“Race to be Second: The Consequences of Delaying Clean Energy Goals”
In December 2019, Fred Pickel, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s in-house ratepayer advocate, made a thought-provoking statement at a DWP board meeting. He mentioned that sometimes it’s better to be third, rather than second, in the race to adopt new technologies. This statement was made in the context of L.A.’s plan to convert a coal plant to green hydrogen as part of its goal to achieve 100% clean energy by 2035.
Pickel expressed concern about the potential high costs associated with the coal-to-hydrogen conversion, which could lead to increased electric bills for DWP customers. He suggested that perhaps it would be wiser for the city to wait for another public or private utility to invest in the technology first, thereby driving down costs. This way, Angelenos could benefit from cheaper clean energy in the future.
Fast forward five years, and Pickel is still advocating for a cautious approach. He now recommends delaying L.A.’s 100% clean energy goal beyond the 2035 target set by former Mayor Eric Garcetti and supported by current Mayor Karen Bass. According to a report commissioned by Pickel’s office, sticking to the 2035 timeline could result in a 7.7% annual increase in monthly bills. However, pushing the target back to 2045, as mandated by state law, could lead to a more modest 4.8% increase.
While Pickel acknowledges the urgency of addressing the climate crisis, he believes that L.A. could achieve significant progress towards clean energy by 2035 and then focus on other climate solutions, such as electric vehicles. He emphasizes the importance of avoiding steep utility bill hikes, not only for the sake of low- and middle-income residents but also to ensure that other states and nations are willing to follow L.A.’s lead on renewable energy.
The debate over the timeline for achieving 100% clean energy in Los Angeles reflects a broader dilemma faced by many cities and regions in the transition to a sustainable future. While the financial costs of phasing out fossil fuels and investing in renewable energy are significant, the long-term benefits in terms of environmental sustainability and public health are undeniable. Ultimately, someone needs to take the lead in this transition, even if it means bearing higher costs in the short term.
As the impacts of climate change become increasingly severe, with record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires, and extreme weather events becoming more frequent, the need for urgent action is clear. Los Angeles, as a global trendsetter and the second-largest city in the U.S., has a unique opportunity to lead by example and inspire others to follow suit. The decision to pursue 100% clean energy by 2035 is not just about meeting a target; it’s about setting a precedent for ambitious climate action that can have far-reaching implications.
In a world where the consequences of inaction on climate change are becoming more apparent, the choice to be a leader rather than a follower is more critical than ever. While the path to a sustainable future may be challenging and costly, the alternative of delaying action could lead to far greater costs in terms of human health, economic stability, and environmental degradation. Los Angeles, like many other cities, stands at a crossroads, where the decisions made today will shape the world of tomorrow.