Duke criticized for drought protocol

Maine Hydropower Transmission Line revived by high court after referendum challenge, advancing NECEC, Hydro-Quebec supply, Central Maine Power partnership, clean energy integration, grid reliability, and lower rates across New England pending land-lease ruling.

Key Points

A court-revived NECEC line delivering 1,200 MW of Hydro-Quebec hydropower via CMP to strengthen the New England grid.

✅ Maine high court deems retroactive referendum unconstitutional

✅ Pending state land lease case may affect final route

✅ Project could lower rates and cut emissions in New England

Maine's highest court on Tuesday breathed new life into a $1-billion US transmission line that aims to serve as conduit for Canadian hydropower, after construction starts drew scrutiny, ruling that a statewide vote rebuking the project was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the retroactive nature of the referendum last year violated the project developer's constitutional rights, sending it back to a lower court for further proceedings.

The court did not rule in a separate case that focuses on a lease for a 1.6-kilometre portion of the proposed power line that crosses state land.

Central Maine Power's parent company and Hydro-Québec teamed up on the project that would supply up to 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower, amid the ongoing Maine-Quebec corridor debate in the region. That's enough electricity for one million homes.

Most of the proposed 233-kilometre power transmission line would be built along existing corridors, but a new 85-kilometre section was needed to reach the Canadian border, echoing debates around the Northern Pass clash in New Hampshire.

Workers were already clearing trees and setting poles when the governor asked for work to be suspended after the referendum in November 2021, mirroring New Hampshire's earlier rejection of a Quebec-Massachusetts proposal that rerouted regional plans. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection later suspended its permit, but that could be reversed depending on the outcome of legal proceedings.

The high court was asked to weigh in on two separate lawsuits. Developers sought to declare the referendum unconstitutional while another lawsuit focused on a lease allowing transmission lines to cross a short segment of state-owned land.

Supporters say bold projects such as this one, funded by ratepayers in Massachusetts, are necessary to battle climate change and introduce additional electricity into a region that's heavily reliant on natural gas, which can cause spikes in energy costs, as seen with Nova Scotia rate increases recently across the Atlantic region.

Critics say the project's environmental benefits are overstated — and that it would harm the woodlands in western Maine.

It was the second time the Supreme Judicial Court was asked to weigh in on a referendum aimed at killing the project. The first referendum proposal never made it onto the ballot after the court raised constitutional concerns.

Although the project is funded by Massachusetts ratepayers, the introduction of so much electricity to the grid would serve to stabilize or reduce electricity rates for all consumers, proponents contend, even as Manitoba Hydro rate hikes face opposition elsewhere.

The referendum on the project was the costliest in Maine history, topping $90 million US and underscoring deep divisions.

The high-stakes campaign put environmental and conservation groups at odds, and pitted utilities backing the project, amid the Hydro One-Avista backlash, against operators of fossil fuel-powered plants that stand to lose money.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Renewable Electricity Generation is accelerating the shift from fossil fuels, as wind, solar, and hydro boost the electric power sector, lowering emissions and overtaking nuclear while displacing coal and natural gas in the U.S. grid.

Key Points

Renewable electricity generation is power from non-fossil sources like wind, solar, and hydro to cut emissions.

✅ Driven by wind, solar, and hydro adoption

✅ Reduces fossil fuel dependence and emissions

✅ Increasing share in the electric power sector

The transition to electric vehicles is largely driven by a need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and reduce emissions associated with burning fossil fuels, while declining US electricity use also shapes demand trends in the power sector. In 2021, 40% of the electricity produced by the electric power sector was derived from non-fossil fuel sources.

Since 2007, the increase in non-fossil fuel sources has been largely driven by “Other Renewables” which is predominantly wind and solar. This has resulted in renewables (including hydroelectric) overtaking nuclear power’s share of electricity generation in 2021 for the first time since 1984. An increasing share of electricity generation from renewables has also led to a declining share of electricity from fossil fuel sources like coal, natural gas, and petroleum, with renewables poised to eclipse coal globally as deployment accelerates.

Includes net generation of electricity from the electric power sector only, and monthly totals can fluctuate, as seen when January power generation jumped on a year-over-year basis.

Net generation of electricity is gross generation less the electrical energy consumed at the generating station(s) for station service or auxiliaries, and the projected mix of sources is sensitive to policies and natural gas prices over time. Electricity for pumping at pumped-storage plants is considered electricity for station service and is deducted from gross generation.

“Natural Gas” includes blast furnace gas and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels, while in the UK wind generation exceeded coal for the first time in 2016.

“Other Renewables” includes wood, waste, geo-thermal, solar and wind resources among others.

“Other” category includes batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, miscellaneous technologies, and, beginning in 2001, non-renewable waste (municipal solid waste from non-biogenic sources, and tire-derived fuels), noting that trends vary by country, with UK low-carbon generation stalling in 2019.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Wall Street Fossil Fuel Pivot signals banks reassessing ESG, net-zero, and decarbonization goals, reviving oil, gas, and coal financing while recalibrating clean energy exposure amid policy shifts, regulatory rollbacks, and investment risk realignment.

Key Points

A shift as major U.S. banks ease ESG limits to fund oil, gas, coal while rebalancing alongside renewables.

✅ Banks revisit lending to oil, gas, and coal after policy shifts.

✅ ESG and net-zero commitments face reassessment amid returns.

✅ Renewables compete for capital as risk models are updated.

The global energy finance sector, worth a staggering $1.4 trillion, is undergoing a significant transformation, largely due to former President Donald Trump's renewed support for the oil, gas, and coal industries. Wall Street, which had previously aligned itself with global climate initiatives and the energy transition and net-zero goals, is now reassessing its strategy and pivoting toward a more fossil-fuel-friendly stance.

This shift represents a major change from the earlier stance, where many of the largest U.S. banks and financial institutions took a firm stance on decarbonization push, including limiting their exposure to fossil-fuel projects. Just a few years ago, these institutions were vocal supporters of the global push for a sustainable future, with many committing to support clean energy solutions and abandon investments in high-carbon energy sources.

However, with the change in administration and the resurgence of support for traditional energy sectors under Trump’s policies, these same banks are now rethinking their strategies. Financial institutions are increasingly discussing the possibility of lifting long-standing restrictions that limited their investments in controversial fossil-fuel projects, including coal mining, where emissions drop as coal declines, and offshore drilling. The change reflects a broader realignment within the energy finance sector, with Wall Street reexamining its role in shaping the future of energy.

One of the most significant developments is the Biden administration’s policy reversal, which emphasized reducing the U.S. carbon footprint in favor of carbon-free electricity strategies. Under Trump, however, there has been a renewed focus on supporting the traditional energy sectors. His administration has pushed to reduce regulatory burdens on fossil-fuel companies, particularly oil and gas, while simultaneously reintroducing favorable tax incentives for the coal and gas industries. This is a stark contrast to the Biden administration's efforts to incentivize the transition toward renewable energy and zero-emissions goals.

Trump's policies have, in effect, sent a strong signal to financial markets that the fossil-fuel industry could see a resurgence. U.S. banks, which had previously distanced themselves from financing oil and gas ventures due to the pressure from environmental activists and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investors, as seen in investor pressure on Duke Energy, are now reconsidering their positions. Major players like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are reportedly having internal discussions about revisiting financing for energy projects that involve high carbon emissions, including controversial oil extraction and gas drilling initiatives.

The implications of this shift are far-reaching. In the past, a growing number of institutional investors had embraced ESG principles, with the goal of supporting the transition to renewable energy sources. However, Trump’s pro-fossil fuel stance appears to be emboldening Wall Street’s biggest players to rethink their commitment to green investing. Some are now advocating for a “balanced approach” that would allow for continued investment in traditional energy sectors, while also acknowledging the growing importance of renewable energy investments, a trend echoed by European oil majors going electric in recent years.

This reversal has led to confusion among investors and analysts, who are now grappling with how to navigate a rapidly changing landscape. Wall Street's newfound support for the fossil-fuel industry comes amid a backdrop of global concerns about climate change. Many investors, who had previously embraced policies aimed at curbing the effects of global warming, are now finding it harder to reconcile their environmental commitments with the shift toward fossil-fuel-heavy portfolios. The reemergence of fossil-fuel-friendly policies is forcing institutional investors to rethink their long-term strategies.

The consequences of this policy shift are also being felt by renewable energy companies, which now face increased competition for investment dollars from traditional energy sectors. The shift towards oil and gas projects has made it more challenging for renewable energy companies to attract the same level of financial backing, even as demand for clean energy continues to rise and as doubling electricity investment becomes a key policy call. This could result in a deceleration of renewable energy projects, potentially delaying the progress needed to meet the world’s climate targets.

Despite this, some analysts remain optimistic that the long-term shift toward green energy is inevitable, even if fossil-fuel investments gain a temporary boost. As the world continues to grapple with the effects of climate change, and as technological advancements in clean energy continue to reduce costs, the transition to renewables is likely to persist, regardless of the political climate.

The shift in Wall Street’s approach to energy investments, spurred by Trump’s pro-fossil fuel policies, is reshaping the $1.4 trillion global energy finance market. While the pivot towards fossil fuels may offer short-term gains, the long-term trajectory for energy markets remains firmly in the direction of renewables. The next few years will be crucial in determining whether financial institutions can balance the demand for short-term profitability with their long-term environmental responsibilities.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News

Ukraine-ENTSO-E Grid Synchronization links Ukraine and Moldova to the European grid via secure interconnection, matching frequency for stability, resilience, and energy security, enabling cross-border support, islanding recovery, and coordinated load balancing during wartime disruptions.

Key Points

Rapid alignment of Ukraine and Moldova into the European grid to enable secure interconnection and system stability.

✅ Matches 50 Hz frequency across interconnected systems

✅ Enables cross-border support and electricity trading

✅ Improves resilience, stability, and energy security

On February 24 Ukraine’s electric grid operator disconnected the country’s power system from the larger Russian-operated network to which it had always been linked. The long-planned disconnection was meant to be a 72-hour trial proving that Ukraine could operate on its own and to protect electricity supply before winter as contingencies were tested. The test was a requirement for eventually linking with the European grid, which Ukraine had been working toward since 2017. But four hours after the exercise started, Russia invaded.

Ukraine’s connection to Europe—which was not supposed to occur until 2023—became urgent, and engineers aimed to safely achieve it in just a matter of weeks. On March 16 they reached the key milestone of synchronizing the two systems. It was “a year’s work in two weeks,” according to a statement by Kadri Simson, the European Union commissioner for energy. That is unusual in this field. “For [power grid operators] to move this quickly and with such agility is unprecedented,” says Paul Deane, an energy policy researcher at the University College Cork in Ireland. “No power system has ever synchronized this quickly before.”

Ukraine initiated the process of joining Europe’s grid in 2005 and began working toward that goal in earnest in 2017, as did Moldova. It was part of an ongoing effort to align with Europe, as seen in the Baltic states’ disconnection from the Russian grid, and decrease reliance on Russia, which had repeatedly threatened Ukraine’s sovereignty. “Ukraine simply wanted to decouple from Russian dominance in every sense of the word, and the grid is part of that,” says Suriya Jayanti, an Eastern European policy expert and former U.S. diplomat who served as energy chief at the U.S. embassy in Kyiv from 2018 to 2020.

After the late February trial period, Ukrenergo, the Ukrainian grid operator, had intended to temporarily rejoin the system that powers Russia and Belarus. But the Russian invasion made that untenable. “That left Ukraine in isolation mode, which would be incredibly dangerous from a power supply perspective,” Jayanti says. “It means that there’s nowhere for Ukraine to import electricity from. It’s an orphan.” That was a particularly precarious situation given Russian attacks on key energy infrastructure such as the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant and ongoing strikes on Ukraine’s power grid that posed continuing risks. (According to Jayanti, Ukraine’s grid was ultimately able to run alone for as long as it did because power demand dropped by about a third as Ukrainians fled the country.)

Three days after the invasion, Ukrenergo sent a letter to the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) requesting authorization to connect to the European grid early. Moldelectrica, the Moldovan operator, made the same request the following day. While European operators wanted to support Ukraine, they had to protect their own grids, amid renewed focus on protecting the U.S. power grid from Russian hacking, so the emergency connection process had to be done carefully. “Utilities and system operators are notoriously risk-averse because the job is to keep the lights on, to keep everyone safe,” says Laura Mehigan, an energy researcher at University College Cork.

An electric grid is a network of power-generating sources and transmission infrastructure that produces electricity and carries it from places such as power plants, wind farms and solar arrays to houses, hospitals and public transit systems. “You can’t just experiment with a power system and hope that it works,” Deane says. Getting power where it is it needed when it is needed is an intricate process, and there is little room for error, as incidents involving Russian hackers targeting U.S. utilities have highlighted for operators worldwide.

Crucial to this mission is grid interconnection. Linked systems can share electricity across vast areas, often using HVDC technology, so that a surplus of energy generated in one location can meet demand in another. “More interconnection means we can move power around more quickly, more efficiently, more cost effectively and take advantage of low-carbon or zero-carbon power sources,” says James Glynn, a senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. But connecting these massive networks with many moving parts is no small order.

One of the primary challenges of interconnecting grids is synchronizing them, which is what Ukrenergo, Moldelectrica and ENTSO-E accomplished last week. Synchronization is essential for sharing electricity. The task involves aligning the frequencies of every energy-generation facility in the connecting systems. Frequency is like the heartbeat of the electric grid. Across Europe, energy-generating turbines spin 50 times per second in near-perfect unison, and when disputes disrupt that balance, slow clocks across Europe can result, reminding operators of the stakes. For Ukraine and Moldova to join in, their systems had to be adjusted to match that rhythm. “We can’t stop the power system for an hour and then try to synchronize,” Deane says. “This has to be done while the system is operating.” It is like jumping onto a moving train or a spinning ride at the playground: the train or ride is not stopping, so you had better time the jump perfectly.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

US Termination of Ukraine Energy Grid Support signals a policy shift: USAID halts aid for grid restoration amid Russia attacks, impacting energy security, infrastructure resilience, winter readiness, and negotiations leverage with Moscow and allies.

Key Points

A US policy reversal ending USAID support for Ukraine's grid, impacting energy security, resilience, and leverage.

✅ USAID halt reduces funds for grid restoration and winter prep

✅ Policy shift may weaken Kyiv's leverage in talks with Russia

✅ Ukraine seeks EU, IFIs, private capital for energy resilience

The U.S. government has recently decided to terminate its support for Ukraine's energy grid restoration, a critical initiative managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This decision, reported by NBC News, comes at a time when Ukraine is grappling with significant challenges to its energy infrastructure due to ongoing Russian attacks. The termination of support was reportedly finalized before Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's scheduled visit to Washington, marking a significant shift in U.S. policy and raising concerns about the broader implications for Ukraine's energy resilience and its negotiations with Russia.

The Critical Role of U.S. Support

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the country’s energy infrastructure has been one of the primary targets of military strikes. Russia has launched numerous attacks on Ukraine's power generation facilities, substations, and power lines, causing power outages across multiple regions. These attacks have led to significant material losses, with damage reaching billions of dollars. As part of its commitment to Ukraine, the U.S. government, through USAID, had been instrumental in funding restoration efforts aimed at rebuilding and reinforcing Ukraine’s energy grid.

USAID's support was crucial in helping Ukraine withstand the damage inflicted by Russian missile strikes. This aid was not just about restoring basic services but also about fortifying the energy grid to ensure that Ukraine could continue functioning amidst the war and keep the lights on this winter as temperatures drop. The U.S. contribution to Ukraine's energy sector, alongside international support, helped reduce the immediate vulnerabilities faced by Ukraine's civilians and industries.

The Abrupt Change in U.S. Policy

The decision to cut support for energy grid restoration is seen as a sharp reversal in U.S. policy, particularly as the Biden administration has previously shown strong backing for Ukraine in the aftermath of the invasion. This shift in policy was reportedly made by the U.S. State Department, which directed USAID to halt its involvement in the energy sector.

According to NBC News, USAID officials expressed concern about the timing of this decision. One official noted that terminating support for Ukraine’s energy grid restoration would severely undermine the U.S. government's ability to negotiate on issues like ceasefires and peace talks with Russia. The official argued that such a move would signal to Russia that the U.S. is backing away from its long-term investments in Ukraine, potentially weakening Ukraine's position in the ongoing war.

The abrupt end to this support is also seen as a blow to the morale of Ukraine’s government and people. Ukraine had been heavily reliant on the U.S. for resources to repair its critical infrastructure, and the decision to cut this support without warning has created uncertainty about the future of such recovery efforts.

Ukraine’s Response and Search for Alternatives

In response to the termination of U.S. support, Ukrainian officials have been seeking alternative sources of funding to continue the restoration of their energy grid. Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna reported that Ukraine has already reached preliminary agreements with other international partners to secure financial support for energy resilience, cyber defense, and recovery programs including new energy solutions for winter blackouts.

These efforts come at a time when Ukraine is working to rebuild its war-torn economy and safeguard critical sectors like energy and infrastructure. The termination of U.S. support for energy restoration projects underscores the growing pressure on Ukraine to diversify its sources of aid and not become overly dependent on any one nation. Ukrainian leaders are in ongoing talks with European governments, international financial institutions, and private investors to ensure that essential programs do not stall due to the lack of funding from the U.S., as energy cooperation grows and Ukraine helps Spain amid blackouts in solidarity.

Implications for Ukraine’s Energy Security

Ukraine's energy security remains a critical issue in the context of the ongoing conflict with Russia. The war has made the country’s energy infrastructure vulnerable to repeated attacks, and the restoration of this infrastructure is essential for ensuring that Ukraine can keep the lights on and recover in the long term. The U.S. has been one of the largest contributors to Ukraine's energy security efforts, and its withdrawal could force Ukraine to look for other partners who may not have the same level of financial or technological resources.

This development also raises questions about the future of U.S. involvement in Ukraine's recovery efforts more broadly. As the war continues and winter looms over the battlefront for frontline communities, the need for reliable and sustained support from international partners will only increase. If the U.S. significantly scales back its aid, Ukraine may face even greater challenges in maintaining its energy infrastructure and achieving long-term recovery.

Moving Forward

The termination of U.S. support for Ukraine’s energy grid restoration serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in international aid and geopolitics during wartime. As Ukraine faces the ongoing realities of the war, it must adapt to a shifting international landscape where traditional allies may not always be reliable sources of support. Ukraine’s leadership will need to be strategic in its search for alternative sources of aid, while also focusing on strengthening its energy grid, managing electricity reserves to stabilize supply, and reducing its vulnerabilities to Russian attacks.

While the end of U.S. support for Ukraine's energy restoration is a significant setback, it also underscores the urgent need for Ukraine to diversify its international partnerships. The future of Ukraine’s energy resilience may depend on how effectively it can navigate these changing dynamics while maintaining the support of the international community in the fight against Russian aggression.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations 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