Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a century-old New York law that limited the right to carry concealed handguns outside the home. How will states respond to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen? What are the implications for other constitutional rights?
We’ll discuss on Your Call today, when I’ll be guest hosting. Joining the program will be:
- Chip Brownlee, reporter at The Trace, the only newsroom dedicated to reporting on gun violence
- Jess Bravin, a Supreme Court Correspondent with The Wall Street Journal
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!
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.
Tonight on State of the Bay, we’ll get the latest on spiking Covid rates and what the new Monkeypox virus might mean for the Bay Area, with:
- Erin Allday, San Francisco Chronicle health reporter
- Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, infectious disease specialist at UCSF
Next we’ll ask if “Aid-in-Dying” laws are working for terminally ill patients? We’ll talk to cultural anthropologist Anita Hannig about her new book, The Day I Die.
Finally, we’ll find out how the pandemic pups faring with Kristy Lai of Happy Hound and Oakland Animal Services.
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.
Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) and UCLA Law’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change & the Environment released a new policy report today, Driving Equity: Policy Solutions to Accelerate Electric Vehicle Adoption in Lower-Income Communities. The report highlights key policy solutions to ensure that California’s electric vehicle (EV) transition is equitable and inclusive. Top-priority strategies include increased rebates and incentives for lower-income vehicle purchasers; financial and infrastructure support for charging networks; and funding for greater outreach by community-based organizations.
To achieve ambitious state greenhouse gas emission reduction and carbon neutrality goals, California must significantly reduce emissions from transportation, which is the single greatest source of statewide and national emissions. California has made significant progress to date through its ambitious incentive and regulatory programs, recently surpassing 1 million cumulative EV sales and representing nearly 40 percent of all EV sales nationwide.
But any California resident will know that today most EVs are higher-cost models, with base prices over $40,000 or $50,000 for newly released vehicles, federal tax credits unavailable for legacy manufacturers, and base-price models hard to locate. Most are driven by residents of higher-income areas and single-family homes with private or workplace charging access.
California will not effectively and equitably phase out fossil fuel vehicle sales in the next 13 years (as required by executive order) unless all Californians have access to affordable EVs and robust charging infrastructure that meet their transportation and community needs.
To address this challenge, CLEE and the Emmett Institute convened state, local, industry, and environmental leaders to develop priority solutions to increase EV adoption in California’s lower-income communities. Participants laid out a vision for an equitable EV transition that would place community stakeholders at the forefront of investment decision-making; embrace public transit and active transportation priorities while ensuring connectivity through affordable private and shared vehicles; include abundant public charging and support associated grid infrastructure; and ensure availability of durable EVs, including pickups, to meet a range of driver needs.
The group identified key barriers to this transition including limited financial capacity to acquire new higher-cost vehicles; limited access to convenient and affordable charging; and limited public awareness and relevant outreach. Policy solutions to overcome those barriers include:
- Increasing existing vehicle rebates to lower upfront purchase prices. The Clean Vehicle Rebate Project and Clean Cars 4 All programs, as well as utility rebates, offer generous incentives for EV buyers. However, even with vehicle and battery prices broadly declining, purchase prices are still higher than many lower-income residents can afford. No manufacturer has yet released a full-range economy model, and used EVs are hard to locate. Increased purchase incentives for lower-income buyers could help bridge the gap until more models and used vehicles are available (the CVRP and CC4A programs already include income caps).
- Creating a subsidized charging payment system. While EV charging costs are generally lower per mile than gasoline refueling, ultimately generating cost savings compared to gasoline vehicles, these savings can take many years to accrue. The legislature could create a subsidized card for use at public chargers to incentivize the switch, ensure that lower-income Californians have the financial ability to charge when needed, and promote installation of chargers in a range of communities.
- Funding community-based organizations. Programs like the San Joaquin Clean Vehicle Empowerment Collective have demonstrated the potential of CBOs to provide information, technical assistance, and outreach optimally targeted to the EV interests and needs of under-resourced communities. The legislature could provide direct funding for similar organizations throughout the state to ensure that all Californians are aware of and can access the incentives and benefits available to them.
You can download the report here. Please also join us on May 24 at 1pm PT for a webinar to discuss the report and transportation decarbonization equity with:
- Commissioner Patty Monahan, California Energy Commission
- Jessie Denver, East Bay Community Energy
- Paul Francis, KIGT
This post co-authored by Ted Lamm.
The “explainer” channel Cheddar tackled why Los Angeles lost its vast streetcar network and debunks the conspiracy theory that General Motors destroyed it, featuring an interview with me:
Tonight on State of the Bay, we’ll discuss the Supreme Court’s leaked draft majority opinion reversing the constitutional right to an abortion rights and what California lawmakers are doing to safeguard reproductive rights in the state. Joining us will be Shannon Olivieri Hovis, director of NARAL Pro-Choice California.
Then, we’ll discuss what Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter may mean for San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area, with Emily Birnbaum, tech lobbying and influence reporter for POLITICO, and Laura Waxmann, real estate, housing and development reporter for the San Francisco Business Times.
Finally, we’ll talk to the San Francisco Chronicle’s Soleil Ho about her life as a restaurant critic and her recent nomination for a prestigious James Beard award.
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.
Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment (CLEE) and UCLA Law’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change & the Environment are releasing today a new policy report: Branching Out: Waste Biomass Policies To Promote Wildfire Resilience and Emission Reduction. The report offers solutions to develop a sustainable market for the residual waste material generated by wildfire treatments on forested and other high fire risk lands.
In response to California’s devastating wildfires over the past several years, government and private landowners are removing excess material at risk of burning, such as dead trees and other vegetation, to create fire breaks that protect lives and buildings. Once cut and stacked, this material risks burning in the next fire, creating additional carbon emissions and air pollution.
Yet rather than leave the waste debris on the forest floor, property owners could potentially use it to create wood products, chips and mulch, or other end uses, which can help defray the costs of wildfire treatments and offset emissions from the production of these products.
To advance this conversation, CLEE and the Emmett Institute convened a small group of experts to discuss opportunities to improve the market for debris material. Several key solutions emerged from the conversation, including for the governor and state legislature to:
- Create a role for the state to serve as a broker for woody feedstock supply, potentially alongside local governments, facilitated through the California Natural Resources Agency.
- Direct the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to support data mapping and brokerage initiatives for regional supply chain management.
- Dedicate resources towards forest resilience workforce and economic development at local and regional levels.
State agencies are already tackling this issue from several different angles. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research oversees five pilot projects intended to improve feedstock aggregation mechanisms. The pilot projects are spread throughout the state, and local leaders jointly manage the entities under combined local land use authorities delegated by local government partners. Meanwhile, CAL FIRE’s Business and Workforce Development Grant program offers up to $24 million to projects that advance the wood products market and workforce.
To avoid the risk of unintended negative consequences, such as clearing of healthy forest material that does not promote wildfire resilience, state leaders could deploy the solutions presented in the report over a limited time period, focused narrowly on debris material, in regions with the greatest need for state support (due to material accumulation or potential for community benefits, or a combination of both). They could also ensure they integrate these practices into the broader forest management and wildfire resilience context.
Ultimately, these vegetation management practices are one component of a broader forest and wildfire management strategy that should include prescribed burn and more intentional siting of population centers outside of high fire risk areas. However, by following these recommendations, the state can ensure that when land managers complete vegetation management actions, they have the option to remove and dispose of the residual waste material in a responsible manner, offsetting emissions and reducing demand for new wood products.
For a full list of solutions and more detailed discussion, view the policy report.
CLEE & UCLA Law will host a public webinar on Monday, May 9 from 4:00pm to 5:00pm Pacific Time to discuss report findings and hear from a panel of experts who will share their insights on the problem and potential solutions. Speakers include:
- Jessica Morse, Deputy Secretary, California Natural Resources Agency
- Phil Saksa, Ph.D., Co-founder & Chief Scientist, Blue Forest
Register to join!
I’m guest hosting Your Call’s Media Roundtable this morning at 10am PT, where we’ll first discuss the state of emergency in El Salvador, following a rise in gang violence. The measure restricts the freedom of the press and suspends civil liberties including the right to assembly and access to a lawyer. More than 17,000 have been arrested since the state of emergency was declared a month ago.
According to El Faro, a leading investigative digital news outlet, earlier this month, President Bukele also ordered changes to the Penal Code that press advocates warn censor journalism about gangs and would impede news outlets from questioning the official narrative on issues such as security policy and the government’s secret negotiations with the gangs.
Joining us will be Anna-Cat Brigida, a freelance journalist in Latin America.
Then we’ll talk about why California continues to approve new oil and gas wells. The state approved more new wells in March and April than in any two-month period since last October. We also discuss the power and influence of fossil fuel lobbyists on regulators and lawmakers in California. According to a new analysis by Capital & Main, between 2018 and 2021, lobbying organizations representing oil and gas companies spent almost $77.5 million advocating for the industry’s interests in Sacramento.
Joining us will be Aaron Cantu, award winning investigative journalist covering gas and oil in California for the Capital and Main.
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 guests? Call 866-798-TALK to join the conversation!
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.
