CommentsEASTSIDER-It is no joke that climate change is with us for real, and it is equally true that Los Angeles is a leader in clean energy with Mayor Garcetti’s Green New Deal Plan. Unfortunately, the details of the Plan are complicated, and the Mayor is not noted for his math skills.
For an overview let’s look at the Mayor’s plan, which you can find here. To summarize, the Plan has various end dates as follows:
Zero Carbon Grid - 100% Renewable Energy by 2045
Zero Carbon Buildings - 100% ‘net-zero’ carbon by 2030 (all by 2050)
Zero Carbon Transportation - 100% zero emission vehicles in the City by 2050
Zero Waste - 100% landfill diversion rate by 2050
Zero Wasted Water - 100% of our wastewater recycled by 2035
It is postulated that the plan will save $16 billion from prevented deaths and hospital admissions each year, and simultaneously create 300,000 green jobs by 2035, and 400,000 by 2050, all based on a large number of assumptions.
A Process for a Plan
So much for the PR, let’s see what all this means for the DWP and you and me. The best overview that I could find is a 25-page presentation by David Wright, at the time DWP’s General Manager. You can find a link to the PowerPoint here.
The first thing we all need to know is that this a plan about making the actual plan, notwithstanding the Mayors glib assurances. There are two levels to this, and an existing State law, SB100.
The top level is the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), which is in fact a lab of the Federal Department of Energy and is operated by an LLC. You can find out more about NREL here. They will be looking at scenarios.
The next level down, and more local, is the 100% Renewable Advisory Group, which provided a presentation at the October DWP Committee Meeting. Their short name is LA100, and a member provided the audience with an 11”x17” printed Scenario Matrix which contains enough variables to make your head spin.
They boast over 100 members, that’s right 100 plus members, including corporations, community groups, and subject matter experts. My hat’s off to them for even being able to meet, much less come up with any consensus. They are the ground zero for providing input into the Green New Deal Plan I described above.
The Statutory Map
In California, we already have SB100, which “only” requires a 60% reduction towards zero-carbon electricity by 2045. So that’s the default statutory benchmark statewide.
The DWP Plan, courtesy of the Mayors mandated Green New Deal is, of course, significantly bolder than SB100 requires. In trying to get there, we have the six different scenarios that NREL is modeling.
As pv-magazine explains all this, there are six paths to 100% renewables for Los Angeles.
“Computer models will run the numbers. Having defined the scenarios with input from the advisory group, NREL will now project the costs of each scenario, using a series of computer models, together with projected costs for each generation and storage technology from NREL’s Annual Technology Baseline.”
Two Cautionary Notes
There are two serious questions that need to be answered while modeling all these scenarios.
First, there is a comparison that constantly needs to be done in terms of costs. It goes something like “if we simply proceeded down our current pike” -- as opposed to “here are the projected costs of the goal.” One of the roles of the Ratepayer Advocate is to conduct these kinds of market-based inquiries. They compare baseline existing and projected costs against projected new initiatives.
A case in point is the DWP Board’s action in September, in expanding the “Feed-in-Tariff” Program, over the Ratepayer Advocates recommendation to hold off on the expansion. Among other issues, the Ratepayer Advocate noted that:
“Projects have not been bid or subject to market pricing test.” That’s a big deal for those of us who have to pay the DWP bills.
You can find their recommendations here.
The second issue is that we live in an age of incredibly rapid technological changes, which show no signs of slowing down. So there is no real expectation that the solar panels we use today will be anything like the solar panels of even five years from now. Same for battery storage.
Remember, the Plan is being tested based on the provided modeling assumptions, and I believe that many of these assumptions extending much beyond 3-5 years are bound to be obsolete or proven wrong. That means that there will need to be large changes in the models long before the project benchmark end dates and Lord knows what impact that will have on the six scenarios.
The Takeaway
Do we need a Green New Deal? Sure, but the progress of the Green New Deal needs to be measured against market-based costs, and the hard reality of what simply complying with SB100 would be. Then the DWP ratepayers should be allowed to weigh in before the DWP Board votes, so that we can hold them and their mayor accountable. That requires a dialogue, which was not present with the Feed In Tariff expansion.
We can’t simply put our head in the fossil fuel sand. And I am very aware old farts like yours truly will be dead by the time we’ve passed the point of no return on climate change. The people most impacted are our sons and daughters, and our legacy would be pretty dismal if all we pass on to them is a planet that’s dying from underneath them and it’s too late to reverse the damage.
At the same time, there has to be a way to pay for all these good things. Figuring out what all this will cost over time with any degree of certainty has too many moving parts for any Google algorithm to predict any cost figures much over three years out with reasonable certainty.
So, we need a dual approach. The Green New Deal as an aspirational goal, and objective market- based analysis by the Ratepayers Advocate to ensure that each step is founded in sound economics. At some point, the DWP Ratepayers may not be able to pay for all these goals and still live in Los Angeles.
(Tony Butka is an Eastside community activist, who has served on a neighborhood council, has a background in government and is a contributor to CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
