Los Angeles Finally Joins the Transition Away From Fossil Fuel Investment

Source: Carbon Brief

Last October, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the realization that by 2045 California will be a net zero (carbon neutral) economy/state.  That rocked the news for a while, and news circulated about the transition.  Speculation as to whether that transition was even possible came from the conservative side of the state, whereas the more liberal side of the state claimed that the law was not enough to make the Paris Agreement targets.



Further criticism circulated in the news regarding Governor Brown's treatment of the fossil fuel industry.  Critics charged that he was not being tough enough on them.  These critics included those in favor of shutting down Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility located in Porter Ranch, California (the Valley).  The following news from Mayor Garcetti last week in an article from the 'Los Angeles Times' titled "Los Angeles ditches plan to invest billions in fossil fuels, Mayor Eric Garcetti says" outlined the plan to achieve transition away from fossil fuels:

Los Angeles has steadily moved away from coal for electricity, divesting from the Navajo plant in Arizona three years ago and announcing plans to stop buying power from Utah’s Intermountain plant by 2025. But with coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, now nearly removed from the city’s energy mix, it’s time to start planning for a future with zero planet-warming energy sources, Garcetti said Monday — and that means no natural gas.

“It’s the right thing to do for our health. It’s the right thing to do for our Earth. It’s the right thing to do for our economy,” Garcetti said. “And now is the time to start the beginning of the end of natural gas.”

“This is the Green New Deal,” he added, referring to the sweeping climate change policies championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) and endorsed by several contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination. “Not in concept, not in the future, but now.”

The mayor’s decision comes several months after state lawmakers passed a bill requiring California to get 100% of its electricity from climate-friendly sources by 2045, up from a previous target of 50% renewable by 2030.

This comes at the news from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to the Mayor's office regarding the cost associated with repairing (rebuilding) the seven water cooled (ocean cooled) natural gas power plants along with three other plants at a cost of $3.8 billion.  Whereas the cost to rebuilding the three other plants with solar and energy efficiency would be $2.2 billion.  The time has come to transition toward total (carbon neutral) clean energy.



The Mayor has challenged LA DWP with the task and he is right to do so.  Not just to make incremental adjustments.  A new leader should be bold and insist on LA DWP moving at another speed, preferably WARP speed compared to their normal GOVERNMENT speed -- which is filled with obstacles and potential funding limitations.  I commend Mayor Garcetti for taking a bold action step which is in line with Germany and other nations around the world.  I have written on the obvious fact that the transition toward renewable clean energy is inevitable.  Plus, the capital available for investment was small a few years ago, but has been growing over time.



European nations are taking bold steps to change their dependence on dirty energy.  China has liberated us with the ever dropping price of solar.  Solar is dropping in price as we speak.  In a few years, photovoltaics will be a dominant source of energy generation.  Clean solar photovoltaic energy is on its way.  Current limitations in the renewable energy sector which are screamed by the opposition are 'STORAGE'.  How are we (as a nation) going to efficiently store the clean renewable energy to meet off hours demand?  Batteries?  More research needs to be done, but is not far off.



Both the government and the private sector are racing to meet the demands of the future transition toward renewable energy.  A sustainable environment is what is being asked of our nation's residents.  Now, both the private sector along with the government need to make this happen.  Typically, throughout history, when the pressure is applied to an industry, change happens.  In this case, a range of industries are responding to a global pressure and similar to the improvements which are made during war time, the current global investment is exciting and should yield some amazing results.



The future is exciting.



Related Blog Posts:



Parameters: Germany Plans To Cut Coal Dependence By 2038

Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels

Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!

Update: Congress asks Federal Agencies about Dangerous Chemicals -- PFOA and PFOS


Parameters: GM Lays Off Thousands Of Workers -- Why? People Are Not Buying Cars?

EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK


Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


French President Macron Calls On U.S. Congress To Save The Planet


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Parameters: South Korea Uses Renewable Energy For Olympic Games


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement

Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future

World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?

Parameters: Germany Plans To Cut Coal Dependence By 2038

Source: Climate Action

Whenever the transition toward renewable energy is brought up in discussions, people typically tighten up showing a large amount of uncertainty about the topic.  Regardless of their knowledge of the process or the timeline, one certainty exists in today's world:  A large number of countries, local governments, states along with industries are starting to make the transition toward a renewable energy-based system in the future.  Each might possess an individual pace.  But ultimately, each are headed in the correct direction: away from a fossil fuel dependent economy (and world).

Renewable Energy Not Fossil Fuels

The transition toward renewable energy has been under fire to different degrees in different nations.  In the European countries, renewable energy is becoming more favorable with the political will emerging.  Just recently, an article in 'The Ecologist' stated that Lithuania received the European Commission's support to transition toward renewable energy:

International renewable energy industry experts predict that within the next two decades, traditional energy sources such as gas, coal, and oil due will be replaced 100 percent by renewables as a result of their current slow-to-non existent growth rates.

In light of these findings, Lithuanian energy experts believe that by continually meeting EU energy directives, incentivising electricity production, and pursuing corporate responsibility targets where companies aim to be powered 100 percent by renewables, then Lithuania can set an example to policy makers and solar energy suppliers in neighbouring Latvia and Estonia on how to reduce the entire Baltic region’s need for Russian energy and pursue its own energy autonomy.

European investors have been increasingly committing more over time as banks are reassured by technologists and policy makers along with industry analysts that the transition is not only going to happen -- but that the transition will have ample funding with more on the way.  Not to mention that political will is increasing slowly but surely.



Now, Germany recently announced a major change (Big News!!!) to take place by 2038.  The organization 'Climate Action' presented the news as follows:

The Federal Government in Germany has announced plans to phase out coal by 2038.

The Commission on Growth, Employment and Structural Change released a 20-year report which has agreed to cancel out coal by 2038.

With only one vote against, the commission agreed on a total of 40 billion euros in aid for the states affected by the coalition exit. The federal Government will now turn the commission report into a reliable energy concept.

Olaf ScholzIf, Federal Finance Minister, said: “If we do not lose sight of the common goal, we can develop Germany into an exemplary state of energy policy."

In the years 2023, 2026 and 2029, the Commission will undertake a review by an independent panel of experts.

In response to this review, the power plant capacity will be reduced to 17 gigawatts of brown coal and hard coal in 2030, more than halving it. Depending on the report, the withdrawal of coal could take place, according to the recommendation of the commission, by 2035.

Greenpeace have called for this target to be brought forward to 2030 to ensure that carbon emissions are reduced sooner.

It was reported that, in 2018, the production of coal accounted for 38 per cent of Germany’s energy generation. This move away from fossil fuel generation will put Germany back on track to meet the targets set at the Paris Agreement.

This news follows a report that found that the immediate phase-out of fossil fuels is crucial to meet important climate targets.

The report found that if carbon intensive technologies were replaced by carbon-free alternatives, carbon emissions would steadily decline, dropping to near zero in 40 years. This would result in a 64 per cent chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Great.  Everything stated above is encouraging.  Germany is taking the lead in changing the entire system of nations.  The rest of Europe are on board too as reported in the article before the above statement.  The European Commission must continue to offer assurance (i.e. support).  From the news reports over the last couple of years, the support not only seems to be building, but nations are actually taking action in the European Union.



Although, the size of Germany has always been brought up in discussions here in the United States.  The argument is that a smaller nation is able to make sweeping changes more easily than larger ones can.  Alright.  I can see that.  But that is no excuse for not making changes here -- especially on a state by state basis -- which is comparable to the size of Germany.

Size -- California vs. Germany??

Right after the article above was published (and I read the article), I was talking with my colleague who holds German citizenship.  She was born in Germany.  In a prior discussion about Germany moving toward the use of natural gas, she warned that the move could be potentially dangerous considering the main source of gas presently -- Gazprom -- from Russia.  This would put Germany at the hands of Russian gas giants (effectively Russia) for a stable and steady gas supply.



Although, since that discussion, the natural gas industry has started to boom (in the sense of shipping).  Technology has improved the ability to ship liquified natural gas all around the world.  Now, back to the discussion at hand.  This massive shift in dependence on fossil fuels in a reasonable amount of time makes other countries uneasy.  Some here in the United States view this transition as 'short sighted' since the infrastructure and change is occuring on such a short time scale.



But is the timescale that short?  What kind of transition plan is reasonable? How long should the U.S. or Germany rely on coal/fossil fuels?



The change that Germany is embarking on reminds me of the recent (as in the past few months) commitment to renewable energy made by then Governor Jerry Brown regarding the state of California.  Governor Brown signed into law last year the commitment to have California on a carbon neutral (net zero) program for energy by 2045.  This was ambitious to say the least.



Remember that California's economy is the fifth largest in the world.  Which may cause someone to immediately draw parallels between Germany's transition and California's transition.  Let's look at the size (landmass) difference between the two for a closer comparison.  First, Germany's landmass is shown below:

Next, California's landmass is shown below:

As you can see, California has a larger landmass than Germany.  With Governor Jerry Brown signing into law the transition to a carbon neutral economy by 2045, the current announcement above for Germany by 2038 is not too far fetched.  Especially given the size of the two landmasses.  Additionally, Germany is probably better suited to the transition toward renewable energy -- which is why the date is set for a complete transition earlier.



Regardless, the news above is exciting to those who are big fans for the transition toward a greater dependence on renewable energy.  As this post is published (Wednesday morning), a subcommittee is gathering in the U.S. Congress --House Committee on Energy & Commerce -- is meeting to discuss action for the United States of America.  I will write a follow up post on the hearing in the near future.  We should watch and note these commitments of transitioning toward renewable energy.  Further, these commitments should serve as a motivation to build momentum toward change.  The future of transitioning toward renewable energy is turning into a reality and is really exciting.



Related Blog Posts:


Governor Jerry Brown Leads The U.S. With Ambitious Calls For 100% Renewable By 2045 -- Wow!!!

Parameters: GM Lays Off Thousands Of Workers -- Why? People Are Not Buying Cars?

EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%


135 Climate Scientists Urge Prime Minister Theresa May to Challenge President Trump on his Climate Stance during visit to the UK


Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


French President Macron Calls On U.S. Congress To Save The Planet


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Parameters: South Korea Uses Renewable Energy For Olympic Games


French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement

Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future

World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?

EPA Estimates Of Methane - GHG - are off by 60%

Source: PBS

Greenhouse Gases (GHG) are a contentious subject in the debate on climate change.  Whenever calculations or models are created regarding the atmosphere and effects due to pollutants, different results appear depending on the parameters taken into account in the model itself.  Recently, a report discussed in an article from the journal 'Nature' titled "Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates" states the issue as follows:

Methane leaks from the US oil and gas industry are 60% greater than official estimates, according to an analysis of previously reported data and new airborne measurements.

Because methane is a potent greenhouse gas, scientists say that the unaccounted-for emissions could have significant impacts on the climate and the country’s economy. The lost gas alone is worth an estimated US$2 billion a year, scientists say.

The analysis1, published on 21 June in Science, is one of the most comprehensive looks yet at methane output from US oil and gas production, and reinforces previous studies that suggested emissions outpaced government estimates. That research prompted the US government to develop regulations that would restrict methane emissions from oil and gas production — rules that US President Donald Trump is now attempting to roll back.

The latest study shows that the US oil and gas supply chain emits about 13 million metric tons of methane, the main component of natural gas, every year. That's much higher than the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) estimate of about 8 million metric tons.

This discrepancy probably stems from the fact that the EPA’s emissions surveys miss potential sources of methane leaks, such as faulty equipment at oil and gas facilities, says study leader Ramón Alvarez, an atmospheric chemist at the Environmental Defense Fund, a non-profit group in Austin, Texas.

The author of the article goes onto state the obvious dangers of methane as a greenhouse gas compared to other offenders such as CO2 - carbon dioxide.  Methane has roughly 80 times more warming power on the planet compared to carbon dioxide.  How did two different studies conclude such a large difference in methane emissions?  According to the article above, the scientist took into account information from oil and gas industry (local municipal data) which was absent in the EPA report.  This naturally leads a person to wonder why the information was left out.  The answer is uncovered below.

How was 60% of a methane estimate left out of a report?

The news journal 'Politico' sent out the following e-mail with news of the report's major difference as shown below:

DEMOCRATS: BRING BACK THE ICR: Democrats are rallying around a return of an EPA information collection request in the aftermath of reports last week that oil and gas methane emissions are much greater than previously thought. A group of Democrats sent a letter to Pruitt on Wednesday calling on him to reinstate a formal ICR — which would require companies to report detailed technical information about methane emissions from their operations — after he withdrew the Final Methane ICR in March 2017. "With new science showing that emissions are likely considerably higher than previously thought, there is no excuse for delaying or rescinding methane emission controls, or for failing to collect data from methane emitters," the Democrats wrote.

As a result of the disparity in results from the Environmental Protection Agency's study, democratic congressional leaders sent EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt the follow letter of inquiry into the matter shown below:

Dear Administrator Pruitt: 

On March 2, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA announced that it was withdrawing Information Collection Request (ICR) 2548.01, which would have required oil and gas companies to provide information on methane emissions from their operations.  On March 8, 2017, two of us sent a letter asking that you reinstate the ICR given the urgent need to collect accurate data on methane emissions in order to set and enforce appropriate and cost-effective standards to reduce such emissions.  In the extremely short response we received from the Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation on May 23, 2017, we were informed that the rationale for withdrawing the ICR was to, "allow the Administrator time to assess the need for the requested information." 

Since the date of our original letter, a number of events have occurred that highlight the urgent need to reissue the ICR and collect accurate methane emission data.  First, the U.S. Senate rejected the Congressional Review Act effort to repeal the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) methane waste rule, the only such effort to fail in a vote, which demonstrated strong bipartisan support for reducing methane emissions.  Second, both BLM and the EPA have moved to undo, weaken, or avoid promulgating methane regulations, policies that should be informed with the best available science, not vague notions of industry "burdens" and incomplete knowledge of the public benefit of cutting emissions.  Third, the most recent release of EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks showed that methane emissions from oil and gas production operations increased 34% from 1990 to 2016, and the growth of methane emissions from natural gas production operations outpaced the growth of natural gas productions, 58% to 52%. 

Even more concerning, a new report in the journal Science from 24 authors representing 12 universities, two government labs, and more, reported that methane emissions from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain were roughly 60 percent higher than EPA inventory estimates, and that emissions from production operations were more than double the EPA estimates.  According to a story in The New York Times about the study, the 13 million metric tons of methane lost by the oil and gas industry each year is worth approximately $2 billion and would be enough to fuel roughly 10 million homes. 

Methane emissions exacerbate the worst impacts of climate change, result in significant air pollution through the concurrent release of ozone-forming volatile organic compounds, waste a valuable resource, and, when occurring on public lands, deprive American taxpayers and states of a valuable source of royalty payments.  With new science showing that emissions are likely considerably higher than previously thought, there is no excuse for delaying or rescinding methane emission controls, or for failing to collect data from methane emitters.  We believe that EPA needs to reissue the ICR as soon as possible, or provide a comprehensive explanation why it will not.  Therefore, we ask that by July 31, 2018, you provide us with the results of your assessment of the need to require methane emission data, as mentioned in the May 23, 2017, response, including a full explanation of how those results were arrived at.  If that assessment is not done, please confirm when you expect to complete it.//Thank you for your prompt attention to this letter. 

Had EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt requested the information on potential leaks and measurements around the facilities of the oil and gas industry, there would be no issue at hand -- presumably.  Now, in the 'reactive state' or 'reactive mindset' Americans find themselves in, again, scientific data shows large differences in greenhouse gases which negatively impact our environment.  The news regarding the large difference is extremely disappointing to say the least.

Conclusion...

I have stated the obvious point of disappointment from day 1 of the Trump administration.  Why does President Trump believe that there is no reason to have a 'Science Adviser' in the White House?  According to answers he gave in a campaign questionnaire on science issues, he suggested that science would be able to weigh in on each matter of relevance toward making policy.  Here is a campaign questionnaire given to President Trump on science issues in 2015.



Furthermore, instead of 'draining the swamp,' President Trump has appeared to over fill the swamp further with even more corrupt minded politicians and administrators.  See recent post with video here.  The time has come to admit that the current administration does not have our best interest (the public's best interest) or safety in mind when making policy.  Sadly enough, suppressing science (which I will touch on in an upcoming post) along with leaving science out of policy making seems to be high on the priority list of policy making.  Which runs counter intuitive to consumer/public safety.



The EPA is a watchdog, not a barrier to protect corrupt business practices to fill the pockets of wealthy business stakeholders.  We deserve to have en EPA which looks out for public safety by regulating the oil and gas industry to limit the pollutants which arrive in our neighborhoods and in the skies above us.



Related Blog Posts:



French President Macron Organizes Climate Conference With Pledges Of Trillions Of Dollars For Climate Risk Management From World Organizations

Conservatives are calling on President Trump to fire EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt over Renewable Fuel Standards

Parameters: Oil vs. Corn based Ethanol - A Tug-Of-War between Trump Administration and Congressional Leaders


Parameters: Shells Oil Corporation Invests In Renewable Energy Infrastructure


Thoughts: Trump Administration Realizes Renewable Energy Is Here To Stay?


Do You Need Clean Air To Breathe? An Introduction To Environmental Justice


Environmental Entrepreneurs Weigh In On Repealing The Clean Power Plan


EPA Blatantly Suppresses Scientific Results Regarding Climate Change?


EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation


How Can The Paris Climate Agreement Be "More Favorable To The U.S."???


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


Iraq Has Enough Oil To Support The World For 4 Years -- What?


Is 94 Million Barrels Of Oil A Large Amount? That Is The Global Daily Demand!


What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!