Does California have enough land for the renewable energy it needs?

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

California is beginning a massive build-out of clean energy. We need to triple the rate at which we are bringing solar and wind facilities online in order to meet our climate goals.

One of the big challenges in increasing the pace of renewable development will be siting the facilities. They are projected to use almost one million acres of land along with substantial marine area.

Dr. Adam Moreno, Manager of the Nature-Based Strategies Section at the California Air Resources Board, put it this way in a recent California Energy Commission (CEC) Workshop on Land Use: “(The wind and solar requirement) would cover at least 850 square miles, an area larger than the city of Los Angeles, and 18 times the footprint of the city of San Francisco.” He enumerates the many competing demands for land — renewable energy, agriculture, conservation, carbon storage, tribal cultural resources, housing — and asserts that “development on natural, intact, resilient, and/or culturally significant lands should be avoided.”

That is not easy, because even seemingly worthless land can have considerable value. “For example,” Moreno continues, “deserts may seem empty and an easy choice for siting such development. However, these lands are just as culturally, spiritually, and vitally important to local communities and wildlife as any other ecosystem with some of the longest-lived plants in the entire State, and very sensitive systems that cannot be restored within multiple lifetimes.” Tradeoffs are inevitable. So how is California approaching the difficult issue of land use?

California’s 2023 Land-Use Screen

One important step the state has taken is to update a land-use screen that will be used by many state agencies.The land-use screen helps planners determine where development is more or less feasible. The tool incorporates multiple sources of data that reflect where transmission is, where sensitive habitats are, where it is most economical to put in solar or wind resources, and so on. You can try the screening tool here if you create a (free) account on ArcGIS.

In the image below, the purple areas indicate critical habitat, the grey represent areas of high biodiversity, and the brown show high connectivity regions (e.g., wildlife corridors).

Jared Ferguson, a senior analyst in the Energy Division of the California Public Utilities Commission, describes the process his division uses to determine locations where renewable development might occur, so they can feed that into transmission planning. “We screen out resource potential based on a series of techno-economic constraints that represent areas where resources physically cannot be built — like bodies of water, existing infrastructure, and steep terrain — and areas of limited economic viability, such as locations with low estimated capacity factors or project areas that are too small. We then further filter by applying land use and environmental screens.”

The maps below show these techno-economic constraints in the Bay Area, where it is either technically or economically infeasible to put solar resources (in peach on the left) and wind resources (in blue on right).

You can understand by looking at these maps why Moreno says: “It would be good to understand if there is physically enough space to develop all of the infrastructure we need in already developed integrated lands, and it is really just a matter of cost; or if there is really not enough space, even after thinking creatively about siting in dispersed, developed, and degraded lands.”

The Nature Conservancy has done a series of studies on how much land is available, and has concluded that there is plenty of land if we plan carefully. Marybeth Benton, California Energy Project Director at the Nature Conservancy, says “California can achieve its SB 100 goals with minimal impacts to natural and working lands in an affordable way. … We find that the added cost of protecting important natural areas in the West adds only 3% to the total cost of the transition. We anticipate that the savings and avoided litigation and construction delays will help to offset that.” She emphasizes the importance of using already-degraded right of ways along highways, enhancing the capacity of existing power lines, taking advantage of distributed resources, and working closely with local communities to create enduring benefits.

Industry and Environmentalist Feedback

The CEC and other agencies are trying to be as transparent and deliberate about these siting decisions as possible. The land use screen update took 1.5 years across ten federal and state agencies, with numerous public meetings and other opportunities for feedback. The data sets underlying the land use screen will evolve as research proceeds, with industry identifying places where deployments might be more feasible and environmentalists identifying especially sensitive or valuable areas.

For example, the California Wind Energy Association points out that wind can often coexist with agricultural production or wildlife corridors, and more powerful turbines are enabling it to consume less space. The geothermal industry touts the pace of innovation of its drilling technology, with Fervo claiming that the current screens “grossly undervalue the resource potential of geothermal energy as a whole as well as the resource potential per acre which will lead to misinformed land use planning”. And the Sierra Club is concerned that the most resilient natural areas that are likely to become refuges for wildlife are not included in the core screen. “Neglecting to protect these habitats will accelerate the loss of species that make California one of the world’s 36 biodiversity hotspots and result in incalculable damage to California’s communities and natural spaces.” We can expect this type of feedback to continue, and that is a good thing.

The Importance of Local Engagement

But it is not only industry and environmentalists that are providing feedback. It is ever more important to engage with local communities and governments where facilities are being considered. A recent report from Columbia’s law school reveals how growing local opposition to renewables is slowing and even blocking deployments across the US. Early and committed engagement with the local community is necessary to win enduring support for carefully crafted development proposals. As one example, many developers are eyeing large tracts of agricultural land in the San Joaquin Valley, a half million or more acres, that are slated to be fallowed due to overdrafted groundwater basins. These are potential sites for renewable energy facilities, but also for rewilding, groundwater recharge, carbon sequestration, and community services. Local engagement here is critical to finding the right balance.

Several groups who may be impacted by these developments spoke at the CEC’s recent Land Use Workshop. Residents of some rural counties and disadvantaged communities have experienced worsened air quality from nearby biomethane and biomass facilities, and would like to see less air pollution and more reliable energy, good-paying jobs, and community services, as well as a process where they can have meaningful input. They worry that they don’t have the expertise to deal with an accelerated development push, and would like to share effective permitting practices across counties. They would also like to see the impacts of SB 100 distributed more equitably across California’s different regions.

The tribal representatives expressed similar concerns, but for some they go beyond economics and a desire for reliable power. The underlying issue for them is sovereignty. Michael Gerace, the planning director for the Yurok Tribe, was particularly eloquent on this topic. The tribe, located in Northern California, has seen their communities shattered during the Gold Rush of the 1800s, their rivers nearly destroyed by hydropower dams on the Klamath, and most of their redwood forests clear cut by the timber industry. They are concerned that the push for renewable energy will again run roughshod over their territory and their rights.

When Gerace was asked about the challenges that California faces in achieving its renewable energy goals, he pivoted to the lack of opportunity for his tribe: “You know, even though the challenges are so big, that remains the only place where we’re operating, in the challenges space. Especially for tribes. … The opportunities are going to developers. The opportunities are going to regulators. And the challenges are falling on the tribes.” He continued, “The tribe’s challenge is, how are we going to protect our environmental and cultural resources when this industry is being rolled out just like the other ones … no long term wealth, just dispossession. And so, while the opportunity may be, you know, technological innovation, an opportunity to address climate change, we’re missing, in my opinion, the biggest opportunity, which is to recognize that again, this transition cannot be a technological transition. I mean, we built and supported and created these (other) industries around methods of development which were wrong. Which were extractive. Which created this compounded crisis that the Earth is in.” He concluded “So you know, it’s time to get to work and recognize that opportunity, and stop repeating the history where the tribe is bearing the brunt for everyone else’s opportunity. That just doesn’t work.”

Moving Forward

How can we better account for the externalities of renewable development on the tribes, on rural and disadvantaged communities, on our natural resources? How can we better share the costs and opportunities of the energy transition? The Center for Biological Diversity is leading a push for the state’s agencies to incorporate social impacts and non-energy benefits into their analyses, including in the all-important cost-effectiveness tests. If we can make the harmful externalities and beneficial non-energy side-effects of various options harder to ignore, it might help us to craft a more equitable and environmentally-friendly transition.

Moreno, again highlighting challenges, observes that we do not, and will not, have all the data that we need to make those determinations. He argues for a conservative approach in its absence. “Unfortunately, the science needed to quantify all of the impacts that development has on ecosystems … is not available. Many externalities exist when developing natural landscapes. and for this reason it is prudent to take a stance of doing the least harm, because while energy projects may not last hundreds of years, the impact that we have on the environment may.”

There is harm in most any direction we take, as well as in standing still. But some options are better than others. Will we be able to move quickly, inclusively, and deliberately towards the best path? California is certainly trying.

Current Climate Data

Global impacts (January 2024), US impacts (February 2024), CO2 metric, Climate dashboard

Want to be Notified of New “A New Shade of Green” Blog Posts?

Embarcadero Media is no longer sending notifications of new blog posts. If you would like to be notified, please send an email to notify@newshadeofgreen.com with “Subscribe” in the subject.

Comment Guidelines

I hope that your contributions will be an important part of this blog. To keep the discussion productive, please adhere to these guidelines or your comment may be edited or removed.

• Avoid disrespectful, disparaging, snide, angry, or ad hominem comments.
• Stay fact-based and refer to reputable sources.
• Stay on topic.
• In general, maintain this as a welcoming space for all readers.

Not Seeing Any Comments? Comments on this blog are no longer shared across Embarcadero Media’s various sites. These days you can find most comments on the Palo Alto site, in case you would like to read and comment there. (Your login credentials work on all of the sites.)