to list the iconic western Joshua Tree as a “threatened” species under the state’s Endangered Species Act. If state leaders were to affirm that petition, it would have the potential to undermine the state’s ability to meet its climate goals by effectively placing much of the Mojave Desert off limits to clean energy.
In its review of the Center’s petition, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife assessed the science last month and recommended not listing the species. It found that the trees are “currently abundant and widespread” with up to five million of them currently growing on a combined total estimated range of 3.4 million acres, in both their northern and southern desert areas. As with virtually all species, the department expects climate change to impact Joshua Tree habitat (though the species is still expected to persist in high numbers) through the end of this century. But as the temperature increases and rainfall patterns change (assuming it becomes more dry), lands to the north and at higher elevations could provide a refuge, with future climatic conditions similar to their present-day ones.
The commission will make a final determination in June. But if the commission overrules the department’s recommendation and lists the Joshua Tree as threatened, the consequences for California’s clean energy goals could be dire. Developers will either be prevented from building solar power in much of the Mojave Desert or will face costly mitigation measures to do so, which would diminish this needed deployment in one of the prime solar-generating areas of the state. Globally, it would hinder the state’s ability to show the world that a renewable build out in an advanced economy is feasible.
To be sure, these desert ecosystems are fragile, host unique species and are iconic in their majestic scenery – as is the Joshua Tree itself. No one (I would hope) enjoys seeing Joshua Trees cut down, even if it’s for a critical cause like climate change. But how much desert land are we talking about? The California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the state’s grid operator, currently has 19,000 megawatts of solar power and energy storage facilities in its queue that are located in the Joshua Tree’s southern range. Even if all these facilities were built (and some will almost certainly fall out), they would occupy only a tiny fraction of the range of the species. It’s a relatively small footprint for a technology that California desperately needs to deploy to benefit us all.
To put this desert deployment in context, a state energy agency report last year found that in tripling its annual build rate of clean energy, California will need to go from a 2019 deployment of 12.5 gigawatts of utility-scale solar to 69.4 gigawatts by 2045 – an almost 6-fold increase. Those 19 gigawatts of desert solar power and storage would therefore greatly help the state meet the long-term deployment needed to completely decarbonize the grid.
But perhaps worse, if the California Fish and Game Commission chooses to list the Joshua Tree as threatened for the sole reason of a warming climate, then under that logic, virtually any species could be listed as threatened, given the climate disruption the entire planet faces. That justification would in turn make it virtually impossible for the state to deploy precisely the clean technology we need to avoid making the situation worse, from energy storage to wind to solar.
All of us — humans, plants and animals — are threatened by the emergency of climate change, unless we take the necessary steps like deploying more wind and solar energy to combat it. The technology exists to stop climate change from worsening. What we lack is the political will to get it done. The Fish and Game Commission now faces that same test, whether to follow the department’s scientific findings or place yet another obstacle in the path of clean energy.
Now that Elon Musk has purchased Twitter with plans to take the company private, what are the potential consequences for the fight against climate change, the crucial issue of our time? Like him or not, the Tesla CEO has arguably been the most impactful private industry actor revolutionizing clean technology. Will the purchase affect his work on clean technology?
It would be hard to overstate Musk’s value to the global decarbonization effort. His company Tesla Motors, guided by his relentless and innovative vision, has helped revolutionize the automobile industry, completely transforming it in the face of legacy automakers who made only a token effort on electric vehicles at best for decades. Now they face extinction from their inability to embrace change. Given the transportation’s sector outsized role in contributing to climate change, Musk’s role in reshaping this industry has helped give the world a fighting to chance to avoid the worst of climate impacts.
As if that’s not enough, Tesla’s work on electric vehicles has also vastly accelerated energy storage deployment of lithium ion batteries, which are central to decarbonizing the electric grid along with intermittent renewables. What’s more, Tesla now has the promise to dramatically scale up heat pumps, an important all-electric means of heating and cooling spaces. The company has improved upon them for use in vehicles, with enormous upside for expansion to buildings.
And not to mention Tesla also has a solar division. Though it has admittedly languished since Musk purchased Solar City from his cousin a few years ago, in the long run solar panels pair perfectly with home battery storage and electric vehicles for consumers.
But all of that progress could be undermined going forward by Musk’s purchase of Twitter. The specific risk for the climate change fight is that Musk might become “distracted” running Twitter (i.e. absent at critical times, with his mental energy no longer devoted to providing critical vision and direction for the company, especially since he already runs a space rocket and tunneling company). If that happens, could Tesla lose its competitive edge?
Perhaps worse, Musk’s deal to take Twitter private is heavily leveraged, and his Tesla stock provides much of the collateral. If Twitter starts to sputter (the company lost $493 million last year, and Musk himself has acknowledged that this purchase is not about making money) and Musk defaults or has to sell, will that devalue Tesla stock, depriving that company of capital for its much-needed global expansion?
On the upside, given his track record, we could assume that Musk has the potential to work some magic for a social media site plagued by controversies over free speech and how it handles misinformation. If Musk can instill more confidence among social media users across the political spectrum in Twitter, while improving debates that counter climate misinformation, perhaps Twitter can be a force for positive climate education. But given the partisan entrenchment of views on both climate policy and science, this seems unlikely to occur.
If by some miracle Musk can turn Twitter into a cash cow, then another upside is that his additional resulting wealth could help bolster not only his proven companies like Tesla but potentially provide him extra funds to invest in new clean tech start-ups that could help reduce emissions in other industries. You never know.
On balance, a better Twitter could be a positive force for society. But given Musk’s key role in the climate fight, it’s hard to see the upside for the critical clean technology we need to reduce emissions and stave off the worst of climate change.
Of course, Musk is free to do what he wants with his billions. And he’s already arguably contributed more to the climate fight than any other company leader. But in the long run, a fight over social media won’t matter much if the world doesn’t get a handle on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Tonight on State of the Bay, we’ll talk about why fighting crime in San Francisco is more challenging than ever. Joining us will be Deepak Premkumar, Research Fellow with the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC).
We’ll also learn about the latest UN report on climate change impacts and what it means for the Bay Area, with Dr. Patrick Gonzalez, forest ecologist and climate change scientist at UC Berkeley.
Finally, we’ll hear from an underwater portrait photographer Erena Shimoda and find out how she’s helping trauma survivors.
What would you like to ask our guests? Post a comment here, tweet us @StateofBay, send an email to stateofthebay@kalw.org or leave a voicemail at (415) 580-0718.
Tune in tonight at 6pm PT on KALW 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live. You can also call 866-798-TALK with questions during the show.
As 2021 draws to a close, I wanted to share some climate optimism. Climate and energy writer Dave Roberts interviewed carbon market analyst Kingsmill Bond, who is incredibly bullish on the long-term prospects for clean technology and bearish on fossil fuels.
In fact, he believes the world reached peak demand for fossil fuel, including coal and oil and gas, back in 2019, and that even as demand recovers, it won’t go beyond this peak. Meanwhile, clean technologies are plummeting in price and cost of deployment.
It’s worth reading the transcript of the full interview, but some highlights are below.
First, Bond notes that four of the crucial clean technologies (solar PV, wind, batteries, and electrolyzers to convert surplus electricity into hydrogen) are on established learning curves (the amount that their costs drop for every doubling in deployment) at between 16 and 34 percent. In practice, that means this already-cheap energy source is “a) going to get cheaper, b) going to spread globally, and then c) be followed up by these other technologies, also on learning curves, which will then provide us with the energy that we need at much lower cost.”
Second, he describes how fossil fuel incumbents are already pretty much on a death spiral. Specifically, he cites how legacy automakers were unprepared for the increasing shift toward new electric vehicles over old internal combustion engine (ICE) models:
You then look at the cost curves of the new stuff, and you realize that you’re going to have to change. You have to reallocate your capital out of ICE [internal combustion engine] cars and into electric vehicles. Meanwhile, you figure out that you’ve got continuous decline now coming for your ICE car sales, so suddenly, your ICE factory is a liability, not an asset. Furthermore, as your sales of ICE cars start to drop, you’ve got to allocate the same fixed-cost structure over a smaller number of cars, and your cost per unit increases. This is economics 101.
That’s what happens to the old people. What then happens to the new people, Tesla and BYD and the EV makers, is, as they produce more cars, the costs of the batteries fall because of these learning curves. As costs fall, demand increases, and as demand increases, they’re taking more market share, and they can then go to the second feedback loop, which is the financial markets.
Tesla can go to the financial markets and in an afternoon they can raise several billion dollars and build a new factory in Berlin, which increases their capacity to build at the same time the fossil fuel sector is finding it very difficult to raise capital, and is obliged by investors to change their strategic direction — as we saw, famously, with Engine No. 1.
The reason these incumbents struggle to adapt is relatively simple:
The answer is, incumbents, first of all, try and resist change. Then they struggle to put capital into these new technologies, because they’re not sufficiently profitable. You saw lots of examples of the oil center saying that over the last decade: we’re not going to put our money into solar and wind because we can get a 20 percent IRR on oil against a 5 percent IRR on solar. Why would we? The problem, then, is that by the time this stuff does get profitable and starts to eat into their old business, it’s too late, and other people have moved into this area. That’s exactly what’s happening now in the energy system.
Finally, Bond argues that the potential for cheap and abundant clean energy is massive: “If you look at the technical potential of solar and wind, which has been a lot in the last five years, it’s 100 times our global energy demand today.” It’s hard to imagine just how different our world would be if clean energy was essentially cheap and limitless.
Something to ponder as we head into the new year of 2022, with much work to be done to address climate change. May it be a good one for all of you!
It’s a double-shot of shows on KALW 91.7 FM today, my last two of the year. First, this morning on Your Call’s One Planet Series at 10am PT, we’ll discuss how climate science is being politicized in schools with investigative journalist Katie Worth, author of the riveting new book, Miseducation: How Climate Change Is Taught in America.
In the second half of the show, we’ll cover the mental health impacts of air pollution with reporter Kristina Marusic.
Then tonight at 6pm PT, I’ll be co-hosting State of the Bay to assess recent decisions rejecting or delaying housing projects by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. UC Davis Professor of Law Chris Elmendorf will help us understand the statewide legal implications of these anti-housing decisions, in particular the recent delay of a 500-unit housing development near BART.
Then we’ll discuss the state of the Bay Area’s “slow streets” movement, which close streets to most traffic for improved pedestrian and bike safety. What do you think about these measures? Ask our guests Eillie Anzilotti of the SFMTA and community planner Leah Chambers.
Finally, you’ll hear my interview with with Phil Ginsburg, General Manager of the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, who will discuss some of the holiday festivities available in the city’s public spaces.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 10am PT for Your Call and then again at 6pm PT for State of the Bay. What comments or questions do you have for these guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
On this morning Your Call’s Media Roundtable, we’ll discuss coverage of gerrymandering. From Oregon to Texas, states are finalizing new congressional district maps ahead of the 2022 midterms. According to an analysis by the Washington Post, as of late November, the new maps in 15 states have already netted a double-digit increase in solidly Republican seats compared with previous maps there.
And this week, the United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Texas over the state’s redrawn congressional and state legislative districts. The lawsuit alleges that the Texas redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act by discriminating against the state’s “growing minority electorate.” Joining us to discuss will be:
David Daley, journalist, senior fellow for FairVote, and author of Unrigged: How Americans Battled Back To Save Democracy.
Then we’ll cover the Biden administration’s renewable energy policies. According to a new analysis by the nonprofit Public Citizen, the Biden administration’s average monthly permits for oil and gas drilling on public lands are up more than 35% from when Trump took office in 2017. To discuss this and other climate policies, we’ll be joined by:
Sammy Roth, climate and energy reporter at the Los Angeles Times, and writer of the weekly Boiling Point newsletter.
Tune in at 91.7 FM in the San Francisco Bay Area or stream live at 10am PT. What comments or questions do you have for these reporters? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
