Summer nights are cruel to people who think California can run on 100% renewable energy

Summer nights are cruel to people who think California can someday run on 100% renewable energy.

On August 1 at 1:00 a.m., statewide demand for electricity was 28,351 megawatts. “Renewables” were providing just 5,390. Batteries had already run out, but even at their peak at 7:20 p.m., they had contributed just 2,073 megawatts.

On this typical night, natural gas was generating 14,121 MW in California to meet half the state’s need for power, with an assist from large hydro, nuclear and imports. Yes, California imports electricity from other states.

Even during the day, renewables do not come close to meeting the demand for electricity in California. On August 1 at 11:15 a.m., renewables were producing 16,049 megawatts, but that was just 46.3% of the power needed in the state.

So it’s concerning that California is planning to completely shut down the state’s gas-fired electricity plants as well as the state’s last remaining nuclear power plant, not to mention the demolition of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River.

For two decades, California has been fighting a lonely and expensive battle with reality over how to generate electricity. In 2002, Senate Bill 1078 established the Renewable Portfolio Standard Program, mandating that 20% of retail electricity sales to end-use customers must be from “renewable resources” by 2017.

In 2015 a new law, SB 350 by then-Senator Kevin de León, increased the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) mandate from 20% to 50% and set a new target date of 2030, also requiring that 65% of RPS procurement be derived from long-term contracts of at least 10 years in duration.

Then in 2018, another new bill by de León, SB 100, increased the RPS to 60% by 2030 and required 100% of the state’s electricity to come from “carbon-free” resources by 2045.

The effect of these mandates was to create a government-protected market for companies generating electricity with solar, wind and a handful of other energy sources defined as “renewable.” Utilities had to sign long-term contracts with these favored providers, even if they locked in high prices that would fall in subsequent years. The costs were passed to ratepayers.

The parallel effect was to damage the ability of non-renewable power facilities to be financially sustainable, depriving them of long-term contracts.

Last year’s state budget provided for taxpayers to extend a $1.4 billion forgivable loan to investor-owned utility Pacific Gas and Electric to keep the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant operational a little longer.

“This bill is necessary,” explained Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa, “Blackouts are a real threat and pose economic, health and safety risks, especially for the most vulnerable Californians.”

Over the objections of environmental groups, lawmakers also gave a last-minute reprieve to aging gas-fired power plants that had been scheduled to go off-line. Gov. Gavin Newsom insisted that this was all part of his plan to “de-risk and get over the finish line the remaining components of our energy plan and our climate package.”

That’s not the finish line we’re approaching. Visit the website of the California Independent System Operator at caiso.com to see the state’s electricity supply and demand on any given day or night. On July 27 at 8:30 p.m., for example, “renewables” were providing just 14.3% of the electricity needed statewide. Natural gas was kicking in 55.6%, large hydro provided 12.6%, nuclear was contributing 5.7%, batteries were (temporarily) good for 5.1%, and 6.8% percent of the state’s need for power was met by imported electricity.

The real finish line can be glimpsed in California’s 2023-24 budget, which includes support for “demand response,” a term that refers to rolling blackouts or extra-high rates to limit electricity use.

All the suffering and expense is for nothing. Even if California meets its goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045, it will have no effect at all on the global climate. The entire state accounts for only about 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, so it could sink into the Pacific Ocean and the global climate wouldn’t know the difference. Meanwhile, other countries are burning coal because it’s plentiful, inexpensive and reliable.

California’s energy policy is a delusional failure that is damaging the state’s economy and its residents. It’s time for a reality check.

Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on Twitter @Susan_Shelley