California inspires hope that climate change can be slowed and stopped before it is too late. The state has an expanding set of climate laws, policies, and programs. It has a platform for greenhouse emissions trading. It sets cumulative emission reduction targets, and it compels every energy service provider to increase its reliance on new renewable sources.
Each California county or city has a unique energy profile, climate impact and climate vulnerability. Each county produces renewable energy from its own unique mix of local sources, both for export and local use. Each city or county can, if it chooses, decarbonize and become more energy resilient a lot faster than the state, nation or global economy can. But only based on planning that accounts for local technical and economic opportunities and obstacles.
Climate action and adaptation is a relatively new local planning consideration. It can strengthen local economies, create local jobs, increase county and city tax revenues, and improve essential services. Local planning is essential because of major local differences that cause big deviations from statewide average energy usage patterns, transportation infrastructure, renewable resource opportunities, environmental concerns, and demographics. One action plan does not fit all.
Currently, California decarbonization and climate resilience is the sum of what all counties, cities, neighborhoods, building owners and vehicle owners decide and do. The cumulative effect of independent decisions by energy users and communities can turbocharge state policy implementation.
Or not. California cities and counties may continue to “outsource” climate action and adaptation to the state and its energy users. Or they can create, implement and update climate action and adaptation plans. Many do.
Many do not. Perhaps because they are not funded or required to and have plenty of other obligations to meet.
Historically, local energy and communication services, though increasingly vital and inter-dependent, have not been core local government concerns. So, most cities and counties do not yet have the right expertise on staff to engage with service providers, protect consumers, and oversee analysis of local trends and modeling of substitution scenarios and action pathways.
Using, hiring or borrowing expertise, they can change the future course of local energy supply, usage and service and win economically if they make a plan and implement it.
Most building heating needs are currently met with natural gas, the production, delivery and use of which releases greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Increased use of natural gas in the US and around the world has enabled the global greenhouse emissions curve to “flatten”. Natural gas use has also enabled the deployment of cost-saving “microgrids” in California and other states.
Now, because production of electricity is being decarbonized in California, there is growing interest in “electrification”, i.e. meeting building heating needs with electric appliances. There is also growing interest in broader and more integrative microgrid deployment to meet critical electricity needs when blackouts and “power safety shutoffs” occur.
For a variety of reasons, including cost and convenience, the pace and extent of building electrification has been slow in the US, even in milder climates like California’s where annual heating energy use is lower. The pace may quicken as more solar electricity is produced on-site to off-set grid electricity use. Acceleration would require easing restrictive rules that penalize both on-site solar electricity and microgrid economics. Easing may happen, but only after debate, compromise and phase in of new rules.
Electrification and microgrids are emerging, actionable options. But California needs a more complete game plan for action on two broad fronts, each addressing half of California’s greenhouse emissions and each strengthening resilience in different ways.
First, action on the statewide front to decarbonize heavy industry and long haul ground transport, to reduce embedded carbon in the goods and materials we use, and perhaps even to change California’s economically vital agricultural sector from a GHG source to a carbon sink. Second, a planned decarbonization and energy resilience transition in every California city and county.
What is already moving the local emissions needle, and what could work even better going forward? Existing plans primarily impact electricity production and use. More on-site electricity production, more renewable electricity imports, community and neighborhood microgrids, heat pump based appliances, and battery and fuel cell electric vehicles are on the menu.
Local action impacting gaseous fuel production and use gets less attention but can be equally affordable and impactful. A suite of near term local actions that decarbonize both gas and electricity service could harmonize with longer term zero carbon aspirations. Decarbonizing rather than restricting gaseous fuel use might double the near term pace of local climate action. Can gaseous fuels also enable faster electricity sector decarbonization and more robust energy resilience as well?
They can. The local gaseous fuel action menu includes local pipeline leakage reductions, more renewable fuel from local waste, more renewable gas imports, hybrid solar/renewable gas space and water heating, vehicles fueled by renewable gas and renewable hydrogen, and fully resilient microgrids relying, not just on solar PV and batteries, but on microturbines and fuel cells as well.
In parallel, aging regional power plant fleets will rely more on renewable sources and battery storage. Energy transport networks will continue to handle high volumes of gas and electricity, while new and existing solar arrays on buildings and parking structures will continue to feed into local electricity “distribution” networks. Community based renewable gas and electricity production will expand to resupply local vehicles with affordable energy. Internal building electricity systems will evolve to inform and manage energy use and flows of electricity between buildings and vehicles.
Now, for the first time, cost-competitive renewable gas and electricity can be produced and distributed locally, helping insulate communities from energy commodity price escalation and from being cut off from regional energy delivery networks. A transition, local as well as global, to carbon-free energy is now both feasible and necessary. It is happening. Because it is, local decarbonization and resilience planning and implementation in California is no longer an option. It is necessary. Planning coordination between electric utilities, gas utilities and local governments will create opportunities for faster and lower cost local decarbonization and climate resilience. New fuel and electricity pathways will be branching off from the old. For example, transitioning from current natural gas sources to renewable natural gas (bio-methane) made from plant matter and manure and renewable hydrogen made with renewable electricity will pave the way for integrated vehicle/building systems.
Starting more than a decade ago many California cities and counties prepared and adopted Climate Action and Adaptation Plans. These documents anticipated reductions in building energy use and identified ways to import more low carbon electricity. Regrettably, no state or local funding was approved to implement local plans. Nevertheless, the planning and adoption process educated local leaders and inspired local climate advocacy.
Communities can now choose from expanding menus of action options summarized above. They can aim for resilience improvements by emphasizing supply diversity and robust local infrastructure. They can determine how to navigate toward their own best long term balance between locally produced and imported energy.
In summary, local climate action and adaptation planning in California must be ever more integrative, collaborative, pragmatic and economically informed.
Integrative, because there are important trade-offs to address. Resilience and decarbonization require different investments. More renewable energy will be produced locally and less imported from afar. The best balance will be different for each city and county.
Collaborative, because outdated and overly prescriptive state laws and regulations are barriers to affordable local energy transitions. If cities, counties and utilities team up, and the state does not interfere, local team members can often find ways to overcome impediments.
Pragmatic, because local energy transitions must be accelerated for maximum effect. Pragmatic means both/and, i.e. decarbonizing both gas fuel and electricity commodities and taking advantage of the synergies between them. Local learning by doing will be the difference between safe and unsafe and between affordable for some and affordable by all.
Economically informed, because residents and businesses will be investing time and bearing the costs under post-COVID economic conditions. Progress will only accelerate based on affordable steps that are also beneficial to local economies.
A report providing specific planning guidance for Local Fuel Gas Decarbonization and Resilience in Southern California is now available at www.iresn.org/reports.
Gerald Braun advises regarding local energy integration, collaboration and planning. He directed early national and utility renewable and gas technology programs. Later, he led solar PV industry efforts to commercialize new PV panel technologies and open markets for grid-tied systems. He served as Director of the California Renewable Energy Center at UC Davis until 2012 and can be reached at gbraun@iresn.org.
Illustrations:
Local Climate Action and Resilience Enablers
Local Climate Action and Resilience Pathways