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.