Power plant in space to power homes on earth

Build Back Better Act Energy Savings curb volatile fossil fuel heating bills by accelerating electrification and renewable electricity, insulating households from natural gas, propane, and oil price spikes while cutting emissions and lowering energy costs.

Key Points

BBBA policies expand clean power and electrification to curb volatility, lower bills, and cut emissions.

✅ Tax credits for renewables, EVs, and efficient all-electric homes

✅ Shields households from natural gas, propane, and heating oil spikes

✅ Cuts methane, lowers bills, and improves grid reliability and jobs

Experts are forecasting serious sticker shock from home heating bills this winter. Nearly 60 percent of United States’ households heat their homes with fossil fuels, including natural gas, propane, or heating oil, and these consumers are expected to spend much more this winter because of fuel price increases.

That could greatly burden many families and businesses already operating on thin margins. Yet homes that use electricity for heating and cooking are largely insulated from the pain of volatile fuel markets, and they’re facing dramatically lower price increases as a result.

Projections say cost increases for households could range anywhere from 22% to 94% more, depending on the fuel used for heating and the severity of the winter temperatures. But the added expenditures for the 41% of U.S. households using electricity for heating are much less stark—these consumers will see only a 6% price increase on average. The projected fossil fuel price spikes are largely due to increased demand, limited supply, declining fuel stores, and shifting investment priorities in the face of climate change.

The fossil fuel industry is already seizing this moment to use high prices to persuade policymakers to vote against clean energy policies, particularly the Build Back Better Act (BBBA). Spokespeople with ties to the fossil fuel industry and some consumer groups are trying to pin higher fuel prices on the proposed legislation even before it has passed, even as analyses show the energy crisis is not spurring a green revolution on its own, let alone begun impacting fuel markets. But the claim the BBBA would cost Americans and the economy is false.

The facts tell a different story. Adopting smart climate policies and accelerating the clean energy transition are precisely the solutions to counter this vicious cycle by ending our dependance on volatile fossil fuels. The BBBA will ensure reliable, affordable clean electricity for millions of Americans, in line with a clean electricity standard many experts advocate—a key strategy for avoiding future vulnerability. Unlike fossil fuels subject to the whims of a global marketplace, wind and sunshine are always free. So renewable-generated electricity comes with an ultra-low fixed price decades into the future.

By expanding clean energy and electric vehicle tax credits, creating new incentives for efficient all-electric homes, and dedicating new funding for state and local programs, the BBBA provides practical solutions that build on lessons from Biden's climate law to protect Americans from price shocks, save consumers money, and reduce emissions fueling dangerous climate change.

What’s really causing the gas price spikes?
The U.S. Energy Information Administration’s winter 2021 energy price forecasts project that homes heated with natural gas, fuel oil, and propane will see average price increases of 30%, 43%, and 54%, respectively. Those who heat their homes with electricity, on the other hand, should expect a modest 6% increase. At the pump, drivers are seeing some of the highest gas prices in nearly a decade as the U.S. energy crisis ripples through electricity, gas, and EV markets today. And the U.S. is not alone. Countries around the globe are experiencing similar price jumps, including Britain's high winter energy costs this season.

A closer look confirms the cause of these high prices is not clean energy or climate policies—it’s fossil fuels themselves.  

First, the U.S. (and the world) are just now feeling the effects of the oil and gas industry’s reduced fuel production and spending due to the pandemic. COVID-19 brought the world’s economies to a screeching halt, and most countries have not returned to pre-COVID economic activity. During the past 20 months, the oil and gas industry curtailed its production to avoid oversupply as demand fell to all-time lows. Just as businesses were reopening, stored fuel was needed to meet high demand for cooling during 2021’s hottest summer on record, driving sky-high summer energy bills for many households. February’s Texas Big Freeze also disrupted gas distribution and production.

The world is moving again and demand for goods and services is rebounding to pre-pandemic levels. But even with higher energy demand, OPEC announced it would not inject more oil into the economy. Major oil companies have also held oil and gas spending flat in 2021, with their share of overall upstream spending at 25%, compared with nearly 40% in the mid-2010s. And as climate change threats loom in the financial world, investors are reducing their exposure to the risks of stranded assets, increasingly diversifying and divesting from fossil fuels. 

Second, despite strong and sustained growth for renewable energy, energy storage, and electric vehicles, the relatively slow pace to adopt fossil fuel alternatives at scale has left U.S. households and businesses tethered to an industry well-known for price volatility. Today, some oil drillers are using profits from higher gas prices to pay back debt and reward shareholders as demanded by investors, instead of increasing supply. Rising prices for a limited commodity in high demand is generating huge profits for many of the world’s largest companies at the expense of U.S. households.

Because 48% of homes use fossil gas for heating and another 10% heat with propane and fuel oil, more than half of U.S. households will feel the impact of rising prices on their home energy bills. One in four U.S. households continues to experience a high energy burden (meaning their energy expenses consume an inordinate amount of their income), including risks of pandemic power shut-offs that deepen energy insecurity, and many are still experiencing financial hardships exacerbated by the pandemic. Those with inefficient fossil-fueled appliances, homes, and cars will be hardest hit, and many families with fixed- and lower-incomes could be forced to choose between heat or other necessities.

We have the solutions—the BBBA will unlock their benefits for all households

Short-term band-aids may be enticing, but long-term policies are the only way out of this negative feedback loop. Clean energy and building electrification will prevent more costly disasters in the future, but they’re the very solutions the fossil fuel industry fights at every turn. All-electric homes and vehicles are a natural hedge against the price spikes we’re experiencing today since renewables are inherently devoid of fuel-related price fluctuations.

RMI analysis shows all-electric single-family homes in all regions of the country have lower energy bills than a comparable mixed fuel-homes (i.e., electricity and gas). Electric vehicles also save consumers money. Research from University of California, Berkeley and Energy Innovation found consumers could save a total of $2.7 trillion in 2050—or $1,000 per year, per household for the next 30 years—if we accelerate electric vehicle deployment in the coming decade.

The BBBA would help deliver these consumer savings by expanding and expediting clean energy, while ensuring equitable adoption among lower-income households and underserved communities. Extending and expanding clean energy tax credits; new incentives for electric vehicles (including used electric vehicles); and new incentives for energy efficient homes and all-electric appliances (and electrical upgrades) will reduce up-front costs and spur widespread adoption of all-electric homes, buildings, and cars.

A combination of grants, incentives, and programs will promote private sector investments in a decarbonized economy, while also funding and supporting state and local governments already leading the way. The BBBA also allocates dedicated funding and makes important modifications (such as higher rebate amounts and greater point-of-purchase availability) to ensure these technologies are available to low-income households, underserved urban and rural communities, tribes, frontline communities, and people living in multifamily housing.

Finally, the BBBA proposes to make oil and gas polluters pay for the harm they are causing to people’s health and the climate through a methane fee. This fee would cost companies less than 1% of their revenue, meaning the industry would retain over 99% of its profits. In return return we’d see substantial reductions of a powerful greenhouse gas and a healthier environment in communities living near fossil fuel production. These benefits also come with a stronger economy—Energy Innovation analysis shows the methane fee would create more than 70,000 jobs by 2050 and boost gross domestic product more than $250 billion from 2023 to 2050.

The facts speak for themselves. Gas prices are rising because of reasons totally unrelated to smart climate and clean energy policies, which research shows actually lower costs. For the first time in more than a decade, America has the opportunity to enact a comprehensive energy policy that will yield measurable savings to consumers and free us from oil and gas industry control over our wallets.

The BBBA will help the U.S. get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster and achieve a stable energy future, ensuring that today’s price spikes will be a thing of the past. Proving, once and for all, that the solution to our fossil fuel woes is not more fossil fuels.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Ontario Natural Gas Moratorium gains momentum as IESO weighs energy storage, renewables, and demand management to meet rising electricity demand, ensure grid reliability, and advance zero-emissions goals while long-term capacity procurements proceed.

Key Points

A proposed halt on new gas plants as IESO assesses storage and renewables to maintain reliability and cut emissions.

✅ Minister seeks interim IESO report by Oct. 7

✅ Near-term contracts extend existing gas plants for reliability

✅ Long-term procurements emphasize storage, renewables, conservation

Ontario's energy minister says he doesn't think the province needs any more natural gas generation and has asked the electricity system regulator to speed up a report exploring a moratorium.

Todd Smith had previously asked the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) to report back by November on the feasibility of a moratorium and a plan to get to zero emissions in the electricity sector.

He has asked them today for an interim report by Oct. 7 so he can make a decision on a moratorium before the IESO secures contracts over the long term for new power generation.

"I've asked the IESO to speed up that report back to us so that we can get the information from them as to what the results would be for our grid here in Ontario and whether or not we actually need more natural gas," Smith said Tuesday after question period.

"I don't believe that we do."

Smith said that is because of the "huge success" of two updates provided Tuesday by the IESO to its attempts to secure more electricity supply for both the near term and long term. Demand is growing by nearly two per cent a year, while Ontario is set to lose a significant amount of nuclear generation, including the planned shutdown of the Pickering nuclear station over the next few years.

'For the near term, we need them,' regulator says
The regulator today released a list of 55 qualified proponents for those long-term bids and while it says there is a significant amount of proposed energy storage projects on that list, there are some new gas plants on it as well.

Chuck Farmer, the vice-president of planning, conservation and resource adequacy at the IESO, said it's hoped that the minister makes a decision on whether or not to issue a moratorium on new gas generation before the regulator proceeds with a request for proposals for long-term contracts.

The IESO also announced six new contracts — largely natural gas, with a small amount of wind power and storage — to start in the next few years. Farmer noted that these contracts were specifically for existing generators whose contracts were ending, while the province is exploring new nuclear plants for the longer term.

"When you look at the pool of generation resources that were in that situation, the reality is most of them were actually natural gas plants, and that we are relying on the continued use of the natural gas plants in the transition," he said in an interview. 

"So for the near term, we need them for the reliability of the system."

The upcoming request for proposals for more long-term contracts hopes to secure 3,500 megawatts of capacity, as Ontario faces an electricity shortfall in the coming years, and Farmer said the IESO plans to run a series of procurements over the next few years.

Opposition slams reliance on natural gas
The NDP and Greens on Tuesday criticized Ontario's reliance in the near term on natural gas because of its environmental implications.

The IESO has said that due to natural gas, greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are set to increase for the next two decades, but by about 2038 it projects the net reductions from electric vehicles will offset electricity sector emissions.

Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner said it makes no sense to ramp up natural gas, both for the climate and for people's wallets.

"The cost of wind and solar power is much lower than gas," he said.

Ontario quietly revises its plan for hitting climate change targets
"We're in a now-or-never moment to address the climate crisis and the government is failing to meet this moment."

Interim NDP Leader Peter Tabuns said Ontario wouldn't be in as much of a supply crunch if the Progressive Conservative government hadn't cancelled 750 green energy contracts during their first term.

The Tories argued the province didn't need the power and the contracts were driving up costs for ratepayers, amid debate over whether greening the grid would be affordable.

The IESO said it is also proposing expanding conservation and demand management programs, as a "highly cost-effective" way to reduce strain on the system, though it couldn't say exactly what is on the table until the minister accepts the recommendation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Puerto Rico Power Restoration advances as PREPA, FEMA, and the Army Corps rebuild the grid after Hurricane Maria; 75% of customers powered, amid privatization debate, Whitefish contract fallout, and a continuing island-wide boil-water advisory.

Key Points

Effort to rebuild Puerto Rico's grid and restore power, led by PREPA with FEMA support after Hurricane Maria.

✅ 75.35% of customers have power; 90.8% grid generating

✅ PREPA, FEMA, and Army Corps lead restoration work

✅ Privatization debate, Whitefish contract scrutiny

Nearly six months after Hurricane Maria decimated Puerto Rico, the island's electricity has been restored to 75 percent capacity, according to its utility company, a contrast to California power shutdowns implemented for different reasons.

The Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority said Sunday that 75.35 percent of customers now have electricity. It added that 90.8 percent of the electrical grid, already anemic even before the Sept. 20 storm barrelled through the island, is generating power again, though demand dynamics can vary widely as seen in Spain's power demand during lockdowns.

Thousands of power restoration personnel made up of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), industry workers from the mainland, and the Army Corps of Engineers have made marked progress in recent weeks, even as California power shutoffs highlight grid risks elsewhere.

Despite this, 65 people in shelters and an island-wide boil water advisory is still in effect even though almost 100 percent of Puerto Ricans have access to drinking water, local government records show.

The issue of power became controversial after Puerto Rico Gov. Ricardo Rossello recently announced plans to privatize PREPA after it chose to allocate a $300 million power restoration contract to Whitefish, a Montana-based company with only a few staffers, rather than put it through the mutual-aid network of public utilities usually called upon to coordinate power restoration after major disasters, and unlike investor-owned utilities overseen by regulators such as the Florida PSC on the mainland.

That contract was nixed and Whitefish stopped working in Puerto Rico after FEMA raised "significant concerns" over the procurement process, scrutiny mirrored by the fallout from Taiwan's widespread outage where the economic minister resigned.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations News

Bitcoin energy consumption is driven by mining electricity demand, with TWh-scale power use, carbon footprint concerns, and Cambridge estimates. Rising prices incentivize more hardware; efficiency gains and renewables adoption shape sustainability outcomes.

Key Points

Bitcoin energy consumption is mining's electricity use, driven by price, device efficiency, and energy mix.

✅ Cambridge tool estimates ~121 TWh annual usage

✅ Rising BTC price incentivizes more mining hardware

✅ Efficiency, renewables, and costs shape footprint

"Mining" for the cryptocurrency is power-hungry, with power curtailments reported during heat waves, involving heavy computer calculations to verify transactions.

Cambridge researchers say it consumes around 121.36 terawatt-hours (TWh) a year - and is unlikely to fall unless the value of the currency slumps, even as Americans use less electricity overall.

Critics say electric-car firm Tesla's decision to invest heavily in Bitcoin undermines its environmental image.

The currency's value hit a record $48,000 (£34,820) this week. following Tesla's announcement that it had bought about $1.5bn bitcoin and planned to accept it as payment in future.

But the rising price offers even more incentive to Bitcoin miners to run more and more machines.

And as the price increases, so does the energy consumption, according to Michel Rauchs, researcher at The Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, who co-created the online tool that generates these estimates.

“It is really by design that Bitcoin consumes that much electricity,” Mr Rauchs told BBC’s Tech Tent podcast. “This is not something that will change in the future unless the Bitcoin price is going to significantly go down."

The online tool has ranked Bitcoin’s electricity consumption above Argentina (121 TWh), the Netherlands (108.8 TWh) and the United Arab Emirates (113.20 TWh) - and it is gradually creeping up on Norway (122.20 TWh).

The energy it uses could power all kettles used in the UK, where low-carbon generation stalled in 2019, for 27 years, it said.

However, it also suggests the amount of electricity consumed every year by always-on but inactive home devices in the US alone could power the entire Bitcoin network for a year, and in Canada, B.C. power imports have helped meet demand.

Mining Bitcoin
In order to "mine" Bitcoin, computers - often specialised ones - are connected to the cryptocurrency network.

They have the job of verifying transactions made by people who send or receive Bitcoin.

This process involves solving puzzles, which, while not integral to verifying movements of the currency, provide a hurdle to ensure no-one fraudulently edits the global record of all transactions.

As a reward, miners occasionally receive small amounts of Bitcoin in what is often likened to a lottery.

To increase profits, people often connect large numbers of miners to the network - even entire warehouses full of them, as seen with a Medicine Hat bitcoin operation backed by an electricity deal.

That uses lots of electricity because the computers are more or less constantly working to complete the puzzles, prompting some utilities to consider pauses on new crypto loads in certain regions.

The University of Cambridge tool models the economic lifetime of the world's Bitcoin miners and assumes that all the Bitcoin mining machines worldwide are working with various efficiencies.

Using an average electricity price per kilowatt hour ($0.05) and the energy demands of the Bitcoin network, it is then possible to estimate how much electricity is being consumed at any one time, though in places like China's power sector data can be opaque.
 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Texas Power Grid Reliability faces record peak demand as ERCOT balances renewable energy, wind and solar variability, gas-fired generation, demand response, and transmission limits to prevent blackouts during heat waves and extreme weather.

Key Points

Texas Power Grid Reliability is ERCOT's capacity to meet peak demand with diverse resources while limiting outages.

✅ Record heat drives peak demand across ERCOT.

✅ Variable wind/solar need firm, flexible capacity.

✅ Demand response and reserves reduce blackout risk.

The electric power grid in Texas, which collapsed dramatically during the 2021 winter storm across the state, is being tested again as the state suffers unusually hot summer weather. Demand for electricity has reached new records at a time of rapid change in the mix of power sources as wind and solar ramp up. That’s feeding a debate about the dependability of the state’s power. 

1. Why is the Texas grid under threat again? 

Already the biggest power user in the nation, electricity use in the second most-populous state surged to record levels during heat waves this summer. The jump in demand comes as the state becomes more dependent on intermittent renewable power sources, raising concerns among some critics that more reliance on wind and solar will leave the grid more vulnerable to disruption. Green sources will produce almost 40% of the power in Texas this year, US Energy Information Administration data show. While that trails California’s 52%, Texas is a bigger market. It’s already No. 1 in wind, making it the largest clean energy market in the US. 

2. How is Texas unique? 

The spirit of defiance of the Lone Star State extends to its power grid as well. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas, or Ercot as the grid operator is known, serves about 90% of the state’s electricity needs and has very few high-voltage transmission lines connecting to nearby grids. It’s a deliberate move to avoid federal oversight of the power market. That means Texas has to be mainly self-reliant and cannot depend on neighbors during extreme conditions. That vulnerability is a dramatic twist for a state that’s also the energy capital of the US, thanks to vast oil and natural gas producing fields. Favorable regulations are also driving a wind and solar boom in Texas. 

3. Why the worry? 

The summer of 2023 will mark the first time all of the state’s needs cannot be met by traditional power plants, like nuclear, coal and gas. A sign of potential trouble came on June 20 when state officials urged residents to conserve power because of low supplies from wind farms and unexpected closures of fossil-fuel generators amid supply-chain constraints that limited availability. As of late July, the grid was holding up, thanks to the help of renewable sources. Solar generation has been coming in close to expected summer capacity, or exceeding it on most days. This has helped offset the hours in the middle of the day when wind speeds died down in West Texas. 

4. Why didn’t the grid’s problems get fixed? 

There is no easy fix. The Texas system allows the price of electricity to swing to match supply and demand. That means high prices — and high profits — drive the development of new power plants. At times spot power prices have been as low as $20-$50 a megawatt-hour versus more than $4,000 during periods of stress. The limitation of this pricing structure was laid bare by the 2021 winter blackouts. Since then, state lawmakers have passed market reforms that require weatherization of critical infrastructure and changed rules to put more money in the pockets of the owners of power generation.  

5. What’s the big challenge? 

There’s a real clash going on over what the grid of the future should look like in Texas and across the country, especially as severe heat raises blackout risks nationally. The challenge is to make sure nuclear and fossil fuel plants that are needed right now don’t retire too early and still allow newer, cleaner technologies to flourish. Some conservative Republicans have blamed renewable energy for destabilizing the grid and have pushed for more fossil-fuel powered generators. Lawmakers passed a controversial $10 billion program providing low-interest loans and grants to build new gas-fired plants using taxpayer money, but Texans ultimately have to vote on the subsidy. 

6. Why do improvements take so long? 

Figuring out how to keep the lights on without overburdening consumers is becoming a greater challenge amid more extreme weather fueled by climate change. As such, changing the rules is often a hotly contested process pitting utilities, generators, manufacturers, electricity retailers and other groups against one another. The process became more politicized after the storm in 2021 with Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and lawmakers ordering Ercot to make changes. Building more transmission lines and connecting to other states can help, but such projects are typically tied up for years in red tape.

7. What can be done? 

The price cap for electricity was cut from $9,000/MWh to $5,000 to help avoid the punitive costs seen in the 2021 storm, though prices are allowed to spike more easily. Ercot is also contracting for more reserves to be online to help avoid supply shortfalls and improve reliability for customers, which added $1.7 billion in consumer costs alone last year. Another rule helps some gas generators pay for their fuel costs, while a more recent reform put in price floors when reserves fall to certain levels. Many power experts say that the easiest solution is to pay people to reduce their energy consumption during times of grid stress through so-called demand response programs. Factories, Bitcoin miners and other large users are already compensated to conserve during tight grid conditions.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Managed Decline of Fossil Fuels aligns oil phaseout with carbon neutrality, leveraging ZEV adoption, solar and wind growth, severance taxes, drilling setbacks, fracking oversight, CARB rules, and CalGEM regulation to deliver a just transition.

Key Points

California's strategy to phase out oil and gas while meeting carbon-neutral goals through policy, regulation, and equity.

✅ Severance taxes fund clean energy and workforce transition.

✅ Setbacks restrict drilling near schools, homes, and hospitals.

✅ CARB and CalGEM tighten fracking oversight and ZEV targets.

California’s energy past is on a collision course with its future. Think of major oil-producing U.S. states, and Texas, Alaska or North Dakota probably come to mind. Although its position relative to other states has been falling for 20 years, California remains the seventh-largest oil-producing state, with 162 million barrels of crude coming up in 2018, translating to tax revenue and jobs.

At the same time, California leads the nation in solar rooftops and electric vehicles on the road by a wide margin and ranking fifth in installed wind capacity. Clean energy is the state’s future, and the state is increasingly exporting its energy policies across the West, influencing regional markets. By law, California must have 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045, and an executive order signed by former Governor Jerry Brown calls for economywide carbon-neutrality by the same year.

So how can the state reconcile its divergent energy path? How should clean-energy-minded lawmakers wind down California’s oil and gas sector in a way that aligns with the state’s long-term climate targets while providing a just transition for the industry’s workforce?

Any efforts to reduce fossil fuel supply must run parallel to aggressive demand-reduction measures such as California’s push to have 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030, said Ethan Elkind, director of Berkeley Law's climate program, especially amid debates over keeping the lights on without fossil fuels in the near term. After all, if oil demand in California remains strong, crude from outside the state will simply fill the void.

“If we don’t stop using it, then that supply is going to get here, even if it’s not produced in-state,” Elkind said in an interview.

Lawmakers have a number of options for policies that would draw down and eventually phase out fossil fuel production in California, according to a new report from the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the UC Berkeley School of Law, co-authored by Elkind and Ted Lamm.

They could impose a higher price on California's oil production through a "severance" tax or carbon-based fee, with the revenue directed to measures that wean the state from fossil fuels. (California, alone among major oil-producing states, does not have an oil severance tax.)

Lawmakers could establish a minimum drilling setback from schools, playgrounds, homes and other sensitive sites. They could push the state's oil and gas regulator, the California Geologic Energy Management Division, to prioritize environmental and climate concerns.

A major factor holding lawmakers back is, of course, politics, including debates over blackouts and climate policy that shape public perception. Given the state’s clean-energy ambitions, it might surprise non-Californians that the oil and gas industry is one of the Golden State’s most powerful special interest groups.

Overcoming a "third-rail issue" in California politics
The Western States Petroleum Association, the sector’s trade group in California's capital of Sacramento, spent $8.8 million lobbying state policymakers in 2019, more than any other interest group. Over the last five years, the group, which cultivates both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, has spent $43.3 million on lobbying, nearly double the total of the second-largest lobbying spender.

Despite former Governor Brown’s reputation as a climate champion, critics say he was unwilling to forcefully take on the oil and gas industry. However, things may take a different turn under Brown's successor, Governor Gavin Newsom.

In May 2019, when Newsom released California's midyear budget revision (PDF), the governor's office noted the need for "careful study and planning to decrease demand and supply of fossil fuels, while managing the decline in a way that is economically responsible and sustainable.”

Related reliability concerns surfaced as blackouts revealed lapses in power supply across the state.

Writing for the advocacy organization Oil Change International, David Turnbull observed, “This may mark the first time that a sitting governor in California has recognized the need to embark upon a managed decline of fossil fuel supply in the state.”

“It is significant because typically this is one of those third-rail issues, kind of a hot potato that governors don’t even want to touch at all — including Jerry Brown, to a large extent, who really focused much more on the demand side of fuel consumption in the state,” said Berkeley Law’s Elkind.

California's revised budget included $1.5 million for a Transition to a Carbon-Neutral Economy report, which is being prepared by University of California researchers for the California Environmental Protection Agency. In an email, a CalEPA spokesperson said the report is due by the end of this year.

Winding down oil and gas production
Since the release of the revised budget last May, Newsom has taken initial steps to increase oversight of the oil and gas industry. In July 2019, he fired the state’s top oil and gas regulator for issuing too many permits to hydraulically fracture, or frack, wells.

Later in the year, he appointed new leadership to oversee oil and gas regulation in the state, and he signed a package of bills that placed constraints on fossil fuel production. The next month, Newsom halted the approval of new fracking operations until pending permits could be reviewed by a panel of scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) did not resume issuing fracking permit approvals until April of this year.

Not all steps have been in the same direction. This month Newsom dropped a proposal to add dozens of analysts, engineers and geologists at CalGEM, citing COVID-related economic pressure. The move would have increased regulatory oversight on fossil fuel producers and was opposed by the state's oil industry.

Ultimately, more durable measures to wind down fossil fuel supply and demand will require new legislation, even as regulators weigh whether the state needs more power plants to maintain reliability.

A 2019 bill by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), AB 345, would have codified the minimum 2,500-foot setback for new oil and gas wells. However, before the final vote in the Assembly, the bill’s buffer requirement was dropped and replaced with a requirement for CalGEM “to consider a setback distance of 2,500 feet.” The bill passed the Assembly in January over "no" votes from several moderate Democrats; it now awaits action in the Senate.

A bill previously introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), AB 1745, didn’t even make it that far. Ting’s bill would have required that all new passenger cars registered in the state after January 1, 2040, be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV). The bill died in committee without a vote in April 2018.

But the backing of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), one of the world's most powerful air-quality regulators, could change the political conversation. In March, CARB chair Mary Nichols said she now supports consideration of California establishing a 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales target by 2030, as policymakers also consider a revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid.

“In the past, I’ve been skeptical about whether that would do more harm than good in terms of the backlash by dealers and others against something that sounded so un-California like,” Nichols said during an online event. “But as time has gone on, I’ve become more convinced that we need to send the longer-term signal about where we’re headed.”

Another complicating factor for California’s political leaders is the lack of a willing federal partner — at least in the short term — in winding down oil and gas production, amid warnings about a looming electricity shortage that could pressure the grid.

Under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 15 million acres of federal land in California, has pushed to open more than 1 million acres of public and private land across eight counties in Central California to fracking. In January 2020, California filed a federal lawsuit to block the move.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News