Climate Change Progress-Western States

Show Transcript

Climate Change in the West: Progress or Paper Tigers

[00:00:00] Bob Gatty: Hey guys, this is the fifth of five podcasts exploring with scientist and energy expert Jack Kerfoot, which states are making real and timely progress at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the factors that contribute to their success. The type and power potential of renewable energy resources, that is wind, solar, hydropower, et cetera, vary significantly across our nation.

[00:00:30] States in the West have a diverse range of climates, ranging from semi arid in Arizona to temperate in Washington. As a result, the dominant type of renewable energy resources in Western states range From solar to hydropower. Environmental philosophies and policies also vary from state to state.

[00:00:54] Identifying which states are making real and timely progress at reducing greenhouse gas emissions is best done by comparing states in the same region of the country which have similar renewable resource potential, states in the same region of the country, which have similar renewable resource potential today will contrast and compare five different states in the West, Arizona, California. Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Each of these states have developed environmental policies that have produced very different results at reducing greenhouse emissions. Now our guest expert, Jack Kerfoot, is a scientist, energy expert and author of the book Fueling America, An Insider's Journey. He's the principal of JL Kerfoot Energy Services and he blogs on his website, OurEnergy conundrum@jackkerfoot.com.

[00:01:56] Jack's a strong advocate for renewable energy as a solution for combating climate change. Jack, welcome back to The Lean to the Left Podcast, my friend. 

[00:02:08] Jack Kerfoot: Bob, it's always a pleasure to be on your program, and this is the fifth of our five episodes, and I found it perhaps the most challenging in the characterization, and perhaps viewers may see as the most controversial.

[00:02:22] Bob Gatty: Okay. How do we differentiate between states that are making real progress at reducing greenhouse gas emissions versus states that are paper tigers at addressing climate change, Jack? 

[00:02:35] Jack Kerfoot: In my opinion, we should look at five factors, and those include renewable energy potential, environmental standards, eliminating coal, eliminating barriers for the development of new projects, and resilience of the power grid.

[00:02:52] So when we talk about the renewable energy potential, we're really asking how much resource energy potential does that particular state have. States in the west coast, have a diverse range of climates, ranging from the semi arid in Arizona to temperate in a state like Washington. As a result, the dominant type of renewable energy in the western states Ranges from solar down in Arizona and Southern California to hydropower in Pacific Northwest, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.

[00:03:27] Environmental standards, really, we're asking, what is the state doing to support the reduction of greenhouse gas emission and develop the state's renewable energy resources? If a state, let's say, like in the southeast, may only have limited resources, Let's say Alabama or Mississippi, which may only have solar, and if they're developing the maximum potential, then that's a state that's making progress.

[00:03:54] But if, on the other hand, a state has vast, renewable energy resources, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, and they're only developing a fraction of that, that's a state, in my opinion, that's a paper tiger. Also, has the state enacted renewable energy standards for the utilities to encourage the acceleration of the development of renewables?

[00:04:18] And are these utilities actually meeting state standards? Unfortunately, we've seen in a few states, the state has a standard or a goal, and the utilities are really not anywhere close to meeting this the goal or standard, which may only be two or three years away and will never be achievable. The next factor is eliminating coal.

[00:04:41] Coal fuel power plants are a threat to all states environment and their economy. Climate change. Coal generates 40 to 45 percent more greenhouse gases than natural gas, which is also a fossil fuel and creates CO2 contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. But coal generates significantly more than natural gas.

[00:05:03] 2. Pollution. Coal ash, which is the product of coal burned in power plants, contains arsenic. Mercury and lead, all of which are highly toxic. In 2019, the United States Environmental Protection Agency documented leaked coal ash contamination, including arsenic and mercury and lead, in over 241 sites near existing or recently closed coal fired power plants.

[00:05:36] That impacts not only the drinking water, but also water that's used to water your crops, which is then transferred into the product of the crops, and also the livestock as well. And finally, the economics. I frequently meet not frequently these days, but occasionally I meet people that are climate skeptics.

[00:05:55] And they will say, oh, that's just theory. But I then ask them do you like to save money? And I ask them that because the cost to generate electricity from coal or even natural gas is two to three times more than electricity generated from wind and solar and hydropower. The fourth is eliminating barriers.

[00:06:17] We find that in some states, They have complex or very restrictive permitting laws that make it very difficult and time consuming to get the necessary permits to build a new wind farm or solar park. In some states, it may take 5, 6, or even 10 years to get the necessary permits to build a project and then to tie it into the power grid.

[00:06:42] Other states, like in the Great Plains, you will find that the permitting time is anywhere from 12 to 18 months. So there's a federal permit, which is usually very easy to obtain and relatively straightforward. They're very well defined regulations on what must be done relative to birds and potential setting up any power plant, whether it's renewable or not.

[00:07:04] And then of course, each state has their own standards. Unfortunately, some states, and we're going to say one or two and In this presentation that have very complex and bureaucratic procedures that really delay the development of renewable energy. And finally, how resilient is the power grid? Now, the reason that's important, everyone likes their electricity and because we have electricity in the United States for so many years, we sometimes take it for granted.

[00:07:34] But if you look at the severe weather, droughts, blizzards. Heat waves, tornadoes, hurricanes, and you look at an extended periods of time on global studies, both in the United States and North America and around the world by the United Nations, and you compare the severe weather that has occurred between 1980 and 2000, a 20 year period, and compare that to 2021, 2001 to 2021, a 20 year period, there's been an 80% increase globally and in North America in severe weather over those two different periods. And what that means is there's more frequency of power outages. We've seen that in the Southwest in Texas in 2021, Pacific Northwest, where I live in Oregon and Washington. It also went up the heat wave knocked out the power sector in British Columbia and even in Alberta, because the demand for power when the heat went up to record highs or the temperatures go down to record lows, like the Southwest people reach for their thermostats.

[00:08:41] And that puts an unexpected demand on the power stations. So the utilities then have the inability to meet these dramatic surges in ups and downs in the temperatures, as well as severe weather that knocks out the power lines. So it's important that when we talk about renewable energy, and when we talk about understanding what states are making progress, who is making real progress in paper tigers, resilience of the power grid, eliminating barriers.

[00:09:11] Eliminating coal, energy standards, and energy potential are the five factors that I look at. 

[00:09:19] Bob Gatty: Okay Jack, thanks for that overview. Let's move to the assessments of Arizona, California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington to determine which states are making real progress at addressing climate change and which ones are indeed paper tigers.

[00:09:35] Jack Kerfoot: Well, Arizona, also known as the Grand Canyon State, they have renewable energy resources, which includes solar. Most people think of the hot temperatures in Arizona, so the vast majority, if not all the state, has excellent solar potential. They also have wind and they also some have hydroelectric and even some geothermal potential.

[00:09:57] However, the state has developed only a fraction of the solar and wind resources and virtually none of the geothermal potential. In 2006, Arizona enacted a renewable energy standard, which is encouraging. However, that standard is for the utilities to sell 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy resources by 2025.

[00:10:21] Which is a very low bar. As far as coal is concerned, in 2010, Arizona generated about 40 percent of the state's electricity from coal. In June of this year, which is the most recent data I have from the U. S. Environmental Energy Agency. They generated only 8 percent of their power from coal. But what the utilities did in Arizona is primarily move from coal to natural gas because of economics and the fact it was an easier one to tie into the grid from their perspective.

[00:10:57] So they have moved away from coal, but they again have a significant amount of renewable power from fossil fuels. Now in 2023, June of this year, fossil fuels generated about 54 percent of Arizona's electricity. Nuclear generated 28 percent and renewables 18%. So we talk about zero carbon sources. We mean nuclear, which has zero carbon output and also renewables.

[00:11:26] So 46 percent of Arizona. is from zero carbon sources, but the majority of that is actually nuclear. In 2013, I'm going to talk about jobs now, because many times I hear people say, and this is particularly the case in some states that have coal mining, it's going to cost jobs, it's going to hurt our economy, and renewable energy is only bad, it may be cheaper, but it really doesn't generate jobs.

[00:11:54] That is absolutely fake news. In Arizona, in 2023, and this is the U. S. Department of Labor statistics, over 11, 000 people were employed in renewable energy power plants. Primarily solar, and a little bit of hydro from as far as renewables. 4, 700 from natural gas, 3, 400 from coal, and 2, 500 nuclear power plants.

[00:12:23] So renewable energy, wind, solar, and hydro, employ more people in the state of Arizona than natural gas, coal plants, and nuclear power plants combined. Renewable energy generates jobs. It only is lower cost, but it also generates jobs. It's good for the economy. One of the outcomes of the Inflation Reduction Act is by moving to renewables, we've actually seen a 10 to 15 to 20 percent drop in the cost of electricity over since the start of this year.

[00:12:58] Now, in summary, if we look at Arizona, they have achieved, or they have achieved a renewable energy standard of 15%, but that's a very low bar. Arizona's utilities have also moved away from coal, but primarily have moved to natural gas. The real reason I think they're a paper tiger of Arizona is they've only developed a fraction of the state's renewable energy resources.

[00:13:24] So to me, the Arizona legislators and utilities have shown minimal interest in reducing greenhouse gas reduction, greenhouse gas emissions, and have shown limited interest at saving the consumers and the voters money as far as their pocketbooks are concerned for the cost of electricity. 

[00:13:44] Bob Gatty: It seems to me, Jack, that looking at it from the standpoint of someone who is not an energy scientist like you are, Arizona has a lot of sun.

[00:13:55] It's a, got a lot of sun there, right? Why the hell aren't they taking advantage of it? I don't understand that. Makes no sense. 

[00:14:04] Jack Kerfoot: Sometimes utilities will argue we've just built a coal plant and a coal plant or a gas plant typically has a life expectancy of 40 years. And we, we want to amortize the cost of capital for the development of this gas plant.

[00:14:20] But if you actually look at the economics, and I usually do, you will actually see that many times it's more economic to move away from gas. Into wind and solar after as soon as 8 to 10 years after a brand new gas plant has been built. So the economics are that compelling. So from that standpoint, it is unfortunately poor management by some of the utilities that are simply not being proactive and really looking at what is the most cost effective factor.

[00:14:55] Now, utilities have to go to a state utility board And they have to get approval for construction, but they have to show an economic cost of why they want to spend money. And for that reason, there is a bit of process they have to go through to justify this. But these are economics that I've never seen a state utility board reject.

[00:15:17] The other factor is... The utilities in Arizona are quite actively building renewable power plants and laying power lines to ship, export electricity from solar to the state of California, because Arizona's electricity cost they charge the consumer is around 12, 13 cents per kilowatt hour, whereas the cost of electricity in the state of California Is over 31 cents per kilowatt hour.

[00:15:47] So they see as a money making opportunity, but they're not focused about the state, as in my opinion, they should be if there is state utility to really reduce the emissions for the state of Arizona. 

[00:15:59] Bob Gatty: Okay. You brought up California. So let's go there and tell us what's going on in California. 

[00:16:06] Jack Kerfoot: California renewable energy resources include solar, particularly in the Southern California, offshore wind, onshore wind, geothermal, and hydropower.

[00:16:18] Actually, when I was in university, way back in the late 70s, I worked on, had a summer job working for a company in Northern California near the geysers, and they were built the first, and it's still the largest geothermal power plant. And at the time, and I think it still is, they generate about 80 percent of the electricity for the Bay Area from the geothermal power plant in the geysers.

[00:16:43] But of all these resources It's done little to develop its most powerful, most significant resource, offshore wind. California has enough offshore wind potential, it could meet over 100 percent of its electrical demand today, if it were to develop offshore wind like we're seeing and have, we've discussed previously along the eastern coast of the U. S. Now, California does have some very significant renewable energy standards and policies. In 2002, they enacted a renewable energy portfolio standard that requires utilities to sell 44 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2024, and 100 percent by 2045. In 2020, California mandated that all new vehicles that were sold in the state Must have zero emissions by 2035.

[00:17:44] Now, again, that's a very significant fact because, of course, California has the largest population and they have, proportionately, the largest number of cars as well. So I understand the reason for the legislation. However, the mandate for this legislation was enacted without evaluating the impact on the power grid.

[00:18:06] Will we have enough electricity? Because when we're talking, it used to be... 30 years ago, the biggest demand for power in California used to be during the day. People would go to work, they'd turn on power in the buildings, and that was the biggest surge in power. Today, because they have solar, and so many places have solar, the biggest demand for electricity in California now is after about 5 p. m. Now, you include the impact of plugging in your electric vehicle, and I have one of those in Oregon, then all of a sudden you've got to ask yourself, the most populated state, is their grid really designed to handle this? As far as renewable today, in June of this year, their zero carbon sources generated 72 percent of their electricity, over 60 percent from renewables, so they've actually exceeded their target for 2024, and they have 9 percent from renewables, so 72 percent from zero carbon, 28 percent from fossil fuels, primarily natural gas.

[00:19:16] Now, employment wise, and again, realize this is the most popular state, populated state, densely populated state most populated state, and again, they have encouraging incentives for solar. Over 130, 000 people were employed in renewable energy power plants, compared to 19, 000 in natural gas, 4, 000 in nuclear power plants.

[00:19:40] So clearly nuclear is, sorry, renewable energy is the biggest employer as far as power plants and power facilities. Now if we look at California and take a step back, we can say California developed a reputation as a green state when it enacted landmark air pollution regulations in the late 60s. You've also had some landmark regulations as far as recycling is concerned. They have obviously standards relative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the utilities.

[00:20:17] However, coupled with the state's failure. The reason I would give them a paper tiger rating, I would say, first of all, they haven't really developed the most, the largest source of renewable energy in the state, which is offshore wind. They've done virtually nothing. They've also had importing about 20 to 30 percent of their electricity from neighboring states like Arizona, also Oregon, Nevada, Utah, and also even Mexico, to be able to get where they are today.

[00:20:47] The imported power has contributed to California's high cost of electricity, which is almost double the national average, like I said 31 cents, almost 32 cents per kilowatt hour. In September of 2022, last year, governor of California went on , went out on the television and the new radio networks, and asked people not to charge their electric vehicles from four to 9:00 PM due to the power grids limitations, the demand was too high, and he was concerned that they couldn't meet this.

[00:21:22] In 2022, California had less than a million electric vehicles, about 900,000. But they're forecast to have 12. 5 million electric vehicles by 2035. Now that's just over 10 years away. So my question is, how in the world are they going to get there within this time frame that we're talking about?

[00:21:45] Additionally, they're having ever increasing power outages from a wide range of reasons. One, the surge in demands, also the climate we've seen, the forest fires as well, has all caused... Interruptions in power. So their grid is really not right now designed to maintain energy security, which puts lives and people's lives and hospitals and at risk.

[00:22:09] California clearly has green aspirations, but has done little to develop its most significant renewable energy resource, offshore wind and a fraction of its state solar potential. Unlike states along the eastern seaboard, which are actively developing wind today. California, in my mind, has shown A shocking lack of planning in developing its green energy strategy and developing a secure energy grid.

[00:22:38] It's also increased, dramatically increased, the cost of power which puts a very harsh impact on low income people. They're having to pay Double or more than double the cost of electricity compared to states like Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho. So for that reason, I give them a paper tiger status, even though they have very strict regulations and they have very green aspirations, which I applaud, but you need a plan with these aspirations.

[00:23:13] Bob Gatty: Jack, do you have any idea why it is that they haven't developed offshore wind? Is it fear of impact on tourism, or something else, or what? 

[00:23:24] Jack Kerfoot: You can, in the southern areas around some of the naval bases around San Diego, they've had some impediments relative to the Navy, relative to the training exercises.

[00:23:34] But in the northern area, There really isn't that reason. Now you can argue some of the cases that they have a very narrow shelf, which means that to put a wind turbine offshore, you need a small pedestal, and typically you can go out to water depths of 150, 200 feet with these pedestals. But now they're developing floating offshore wind turbines.

[00:23:56] They've had operating floating offshore wind turbines off the coast of Scotland for over four years now. Clearly, and actually the fact that it's floating. two things happen. One, it actually has a lower infrastructure cost and also the winds typically further offshore are stronger as well. You always get issues when you talk about any shore, any offshore operation with, first of all, the fishing industry.

[00:24:23] They're concerned about that. But again, if you work with the fishing industry and have discussions. These can be addressed. They've been addressed along the Eastern coast of the U. S. They've certainly been addressed across Europe and offshore in Asia as well, and we're beginning to see the development, not only in China, but offshore South Korea.

[00:24:46] And also in Japan as well, and Vietnam. As far as an impact of fishing, we can point to case after case, having absolutely no negative impact at all. And in fact, they actually create many reefs or many barriers, which usually help the fish populations increase. Another factor is, you always get people that say, not off my, don't spoil my view.

[00:25:13] Yeah, but then again, that's, in my opinion, a very selfish perspective. Perhaps because of my engineering and science background, I find the view of a wind turbine actually pretty interesting and not negative at all. But you have a wide range of reasons that are occurring. You're having some people in the East Coast that are protesting the development of offshore wind turbines because they argue that will impact the whale migration.

[00:25:41] Universities have been brought in one after the other to say there's absolutely no evidence for that having a negative impact on the whale migration or the whale populations whatsoever. And they say we don't care. We just think it will. One thing I know will have a negative impact, and if the sea temperatures continue to get warmer as they have been, that's a far greater threat to the whale populations than the wind turbines off the east coast or the west coast or anywhere offshore areas in the world.

[00:26:14] Bob Gatty: Because you don't think much of that excuse. We don't care. We just think it will. 

[00:26:19] Jack Kerfoot: No, I don't. I, if you're going to argue a point, at least give me your rationale. And no, you just don't wake up one day and say no, I didn't lose the election. I won the election. But some people do. 

[00:26:35] Bob Gatty: Yeah, all right.

[00:26:36] I was a little surprised that you placed California in the paper tiger category because they're such a progressive state, especially with the mandate about the electric vehicles and all that leading the way for the entire country. But it's, it's very interesting that they issued that mandate, but didn't prepare, apparently, the grid in order to handle it.

[00:27:02] Now let's see what's going on with Idaho, Jack. 

[00:27:06] Jack Kerfoot: Well, Idaho is another state with vast renewable energy resources. They have hydropower, they have onshore wind, solar, and geothermal. They also have a an advantage in the fact they're a far... Lower lower population and a very sparsely populated state, although that's a different challenge for the utilities to get those power lines to wherever those small population centers may be.

[00:27:30] Now, Idaho is one of only 13 states that has neither a renewable energy standard nor a goal, although the capital, Boise, has actually put a mandate in that they will be 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. Additionally, the state utilities. You can use the word progressive. I'll just say I understand what's important are aggressively developing renewable energy in this state.

[00:27:58] So as a result. In June of this year, 71 percent of Idaho's electricity was generated from renewables, 29 percent from gas. They've never had any coal generation power plants in the state. So they're making very good progress, and they have used hydro. And have been very effective at using hydro for large power plants and also smaller power plants as well in 2023 about 2100 people were employed in renewables in the power plants in Idaho compared to 230 people in natural gas.

[00:28:36] So again, a major employer. So I think it's important to recognize that even though they don't have standards and sometimes those standards, the purpose of a standard renewable energy standard is to put that incentive to push a utility to develop renewable energy. However, sometimes if you put those standard dates to be 50 percent by 2030 and 75 percent by 2050, what happens is it becomes a barrier and the utility says I've got plenty of time to develop the resources later.

[00:29:10] Whereas states that really have what I call smart, economically driven, progressive utilities look at it in a way as look, I can drive the cost of my electricity down, it will help my consumers, from that standpoint it also helps the environment, no risk of pollution like coal does. So let's make this move and do it as cost effectively and as quickly as possible.

[00:29:35] That to me is a sharp utility and that's utility I wish we could replicate across the U. S. So, we've also got to remember the cost of electricity. In Idaho is about 40 percent less than the cost of electricity from California. Electricity in Idaho is just over 11 cents per kilowatt hour compared to California, which is over 31 cents.

[00:30:00] So, they're not only reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, it's they're developing more and more renewables. I think we'll see that they'll be at 80 to 90 percent renewables by Certainly 2030 and perhaps as soon as 2026 or 2027, and I think that they'll be easily 90, 95 percent by 2030 from renewable energy.

[00:30:24] So they're making real progress , and they're doing it in a way that's cost effective and helps people, the low income people, because they have lower cost of electricity. So I give Idaho, even without a renewable energy standard, where For a making real progress because they are developing their renewable energy resources over 70 percent of their power is renewable today and they're making developing projects that will get them there very quickly to 80 and then 90 percent within the foreseeable future.

[00:30:56] Bob Gatty: That's great news, Jack. I was surprised that at your analysis there because, Idaho is known as a, it's long been a Republican controlled state and typically we haven't seen the Republican states as the ones that are leading the way on, on combating climate change.

[00:31:18] So I was surprised at at your analysis there, but it sounds great. Now, how about Oregon, your home state? 

[00:31:25] Jack Kerfoot: That's my home state, the Beaver State. 

[00:31:28] Bob Gatty: Yeah, and by the way, Jack, why is it called the Beaver State? 

[00:31:32] Jack Kerfoot: There's a lot of beavers up here, and this is a lot of timber country.

[00:31:36] And the two, just to help you understand the climate, the two largest universities, University of Oregon and Oregon State. The mascot is the beaver, University of Oregon. And so they are, the other is, sorry, the Oregon, University of Oregon are the ducks, and Oregon State are the beavers. So they're both shall we say, wet weather type of creatures.

[00:31:58] And we got a lot of water up here and we have a history of hydro, so that's why. 

[00:32:03] Bob Gatty: Let's talk about renewable resources in Oregon. What's going on? 

[00:32:07] Jack Kerfoot: They have the first renewable energy resources which were actually developed in Oregon were as far back as the late 18, 1890s, which is hydropower, but they also have onshore wind, offshore wind, solar, and geothermal.

[00:32:23] Unfortunately, like California, Oregon has done very little to develop its vast offshore wind resources. Wind speed is one of the factors companies look at when they try and determine where is a good place to put an offshore or put a wind farm. Some of the strongest winds in the entire United States are actually off the coast of Southern Oregon and Northern California.

[00:32:49] So it's not a lack of wind speed or wind concentration or renewable energy from offshore wind. They have vast offshore wind resources, but they've developed virtually none of it. In 2007, Oregon developed a Renewable Energy Standard which requires utilities to sell 25 percent of their electricity from non hydro by 2025 and 50 percent by 2040. Now, there are some factions that look at large hydro projects and they say there's a negative side of hydro in the fact that it can create temperatures, particularly if there's a little rainfall or during the summers for the temperatures to increase, which can have a negative impact on the fish populations and also you know.

[00:33:37] Block the migration of the salmon up the rivers and therefore put the salmon population at risk. So those factors can be addressed, but unfortunately, the paradigm of solar is bad or excuse me. Hydro is bad. Sometimes permeates in discussions without necessarily looking at solutions to understand it.

[00:33:59] The reality is the cost of power from hydro is a renewable energy resource. It is also can be supplemented by putting floating solar on these reservoirs, which can mitigate evaporation during peak periods of temperature during the summer, and also generate additional power to provide additional resources.

[00:34:21] That is not only good for the fish population, but also generate low cost renewable energy for the power grid. But again, we're still fighting, some of these issues are not fighting, but we're still having these discussions that big hydro projects are negative. You can argue that every power source has advantages and disadvantages, but instead of having that agreement and saying, would you rather see More, would you rather see maintain the hydro and mitigate the risk of development of fossil fuels?

[00:34:53] We've gone down the path of saying hydro is like nuclear, it's not a power source that we like. And my comment would be, what I don't like is climate change, and let's look for systematic ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and look at ways to reduce the other power sources, whether it's nuclear or hydro, as we get further down the grid and can generate better power, more cost effectively, environmentally effectively.

[00:35:21] But clearly, greenhouse gas emissions is the dominant risk that we face right now because impacts climate change. But in 2021, Oregon passed a clean energy bill, and that requires electric utilities reduce emissions, all emissions, by 80 percent by 2030, 90 percent by 2035, and 100 percent by 2040. Now that sounds good, but a wind turbine has a little engine in it.

[00:35:52] And so with that engine, there has to be a little bit of oil to keep that engine turning and rotating around. So there will be a little bit of emission from that. I'm not sure if they fully appreciate that nothing is zero emission including people, but we have that legislation. So they believe that we'll be a hundred percent by 2040.

[00:36:12] Oregon also has some very onerous land access laws. It takes six to ten, sometimes more, to acquire the permits to build for new onshore project, wind or solar which is an incredible time when you compare it to states like Oklahoma or Texas and New Mexico or South Dakota or Iowa, which is typically 18 months to two years.

[00:36:38] In 2010, Oregon used coal to generate 8 percent of its electricity. Oregon closed its last coal plant in 2020, which is a very positive factor. In 2023, renewable energy generated 66 percent of its electricity, which sounds good, but in 1980, it was over 95, almost 100 percent of its power was from renewable, primarily hydro.

[00:37:02] What's happened over the last 34 years is, Population has increased and the demand for power has increased. Instead of developing their new renewable energy resources, and we have enough renewable energy resources in our state, to generate 2, 000 percent of our state's power, we've slowly moved along and started to bring in more and more fossil fuels, natural gas, to keep the lights on.

[00:37:29] Now, in 2023, there were over 2, 900 people were employed in renewable energy projects, including onshore wind, hydro, solar. There is solar and onshore wind in the eastern part of the state. There's offshore wind projects as well. There's also geothermal potential. But the state really has done nothing to develop the state's offshore wind, its geothermal potential, a small fraction of its onshore wind potential, and it's solar potential as well.

[00:38:00] Bob Gatty: Jack, how many people did you say were employed in renewable energy 

[00:38:05] Jack Kerfoot: power plants? 

[00:38:06] Just about 8, 900, which is dramatically more than the natural gas, which is just less than 600. So it's a major employer. Now, if we were to go 100 percent renewable and start exporting power, like states like New Mexico, then we would see that number of people that were employed in renewable energy top 40, 000.

[00:38:30] So, that's a very real opportunity for our state to generate a new industry that could create significant job growth. However, one other factor when we talk about barriers that really no one is talking about, and that is The people resources to run these solar parks and these wind farms. Right now the job that is in the highest demand and has the most amount of vacancies of any job in the entire United States is wind turbine technician.

[00:39:05] There's a friend of mine that works at Vestas, which is a German company, but his their organizations in the U. S. for wind projects in the U. S. They expect they're going to need at least 3, 500. Wind turbine technicians and staff for their projects just in the U. S. next year. So my question is, if we're going to see our renewable energy resources grow from 22, 23%, which is in the U. S. right now, today to 50%. Where in the world are we going to get the people. We better start training people and encouraging people that don't want to go to university to move into a technician opportunity of good paying jobs, but we haven't done that. Unfortunately, Oregon is not a state that has yet to develop bright training programs or encourage students to go into renewable energy and renewable energy jobs, and that's one of the things that I help with my environmental group that I'm with that we can work with our state to help them understand that progressive states like New Jersey, which have really gone out of their way to emphasize the opportunities in renewable energy and the job opportunities, that we'll start to see that in states like Oregon. As we go through this whole aspect of renewable energy, the one thing I didn't mention is one of the utilities in our state is called Pacific Corp, Pacific Corporation, Pacific Corp, and it is acquiesced to the legislative pressure and agreed to close four dams for salmon restoration, but including in that is 169 megawatt Kilimuth hydropower plant, So there are ways you can have to address the salmon migration and some of these power plants, I would agree that perhaps can be removed and would be a better step forward.

[00:41:01] But when we talk about cutting back renewable energy power and continuing to see our greenhouse gas emissions increase reminds me of the state of Massachusetts that said, we're going to get rid of nuclear, even though it's zero carbon emission, and they did. And as a result, they met their power commitments by increasing the use of natural gas.

[00:41:23] So that's exactly the same thing that has happened with Oregon. Oregon has really excelled at creating barriers to green energy development while closing coal plants, which is good, and also closing hydropower projects, which in my mind is not the right step to take at this point in time until we've got other renewable energy power plants to replace it and to move us away from natural gas.

[00:41:50] So for that reason, I give my home state... a paper tiger category. 

[00:41:55] Bob Gatty: That surprises me, Jack. It really does. Sounds like there's a lot to be done there. What about the state of Washington? 

[00:42:04] Jack Kerfoot: State of Washington? The evergreen state. I give that state, I'll tell you up front, real progress. The federal government has certain types of power organizations. The Tennessee Valley Authority, many people may be aware of, which is developed in the early 20s with the FDR and the Green New Deal, or the Green the New Deal, excuse me, to develop hydro projects. There was one developed in Bonneville, which is the largest hydro project and actually Washington Oregon border, and they created the Bonneville Power Authority.

[00:42:40] And that basically maintains and operations a power grid, Washington, Oregon, Northern California, Idaho, Eastern Montana, parts of Utah, and parts of Nevada. So it is a major utility, power utility, it's a federally operated power utility, and the governor, Governor Inslee, legislated and got out of his way to make sure that the Bonneville Power Authority is upgraded to allow, because it was designed around hydro and oregon Hydro and Washington Hydro and Idaho to expand this authority to enable more renewable energy to be tied in. So he's taken the lead to really make change to a government organization, and this will effectively will have a very positive impact on states, although it will take some time.

[00:43:35] However, Washington already has, like Oregon, vast renewable energy resources. Hydro, onshore wind, solar, offshore wind, and geothermal. Washington already also has renewable energy standard, which requires utilities to be greenhouse gas neutral by 2030. And 100 percent renewable energy or zero emitting zero carbon emitting by 2045.

[00:44:00] So being carbon neutral means all their operations by 2030. To me, that's very positive. That includes the vehicles that they're driving as well as the plants that they're operating from. Coal mining began in Washington in the 1850s. The state's last commercial coal mine closed in 2006. In 2010, Washington used coal to generate a little less than 10 percent of their electricity.

[00:44:28] In June of this year, only 2 percent of their electricity was from coal. They will actually close their last coal fired power plant in 2025. Which is again a very positive step, perhaps not quite as quick as Oregon, but they're getting there from that standpoint because they have a plan to get there and they see the coal temporarily for the next year or two as a potential swing producer until they get other renewable energy projects up and running.

[00:44:56] But in 2023 of June of this year, zero carbon sources generated 85 percent of Washington's electricity and their source of renewable energy is increasing. The use of fossil fuels is decreasing. Only 3 percent of this was actually from nuclear. So they're making real progress with less than 50 percent of their power from fossil fuels.

[00:45:21] In 2023, over 11, 000 people were employed in renewable energy power plants compared to 600 in natural gas and 250 in coal fired power plants. The reason a larger number of coal fired fire plants, they're in the process of shutting it down. So that causes a surge of resources to shut down and close and make sure it is environmentally operate closed and there's no contamination from coal ash.

[00:45:50] Utilities have made Real progress. And so in my mind, all the state utilities are going to be carbon neutral within the next 6 to 7 years. To me, because of the high use of renewable energy resources and the way they're doing it and approaching in a systematic way, and also the federal working with the federal government on the Bonneville Power Authority, I really give them a star, gold star, and say this is a state making real progress.

[00:46:17] Bob Gatty: Okay. So what can we learn from the energy policies of these five states, Jack?

[00:46:22] Jack Kerfoot: Four states, Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington have mandated standards, and only one of them in our assessment received a real progress gold star, and that was Washington. One state, only one state, Idaho, has no standard, but yet their utilities are making real progress, so they've gotten a gold star.

[00:46:43] So in this case, I haven't seen The renewable energy standards be a real incentive maker for the utilities and for the state to make the move to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The focus seems to be more in states like California and Oregon to be more on Legislation, and I would argue there needs to be more investigation before you have legislation.

[00:47:09] How do we make this happen? We want to get to 100 percent renewable. Absolutely. But how do we do that? Unfortunately, passing a bill doesn't make it happen unless you're willing to put up with 31 cents, 32 cents per kilowatt hour cost of electricity, which is a hardship on low income and also very bureaucratic systems that are very instead of taking one or two years to get these permits in place, they were taking 6, 10, in some cases, 20 years to get all the permits in place.

[00:47:42] So in this case. We haven't seen the renewable energy standard really have a significant impact outside of we've legislated and the legislators can stand up in Oregon, California and say, look at our legislation. And my comment would be, I'd rather look and see how much your greenhouse gas emissions are going down, not how much paper you've created.

[00:48:05] Bob Gatty: That was a good line. All right, so how would you summarize the progress of these states at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing climate change? 

[00:48:17] Jack Kerfoot: In Arizona, I haven't seen little interest by the legislators or the utilities to make a real focus or impact on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

[00:48:28] The legislators in California and Oregon have been outspoken advocates for greenhouse gases, or to stop climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emission, but they haven't done the analysis to really implement programs and policies to make it happen. So as we've just gone around the U. S., we've seen certain states in the northeast like New Jersey and New York and also in the east where Virginia and North Carolina and of course in the the Southwest where we've got South Dakota and we've got Oklahoma, we've got New Mexico making real progress and moving 70, 80 or more percent of their power to renewable energy.

[00:49:12] But they've got programs in place to make that happen. And counter to my argument about, California has a, is a densely populated or a large population, New Jersey is not only, and New York are not only highly populated, they're densely populated as well. So their challenges are actually even greater than California .

[00:49:34] So , we look at all the states and compare them on this scale, we've got to say California and Oregon, you have great aspirations, but you don't have plans in place to make those aspirations a reality. And that concerns me. What I always like to close with is states with effective renewable energy standards and policies must investigate before they legislate.

[00:49:59] So we don't want legislation. We want to see greenhouse gas emissions to reduce and we want to see tangible results for our climate. 

[00:50:08] Bob Gatty: All right, Jack, you have any final thoughts to close with? 

[00:50:12] Jack Kerfoot: No, it's outside of the fact the clock is ticking and that's perhaps why I'm so harsh on California and Oregon that recognize the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and recognize the risk of climate change.

[00:50:28] Unfortunately, we've had forest fires that on the west coast, across the US, but on the west coast. There's a wonderful podcast if you go on YouTube and type in forest fires in California. And it shows a history, starting back in 1900, the locations in the years of the forest fires across California. And again, unfortunately, it's compelling evidence of climate change.

[00:50:53] And what is the number And the intensity of the forest fires in California have increased, particularly over the last 20 years. And they've marched steadily north, and they've gotten into Oregon, and they've also gotten into other parts of the U. S. as well. So climate change, the risk of climate change is substantial, and it puts people's lives at risk.

[00:51:17] We need to take action, and we need to stop talking about it, and we need to take real positive action. 

[00:51:24] Bob Gatty: All right, Jack. Thank you so much. It's been great talking with you and I'm so pleased that we've been able to provide these five episodes to our audience to help explain what's going on in the various regions of the country with respect to renewable energy and climate change. And if you guys want to catch up with the episodes that we did previously, it's been over the last, what, Jack, three or four months. We've been doing this. Just go to podcast. lean to the left. net and check it out.

[00:51:59] All of the thumbnails for all of our podcasts are there. And you can easily find them. So I recommend that you do that. Jack, thanks so much. I appreciate 

[00:52:08] Jack Kerfoot: it. It was a pleasure, Bob. Thank you.