HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-07-22; City Council; 10; Climate Action Plan Reporting and DashboardCA Review TL
Meeting Date: July 22, 2025
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Geoff Patnoe, City Manager
Staff Contact: Katie Hentrich, Senior Program Manager
katie.hentrich@carlsbadca.gov, 442-339-2623
Subject: Climate Action Plan Reporting and Dashboard
Districts: All
Recommended Action
Receive a report on Climate Action Plan reporting and an online dashboard on the plan’s
implementation.
Executive Summary
The City of Carlsbad’s Climate Action Plan details the city’s strategies and policies to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and promote environmental sustainability. Staff need to evaluate
and monitor Climate Action Plan performance over time to ensure that the city is on track to
meet the plan’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
This report provides the City Council with an update on the plan and introduces an online
public-facing dashboard that will provide more accessible, timely and transparent information
on the plan’s implementation.
Staff will continue to report to the City Council on Climate Action Plan implementation activities
each year.
Explanation & Analysis
Previous Climate Action Plan
The city’s initial Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2015 and amended in 2020. The city
implemented several programs, updated city laws and policies and took other steps to surpass
the Climate Action Plan’s 2020 target, which was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
Carlsbad by 4% below 2012 levels.
The City Council approved an update of the Climate Action Plan in 2024. That update outlines
strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote environmental sustainability.
July 22, 2025 Item #10 Page 1 of 8
Staff made seven annual reports to the City Council since the plan was first adopted in 2015.1
These reports provided updates on the 12 measures and 35 actions in the first Climate Action
Plan. Together, these reports showed that:
• 16 actions, or 46%, met the implementation goals in the time indicated in the plan2
• 15 actions, or 43%, were in progress and on schedule
• Three actions, or 8%, were in progress and delayed
• One action, or 3%, had no progress3
Notable accomplishments from implementing the first Climate Action Plan include:
• Adopting city ordinances related to energy efficiency, solar photovoltaic energy and
alternative water heating in new construction and major renovations
• Implementing the city’s Transportation Demand Management ordinance, which
requires businesses of a certain size to prepare a plan to reduce the number of single-
occupant vehicle trips by employees
• Conducting energy-efficiency retrofits at city facilities
• Installing electric vehicle charging stations at city facilities
• Purchasing plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles for the city’s fleet
The City Council received an update on the Climate Action Plan on the seventh reporting year
on April 16, 2024, which stated: “With the comprehensive update to the Climate Action Plan
expected to be completed later this year, this will be the final annual report for the measures
and actions within the existing Climate Action Plan.”
Climate Action Plan update
The City Council approved the comprehensive update to the Climate Action Plan on Nov. 12,
2024, and staff began carrying out the plan that month. Staff did not create the usual annual
report for 2024 because a full year of data was not available for that year.
Many of the continuing measures and actions from the first Climate Action Plan were
incorporated into the update, and progress on those initiatives will be reported in future annual
reports.
Climate Action Plan monitoring and reporting
The 2024 Climate Action Plan includes 23 measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
grouped into six categories or “strategies.” Each measure includes a quantitative tracking
metric to analyze individual measure performance, allow for data-driven decision-making on
the success of each measure and ensure that the plan continues to be relevant and effective.
1 These reports are available on the city’s website at: carlsbadca.gov/departments/environmental-
sustainability/climate-action-plan
2 While these Climate Action Plan actions were categorized as “completed,” some continued to be implemented,
as noted in the annual reports. Actions with an “ongoing” implementation timeframe were assumed to be
“in progress” rather than completed because implementation of those measures are to be continued for the
duration of the plan’s implementation.
3 Measure P-2, Explore the purchase of renewable energy credits if Community Choice Energy program is not
reaching 2035 goal, had no progress because implementation was not yet needed.
July 22, 2025 Item #10 Page 2 of 8
To gauge progress over time, staff’s annual reports on the plan will include:
• Most recent greenhouse gas emissions data
• The implementation status of each measure
• Progress toward achieving the performance targets of the corresponding measure
As technologies and markets change and the city implements the Climate Action Plan Update,
these reports are also used to share information with the City Council about the overall
progress toward the plan’s objectives, as well as provide transparency and promote
engagement with the public.
More accessible reporting
The city has published annual Climate Action Plan reports since 2017. Each of these reports
have been presented to the City Council with copies of the staff report posted to the city’s
Climate Action Plan webpage following the presentation. While these remain publicly available,
these reports are lengthy, and the information included in these reports may not be easily
digestible by all Carlsbad residents, businesses and stakeholders.
Members of the public and the City Council provided similar comments and concerns during
outreach and engagement for Climate Action Plan Update development, particularly during the
Nov. 7, 2023, City Council meeting sharing the potential measures for the Climate Action Plan
update. These comments expressed a desire for the city to prepare a Climate Action Plan
dashboard for the community.
Alignment with Community Vision and Values
The Climate Action Plan Dashboard aligns with the city’s Community Vision, most notably the
“Sustainability” core value. It also aligns with the Five-Year Strategic Plan’s emphasis on
sustainability and natural environment and supports the Climate Action Plan-related actions
and key performance indicators within the plan. The dashboard also reflects the city’s
commitment expressed in the City Council’s 2021 declaration of a climate emergency
declaration, which states, “the City of Carlsbad commits to continue educating our residents
about climate change and actions they can take to combat it.
Climate Action Plan dashboard
To accomplish these goals, simplify information and increase transparency, the city has created
a new Climate Action Plan Dashboard that will be publicly accessible on the city ‘s website. The
information and data it provides are organized into the following sections:
1. Home
2. Energy
3. Transportation
4. Carbon sequestration and waste diversion
Future measures
Within each of these sections of the dashboard, information for related reduction measures is
included, correlating to the “Data Needed to Monitor” sections of the Climate Action Plan
update.
July 22, 2025 Item #10 Page 3 of 8
Overview
This default page for the Climate Action Plan Dashboard provides an overview of the Climate
Action Plan and the Climate Action Plan Dashboard. This section also includes the most recent
greenhouse gas inventory data.
Energy section
The Energy section includes data on the energy measures in the Climate Action Plan update.
There is a short summary of how energy contributes to greenhouse gas emissions at the top of
the section, followed by more specific information about the measures themselves, links to
rebates or incentives, or actions that residents and businesses can take to lower their energy
usage.
For example, the data needed to monitor Measure E-2 (Community Choice Energy) are
customer participation rates in the Clean Energy Alliance.4 The dashboard provides a short
description of the Clean Energy Alliance as well as a link to existing customer rebates and
information on how to opt-up to 100% renewable energy.
4 Clean Energy Alliance is the default power provider for several cities including the City of Carlsbad. It was
established to bring clean power to residents and businesses at competitive rates.
July 22, 2025 Item #10 Page 4 of 8
Energy
Energy use in homes and businesses, mainly from electricity and natural gas, makes up 41 % of Carlsbad's emissions. By
swit ching to cleaner energy sources, using less natural gas and making build ings more energy efficient, the city can reduce
emissions and support a more sustainable future.
Electncrty production from
renewable energy
infrastructure at city facd1t1es
659,997
Kilowatt-hours
Electnc1ty usage at city
fac1l1t1es
6,194
Megawatt-hours
Natural gas usage at city
fac1l1t1es
152,290
Therms
Crty-owned solar carports
1
Carport
Electnc1ty used for city-
owned street and safety
l1qhtmq
5,889
Kilowatt-hours
Clean Energy Alliance participation X
Clean Energy Alliance is Carlsbad's community choice energy p rogram. It gives resident s and businesses
more options for clean, renewable energy.
In 2024, about 0.4% of Clean Energy Alliance customers chose t o purchase 100% renewable energy.
Opt up to 100% renewable energy.
Explore available customer rebates.
Transportation section
This section provides data on the transportation measures in the Climate Action Plan update. It
includes a short summary of how transportation contributes to greenhouse gas emissions,
followed by more specific information about the measures themselves or actions that residents
and businesses can take to reduce how many miles they travel by vehicle.
For example, the data needed to monitor Measure T-2, Transportation Demand Management
Program, are the number of businesses and employees participating in that city program as well
as the percentage of sustainable mode-share from these businesses, that is, the proportion of
total trips made using environmentally friendly and low-impact transportation modes. This
section also explains what transportation demand management means, what the city’s
ordinance requires and provides a link where community members can learn more about
sustainable commute options.
July 22, 2025 Item #10 Page 5 of 8
Transportation
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Carlsbad. These emissions are measured by the
number of miles driven, also known as vehicle miles traveled. Each weekday, drivers in Carlsbad-residents, workers and
visitors-generate more than 3 million vehicle miles traveled. These vehicle trips can be reduced with investments in
alternative transportation and by transitioning to zero-emission vehicles.
12 28 111
Vehicle1, St~lioft.$ SU'tions
Zero •mtukin wtudes told IA
Carl.bad
2,310
Oty l'laft panidpabng In
Tran~ONnand
M,,natJI'""""' progr.lWl8
530
employ,,••
Employees covered by the Transportation Demand Management ordinance X
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) includes programs and policies that encourage people to
d rive alone less and instead walk, bike, take transit, carpool or telework.
Carlsbad's TDM ordinance requires certain businesses to create and follow commute plans that support
-t hese options. The city surveys these businesses to track how employees commute and how many choose
sustainable travel methods.
In 2024, 53 businesses were covered by the ordinance, and 29% of employees at t hose businesses
commuted using a sustainable option.
Learn more about sustainable commute options in Carlsbad.
Carbon sequestration and waste diversion section
This section includes data on the carbon sequestration and waste diversion measures in the
Climate Action Plan update. There is a short summary on how diverting waste and sequestering
carbon can reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the top of the section, followed by more
specific information about the measures themselves or actions that residents and businesses
can take.
For example, the data needed to monitor Measure WD-1, Solid and Organic Waste Diversion,
include the amount of recycling diverted. There is a short description of how proper recycling
benefits the environment as well as a link to the city’s website with information on where the
various materials end up.
July 22, 2025 Item #10 Page 6 of 8
r.1fi Carbon Sequestration
Capturing and storing carbon, known as carbon sequestration, is one way to support long-term climate goals. It also helps
maintain the many benefits that trees and natural areas provide, like cleaner air and healthier environments.
City-ma1nta1ned trees
planted
63
Trees
JI. Waste D1vers1on
Tree canopy cover
16.66%
Trees
Keeping solid and organic waste out of landfills helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Providing easy options to reuse,
recycle or compost this waste makes it easier for people to make more sustainable choices. Reusing, recycling and
composting not only prevent emissions but also give materials a second life and return nutrients to the soil instead of
sending them to a landfill.
Recycling diverted X
Carlsbad residents and businesses can help create a more sustainable community by properly disposing
of waste, recycling and organic materials.
Recycling helps create new products, saves natural resources, reduces energy use and lowers carbon
emissions.
r•: ~-~~
·, ...... •~4o
~~~
Future measures
There are new measures in the Climate Action Plan Update that to be implemented in the
future. This section includes a list of what those measures are and the monitoring benchmarks
included in the Climate Action Plan Update.
This section also includes measures in which the city needs more accurate, recent or reportable
data. For example, the data needed to monitor Measure CS-1, Community Forest Management,
include urban canopy cover, and one of the 2025 monitoring benchmarks includes conducting
an inventory to assess canopy cover. This information will be provided once the 2024 data is
available.
The Climate Action Plan Dashboard is available on the city’s website at
carlsbadca.gov/CAPdashboard.
Fiscal Analysis
There is no fiscal impact from receiving this report. No city funding is being requested for this
dashboard in the 2024-25 or 2025-26 fiscal years.
Next Steps
Staff will continue to make updates and adjustments to the Climate Action Plan. Staff plan to
update the Climate Action Plan Dashboard at least each year to coincide with the annual
Climate Action Plan report presented to the City Council.
Staff will provide the City Council with a presentation in 2026 that will cover progress in
implementing the Climate Action Plan during the calendar year, resuming the traditional annual
Climate Action Plan reporting.
July 22, 2025 Item #10 Page 7 of 8
Future Measures
Each action in the Climate Action Plan incl udes a timeline for when it will be carried out. Some actions are scheduled for the
medium term (6 to 10 years) or long term (11 years or more). These actions are not yet included in the dashboard because
the programs have not started, or data is not yet available.
By 2025
• Urban tree canopy coverage percentage (Measure CS-1)
• Percentage of city facilities powered by 100% renewable energy (Measure E-1)
By 2030
• Number of city-owned gas-powered leaf blowers replaced with electric models (Measure OR-1)
• Urban tree canopy coverage percentage (Measure CS-1)
Environmental Evaluation
The proposed action is not a “project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act,
or CEQA, Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) and does not require
environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) and 15061(b)(3), because the
proposed action to receive an informational report on the Climate Action Plan Dashboard is an
organizational or administrative government activity that does not involve any commitment to
any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the
environment. Any subsequent action or direction stemming from the proposed action may
require preparation of an environmental document in accordance with CEQA or the CEQA
Guidelines.
Exhibits
None.
July 22, 2025 Item #10 Page 8 of 8
Adriana Trujillo
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Clerk,
Mike Borrello <maborrello@roadrunner.com >
Sunday, July 20, 2025 2:58 PM
City Clerk
All Receive -Agenda Item# 10
For the Information of the:
CITY COUNCIL
Date7.l.!iJE::cA _'-1:c ,_,,-
CM L ACM ~ DCM (3) _!:::-
carlsbad.c2o@gmail.com; kelly.leberthon12@gmail.com; 'George Corrales'; 'Krisha
Wolter'; 'Teri Jacobs'; 'Tamara Dixon'; Keith Blackburn; Priya Bhat-Patel; Teresa Acosta;
Kevin Shin; Melanie Burkholder; Council Internet Email; Council Internet Email; Katie
Hentrich
RE: The Lesser Report & Question Regarding Carlsbad's CAP Update
ThelesserReport_Searchable.pdf
On 7/7/2025 you replied to my email of 7/6/2025 (referenced further below)
This communication, questions in the body of the email and attachment are relevant to the General City Council
Meeting Scheduled for 7/22/2025 at 5:00 pm. Please include it as correspondence regarding agenda item 10,
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN REPORTING AND DASHBOARD.
Thank you,
Mike Borrello
Dear Mike Borrello:
Thank you for submitting your Council Correspondence request to the City of Carlsbad. Your request has been
received and is being processed. Your request was received in this office on 7/7/2025 and given the reference
number C001863-070725 for tracking purposes.
Contact's Request: Subject: RE: The Lesser Report & Question Regarding Carlsbad's CAP Update Hi Katie, Mayor
Blackburn, and Council Members, I hope everyone had a delightful 4th of July weekend. I'm writing regarding a
report that just came to my attention that analyzes the economic impact of net zero policies in the Pacific
Northwest by Lesser and Rolling, released only a couple months prior to enactment of Carlsbad's Climate Action
Plan (CAP) Update of November 2024. Have you read this report (attached)? I just have a couple questions: 1. Why
didn't Carlsbad's CAP Update consider and include an economic impact analysis like what was done in the Lesser
report? Is there another document in the city archives that addresses feasibility and risks of the CAP? 2. As
regulatory foundation for the CAP Update it writes: "President Biden issued Executive Order (EO) 13990,
"Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis," in January
2021 , directing executive departments and agencies to confront the climate crisis. A few months later, the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, promised long-term
investment toward tackling the climate crisis." But in January 2025, President Donald Trump, upon taking office as
the 47th President, issued Executive Order 14154, titled "Unleashing American Energy," which explicitly revoked
Executive Order 13990, among other Bid en-era orders. Trump's EO 14154 also rescinded related orders, such as
EO 14008 (Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad) and EO 14057 (Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and
Jobs Through Federal Sustainability), and disbanded the lnteragency Working Group on the Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases, eliminating the use of social cost estimates for carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide.
Additionally, it withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, which is also referenced in
Carlsbad's CAP Update, signaling a shift away from international climate commitments. Regarding the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, Public Law 117-58, November 2021 ), which allocated billions for
1
infrastructure projects including climate-focused initiatives like electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and
broadband, Trump's EO 14154 ordered an immediate pause on the disbursement of funds appropriated through
the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA, Public Law 117-169). This pause, detailed in Section 7, directed
agencies to halt funding for programs like the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program and review
their processes within 90 days to align with Trump's policy of prioritizing domestic energy production (e.g., fossil
fuels, nuclear) over climate-focused initiatives. The Office of Management and Budget (0MB) issued
Memorandum M-25-11 (January 21, 2025) to clarify that the pause applied to programs conflicting with this policy,
though it created uncertainty about which projects (e.g., roads, bridges) were affected. This action also revoked
EO 14052 (Implementation of the IIJA), which had established an Infrastructure Implementation Task Force to
coordinate IIJA funding. So, considering these sweeping changes in National Policy, and considering the
concerning conclusions of the Lesser Report, which arguably applies also to California, is Carlsbad considering
revising the CAP to better align with the national vision of "climate change" and resilient energy policies?
Sincerely, Mike Borrello
Contact's Name: Mike Borrello
Contact's Email: maborrello@roadrunner.com
Your request will be forwarded to the relevant city department(s) for processing.
City of Carlsbad
From: Mike Borrello <maborrello@roadrunner.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 6, 2025 11:16 AM
To: 'katie.hentrich@carlsbadca.gov' <katie.hentrich@carlsbadca.gov>
Cc: 'carlsbad.c2o@gmail.com' <car1sbad.c2o@gmail.com>; 'kelly.leberthon12@gmail.com'
<ke11y.1eberthon12@gmail.com>; 'George Corrales' <george.corrales@interlogica.com>; 'Krisha Wolter'
<krisha2700@yahoo.com>; 'clerk@carlsbadca.gov' <clerk@carlsbadca.gov>; 'Teri Jacobs' <tjacobs86@pacbell.net>;
'Tamara Dixon' <Tamara9497@yahoo.com>; 'keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov' <keith.blackburn@carlsbadca.gov>;
'Priya Bhat-Patel' <priya.bhat-patel@carlsbadca.gov>; 'Teresa Acosta' <teresa.acosta@carlsbadca.gov>;
'kevin.shin@carlsbadca.gov' <kevin.shin@carlsbadca.gov>; 'Melanie Burkholder' <melanie.burkholder@carlsbadca.gov>;
'council@carlsbadca.gov' <council@carlsbadca.gov>; 'council@carlsbadca.gov' <council@carlsbadca.gov>
Subject: RE: The Lesser Report & Question Regarding Carlsbad's CAP Update
Hi Katie, Mayor Blackburn, and Council Members,
I hope everyone had a delightful 4th of July weekend.
I'm writing regarding a report that just came to my attention that analyzes the economic impact of net zero policies
in the Pacific Northwest by Lesser and Rolling, released only a couple months prior to enactment of Carlsbad's
Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update of November 2024.
Have you read this report (attached)?
I just have a couple questions:
1. Why didn't Carlsbad's CAP Update consider and include an economic impact analysis like what was done
in the Lesser report? Is there another document in the city archives that addresses feasibility and risks of
the CAP?
2. As regulatory foundation for the CAP Update it writes:
2
"President Biden issued Executive Order (EO) 13990, "Protecting Public Health and
the Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis," in January 2021, directing executive departments and
agencies to confront
the climate crisis. A few months later, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
also known as the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, promised long-term investment toward tackling the
climate crisis."
But in January 2025, President Donald Trump, upon taking office as the 47th President, issued Executive
Order 14154, titled "Unleashing American Energy," which explicitly revoked Executive Order 13990, among
other Biden-era orders. Trump's EO 14154 also rescinded related orders, such as EO 14008 (Tackling the
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad) and EO 14057 (Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through
Federal Sustainability), and disbanded the lnteragency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse
Gases, eliminating the use of social cost estimates for carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide. Additionally, it
withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement, which is also referenced in Carlsbad's CAP
Update, signaling a shift away from international climate commitments.
Regarding the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, Public Law 117-58, November 2021 ), which
allocated billions for infrastructure projects including climate-focused initiatives like electric vehicle (EV)
charging stations and broadband, Trump's EO 14154 ordered an immediate pause on the disbursement of
funds appropriated through the IIJA and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA, Public Law 117-169). This pause,
detailed in Section 7, directed agencies to halt funding for programs like the National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Formula Program and review their processes within 90 days to align with Trump's policy of
prioritizing domestic energy production (e.g., fossil fuels, nuclear) over climate-focused initiatives. The
Office of Management and Budget (0MB) issued Memorandum M-25-11 (January 21, 2025) to clarify that
the pause applied to programs conflicting with this policy, though it created uncertainty about which
projects (e.g., roads, bridges) were affected. This action also revoked EO 14052 (Implementation of the
IIJA), which had established an Infrastructure Implementation Task Force to coordinate IIJA funding.
So, considering these sweeping changes in National Policy, and considering the concerning conclusions of
the Lesser Report, which arguably applies also to California, is Carlsbad considering revising the CAP to
better align with the national vision of "climate change" and resilient energy policies?
Sincerely,
Mike Borrello
CAUTION: Do not open attachments or click on links unless ou reco nize the sender and know the content i
safe.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 4
Estimating Electricity Demand by 2050 ......................................................................................... 5
Estimating the Additional Costs of New Generation and Storage .................................................. 17
Retail Electric Rate and Bill Impacts ........................................................................................... 31
Full Electrification Will Have a Negligible Impact on Climate ....................................................... 34
Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 35
Appendix: Modeling Methodology ............................................................................................... 36
About the Authors ...................................................................................................................... 38
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Oregon and Washington State have committed to electrification policies to eliminate energy-related
greenhouse gas emissions. Both states have adopted California's Advanced Clean Car rules, which require
100% of all new cars and light trucks sold to be electric by 2035. Oregon law HB 2021 requires the state's
electric utilities to eliminate all fossil-fuel generation and supply 100% zero-emissions electricity by 2040.
Washington State's Clean Energy Transformation Act requires the same by 2045. That zero-emissions
requirement applies as well to electricity imports. Both states intend to reach zero energy-related
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, including replacing all fossil-fuel space-and water-heating systems
with electric heat pumps. These electrification efforts will likely double existing electricity demand and
require major investments in new generating capacity.
The sole coal-fired power plant in the two states, located in Washington, will be retired next year. Both
states envision replacing existing fossil fuel generation and meeting the projected increase in electricity
demand with thousands of megawatts (MW) of wind turbines and solar photovoltaics, which will be
located in the eastern (and rural) portions of the two states and delivered to the population centers west
of the Cascades by building new transmission lines.
But the inherent intermittency of wind and solar power, together with peak electric demands taking place
in the early evening hours when there is no solar generation available (and often no wind), means the two
states will require large amounts of storage capacity, in addition to the existing hydroelectric storage dams
that have been built on the Columbia River and its tributaries. Because no new hydroelectric dams will be
built -some environmentalists are seeking to remove the four Lower Snake River dams -the additional
storage capacity required will need to come from large-scale battery storage facilities and perhaps a few
new pumped hydroelectric storage facilities, whose siting remains controversial.
Using hourly electricity demand in 2023 as a template, coupled with estimates of future load growth
arising from electric vehicles and electric space and water heating, we estimate the total additional costs
of meeting the two states' electrification and zero-emissions goals. We also consider a more optimistic
low-cost renewables scenario in which wind, solar, and storage capital costs decrease by 50% in real
(inflation-adjusted) terms by 2050. Finally, we consider an alternative scenario in which the electricity goal
is achieved with new nuclear plants and additional natural gas generators. For all three scenarios, we
assume the needed generation and transmission capacity will be built by private investors, whether the
two states' investor-owned electric utilities or private entities because the states' publicly owned utilities
haven't built any such facilities in decades.
The cost difference between the two renewables and nuclear/natural gas scenarios is substantial (Table
EX-1). Specifically, we estimate the additional costs for the renewables scenario will total about $550
billion in 2024 dollars and about $420 billion under the "low cost" renewables scenario. By contrast, the
estimated cost of the nuclear and natural gas scenario totals just under $86 billion. Moreover, these costs
exclude the additional investment that will be needed to upgrade local distribution systems to handle the
higher peak electric demands from electric vehicle charges and heat pumps.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 1
Table EX-1: Total Costs for Each Scenario through 2050 (Millions of 2024$)
-Capital Fixed O&.M Variable -Utility Total
Scenario Taxes . CostsA Costs Costs8 Profits Costs
Renewables $232,791 $73,229 ($11,381) $48,363 $206,909 $549,910 Only
Lower-Cost $170,488 $73,229 ($11,381) $35,267 $150,884 $418,488 Renewables
Natural Gas $17,953 $7,282 $3,226 $10.889 $46,587 $85,937 and Nuclear
Notes:
A-includes generation and transmission costs.
B -includes fuel costs (savings).
The effects on customer's electric bills will be devastating. Accounting only for the additional electricity
required for EV charging and assuming a modest inflation rate of just 2.0% annually, a typical residential
customer's bill will increase by 450%, from about $110 per month today to over $700 per month in 2050.
Although customers who currently use natural gas for space heat and hot water will no longer spend
money on natural gas, the savings will be dwarfed by the higher cost of electricity. As for commercial
customers, they will see their monthly bills increase from an average of about $600 per month today to
around $3,800 per month in 2050.
The two states' combined energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions totaled about 150 million
metric tons in 2019, the most recent year for which data for both states are available. Assuming these
emissions were reduced at a constant rate until they were eliminated entirely by 2050, the reduction in
GHGs would total about 1.8 billion metric tons, By comparison, in 2023, world carbon emissions were
estimated to be just over 35 billion metric tons. Thus, even if the 100% electrification effort succeeded in
eliminating all energy-related G HG emissions in the two states, the total reduction in G HGs between 2024
and 2050 would amount to only three weeks of 2023 world emissions. If both states eliminated all energy-
related GHG emissions by 2040, the resulting decrease in world temperature would be 0.003 °C. By
comparison, the best outside thermometers have an accuracy of about+/-0.5 °C, about 170 times larger.
Thus, Oregon and Washington residents will pay hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve emissions
reductions without measurable impacts on world climate. By contrast, the impacts on the economic well-
being of those individuals and businesses would be only too real. Soaring electricity costs will cripple the
two states' economies, causing the loss of thousands of jobs. Energy-intensive industries will likely flee,
just as they have left European countries and California because of electricity costs that render them
uncompetitive. Consumers will pay more for virtually everything because higher-cost electricity will raise
production costs for agriculture and businesses. Recharging the millions of electric vehicles the two states
have mandated -100% of all new light-duty car and truck sales by 2035 -will become prohibitively
expensive, limiting mobility.
The results of this study demonstrate that the two states' efforts to achieve a zero-emissions energy
future by electrifying their economies and relying almost entirely on additional wind and solar power to
supply the electricity needed will impose huge costs on individuals and businesses. Prices for virtually all
21 The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
goods and services will increase. Jobs will be lost as businesses relocate to other states with lower-cost
energy. Energy poverty rates will soar. At the same time, the emissions reductions will be so minuscule
that the efforts will provide no measurable climate benefits. The two states would be best served by
abandoning these goals, focusing instead on providing reliable and far less costly electricity from new
natural gas and nuclear plants.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 3
INTRODUCTION
Physical and economic realities appear to be of little concern to policymakers in the Pacific Northwest
who, like their California counterparts, relentlessly pursue their dreams of a zero-emissions future. Both
Oregon1 and Washington State2 have adopted California's Advanced Clean Car rules, which require 100%
of all new cars and light trucks sold to be electric. In addition, by 2035, half of all medium-and heavy-duty
vehicles sold in those states must be electric, and the sale of diesel trucks will be banned beginning in
2036. Oregon has enacted legislation requiring its electric utilities to be emissions-free by 2040,3 while
Washington State gives utilities until 2045 to achieve that same zero-emissions requirement. 4 By 2050,
both states intend to meet virtually all energy needs with zero-emissions resources.
The two states' electrification efforts aren't limited to vehicles. Oregon, for example, has enacted
legislation requiring 500,000 heat pumps to be installed in homes and businesses by 2030. 5 Washington
changed its building code to make installing anything but electric space and water heating systems more
difficult. 6
Meanwhile, artificial intelligence (Al) and data centers are further increasing electricity demand. The 2024
Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee (PNUCC), for example, raised its forecast summer peak
load in 2032 by about 5,000 megawatts (MW), almost 15% greater than the previous year's forecast, and
about 7,000 MW higher than the 2022 load forecast. Similarly, PNUCC raised its 2032 winter peak forecast
(which is higher than the summer peak) by about 4,000 MW (11%), and by about 8,000 MW (22%) over
its 2022 forecast. 7
Meeting this data center load growth alone will challenge the two states' electric utilities. 8 However, if
the two states' zero-emissions laws and 100% electrification mandates are realized, by 2050 the additional
generation requirements will dwarf those challenges: electricity demand will be far higher.
The increased loads are supposed to be met by installing thousands of megawatts (MW) of wind turbines
and solar photovolta ics in the eastern portions of the two states, which will be delivered to the population
centers west of the Cascades with new transmission lines. But the inherent intermittency of wind and
solar power, together with the impacts of EV charging and electric heat on peak demand in the early
4
8
Oregon Adopted Rule, DEQ-23-2022.
Washington State, Clean Vehicles Program, Chapter 173 -423 WAC.
Oregon HB 2021. 2021.
Washington State Clean Energy Transformation Act, SB 5116, 2019.
Oregon HB 3409.
Melissa Santos, "New Washington state rules promoting heat pumps face pushback," Axios, December 4,
2023.
PNUCC, 2024 Northwest Regional Forecast. May 2024.
Lynda Mapes, Seattle Times, "Surge in electricity spells trouble for PNW forecasts show," April 11, 2024.
41 The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
evening hours when there is no solar generation available (and often no wind), means the two states will
require large amounts of storage capacity in addition to the existing hydroelectric storage dams that have
been built on the Columbia River and its tributaries. Hence, unless other large-scale storage technologies
are discovered, developed, and commercialized, the additional capacity will come from large-scale battery
storage and perhaps a few pumped-hydroelectric storage facilities.
This report evaluates the costs of meeting the legislated 100% zero-emissions requirements for electricity
and the 2050 goals of eliminating fossil-fuel energy use for space and water heating. Because we assume
the needed energy will be supplied with electricity, 9 we focus on the costs to add the necessary generation
and the additional transmission infrastructure. Electric ratepayers will bear those costs. As shown, the
soaring costs will not only end the two states' status as having some of the nation's lowest electric rates,
they will impose economic hardships on individuals and businesses. The analysis presented in this report
assumes that EV owners are allowed to charge their vehicles when it is most convenient for them, just as
owners of gasoline-powered vehicles can refill their vehicles at their convenience.
Of course, the costs of accommodating EV charging and converting existing fossil-fuel space and water
heat to electricity can be reduced by "managing" charging loads, a euphemism for rationing access. Costs
can also be lowered by reducing the reliability of the electric system, in other words, making blackouts
more likely to occur because there is insufficient generating and transmission capacity to meet increased
electricity demand. However, both alternatives belie claims that electrification provides unalloyed
consumer benefits. Thus, for purposes of this report, we assume that electricity demand will not be
managed, and existing reliability standards will be maintained. We assume that consumers can access
electricity when they want and that utilities will make the necessary investments to meet demand as
reliably as today.
ESTIMATING ELECTRICITY DEMAND BY 2050
The two states' planned elimination of fossil fuel generation will exacerbate the need for new generating
capacity. Oregon has no operating coal-fired power plants. The one plant in Washington State, the
Centralia Big Hanaford plant in Lewis County, will cease operation next year under an agreement signed
by Governor Christine Gregoire in 2011.10
In the larger Pacific Northwest region, which includes Idaho and Western Montana, coal-fired generating
capacity totals about 2,800 megawatts (MW) from three plants: Colstrip Units 3 and 4, located in
Montana; Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4, 11 located in Wyoming; and Valmy Unit 2, located in northern Nevada.
11
11
We do not consider generators that run on "green" hydrogen because no such generators exist today and
because manufacturing hydrogen of any type requires more energy than the hydrogen can provide. Nor do we
consider even more exotic forms of electricity, such as from fusion power.
Governor Gregoire signed SB 5769, the "TransAlta Energy Transition Bill." Under the legislation, Centralia Unit
1 was closed in 2020.
The Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 in Wyoming were previously converted to burn natural gas.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 5
Washington State's Clean Energy Transformation Act (CETA) requires the state's electric utilities to
eliminate coal-fired generation from retail rates by the end of next year.12 Although there are no coal
plants in Oregon, Oregon law requires the State Treasurer to divest all investments in coal from the state's
pension funds.13
Although current plans call for some existing coal-fired generators in Montana and Wyoming owned by
the state's electric utilities to be converted to natural gas, getting to a zero-emissions future by 2050
means completely eliminating natural gas generation, including all imports.14 Moreover, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) newest clean power standards, 15 which require 90% carbon
capture for all coal plants and natural gas-fired plants that are expected to operate beyond 2039, are
designed to force the closure of all coal plants and make building new natural gas plants economically
infeasible.16
As discussed above, electricity demand in the Pacific Northwest is forecast to grow rapidly over the next
ten years, partly due to the development of electronic data centers and increased usage of so-called
artificial intelligence applications. For example, a report prepared by Cushman & Wakefield ranks
Oregon's data center market as the fifth largest in the country.17 The PNUCC ten-year forecast for 2033/34
assumes some additional adoption of EVs and electrification of residential space and water heating
(although the degree is not specified in the forecast), but most of the impacts will occur afterward when
the two states' 100% EV mandates take effect in 2035 and as electrification of space and water heat
increases.
Estimating Additional Electricity Demand Associated with an All-EV Future
The impacts on electricity demand from an all-EV future in Oregon and Washington depend on (i) when
owners charge their EVs; and (ii) how much electricity those EVs require as they are charged.
12
13
14
15
16
17
SB 5116, 2019.
Alex Baumhardt, "Legislature passes bill to rid Oregon's Public Employee Retirement System of coal
investments." Oregon Capital Chronicle, March 5, 2024.
Proponents of "green" hydrogen assume that generating plants that burn hydrogen, often called
"dispatchable emissions-free resources" (DEFRs), will be available. However, no such generators even exist
today. In addition, proponents of "biogas" (e.g., natural gas captured from farm operations) will substitute for
traditional sources of natural gas. However, biogas supplies are constrained and, although it emits less carbon
dioxide, is not "emissions-free."
U.S. EPA, "Bid en-Harris Ad ministration Finalizes Suite of Standards to Reduce Pollution from Fossil Fuel-Fired
Power Plants," April 25, 2024.
The EPA rules are currently being challenged. Ethan Howard, "EEi joins AEP, Duke. other utilities in suing EPA
over power plant greenhouse gas rule," Utility Dive, May 23, 2024. In addition, a coalition of 27 states has
sued EPA over the proposed rules. Clark Mindock, "US Republican attorneys general sue to stop EPA's carbon
rule," Reuters, May 9, 2024.
Cushman & Wakefield, "Global Data Center Market Comparison," 2024.
6 I The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Though few studies have examined actual EV charging behavior, Avista Corporation, whose electric utility
subsidiary serves much of eastern Washington State and northern Ida ho, examined the charging behavior
for 439 EV charging ports between 2016 and 2019.18 Of those, 226 were single-family homes, 20 were
multi-family dwellings, 123 were commercial workplaces, 24 were fleet sites, and 7 were fast-charging
sites using "Level 3" chargers that operate at high voltage levels.
In addition, the study evaluated the charging behavior of residential EV owners with long-range EVs, which
the report defined as EVs with batteries that can provide over 200 miles of range on a single charge. In
the five years since the Avista report was published, the battery capacity of new EVs has increased, with
most now meeting the "long-range" definition used by Avista.19 The load profile for these long-range EVs
is shown below (Figure 1). 20
18
1,
21
Figure 1: Individual EV Load Profiles, Commuters and Non-Commuters (kW)
Weekday Avg. kW/User
1.80 .--------------------------~-------~
1.60
1.40 -■ Commuter ■Non-commuter
1.20 -
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
1 2 3 4 s s 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1s 17 111 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Source: Avista 2019.
Avista Corporation, "Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Pilot Final Report," October 18, 2019 (Avista 2019).
Greg Fink, "Longest-Range Electric Cars We've Ever Tested ," Car and Driver, March 5, 2024.
Because most of the long-range EVs were owned by residential commuters, Avista did not determine the load
profile for non-commuters who own long-distance EVs. Thus, Figure 1 combines the long-range EV profile for
commuters with Avista's load profile for non-long-distance EVs used by non-commuters.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 7
The area of each shaded area equals the average daily electricity consumption. For long-range commuters,
the daily electricity consumption averaged 12.3 kWh, while for non-commuters, daily consumption
averaged 4.5 kWh. 21
As shown, combining the commuters and non-commuters, electric demand peaks between 5 and 6 P.M.
(Hour ending 18). (We assume that the charging pattern for all EV drivers in both states will be the same
as for drivers in the Avista pilot.) Electricity demand typically peaks in the two states at this same hour or
the next, between 6 and 7 PM (hour 19), as shown below (Figure 2). zz
Figure 2: Average Hourly Electric Demand in 2023, Oregon and Washington State
MW
17,000
16,000
15,000
14,000
13,000
12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Balancing Authority Data.
Of course, not all EV owners recharge their vehicles daily. Charging frequency depends on how many miles
a vehicle is driven on a typical day and the range provided by the vehicle's batteries. Avista found that the
average long-range vehicle owner recharged his vehicle 5.6 times per week, while other EV owners
21 Avista 2019, pp. 56, 59.
22 The data shown represent the average of load in that hour on all days of the year. Clearly, on any given day,
demand will not necessarily peak in that hour, just as on a given day, EV charging load may not peak.
8 I The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
charged their EVs an average of 4.9 times per week. 23 To be conservative, we assume drivers recharge
their vehicles on average 4.9 times per week.
Using the Avista charging load profile data shown in Figure 1, the next step is to estimate total charging
electricity peak demand and consumption with a 100% EV future. First, we determine the incremental
increase in electricity demand and consumption based on the current number of EVs registered in each
state and the total number of registered light-duty vehicles (cars and light trucks). The difference
represents the assumed number of EVs that will increase electricity consumption and demand. For
example, as of December 31, 2023, EV sales in Washington since 2011 totaled 135,743.24 EV sales in
Oregon totaled 61,535 vehicles over that same period. Through the end of 2021 (the most current data
available), registrations of all light-duty vehicles totaled 1,357,126 in Oregon and 2,977,074 in
Washington. EVs thus represented 4.5% and 4.6% of all registered vehicles in the two states, respectively,
at the end of 2023. 25 We assume all internal combustion vehicles will have been retired by 2050 and thus
that all vehicles will be EVs by 2050. (Both states participate in the California Advanced Clean Cars II
program, which requires 100% of all new vehicle sales to be EVs beginning in 2035.) To the extent that
population and total registrations increase in the two states, the impacts on charging loads will be greater.
However, to be conservative, we assume total vehicle registrations remain constant.
Next, we account for differences in driving patterns between the two states. Specifically, according to
data published by the Federal Highway Administration, in 2022 (the most recent year for which data are
available), the average annual vehicle miles travelled (VMT) by Oregon drivers was 11,780, 20% greater
than the average VMT per driver in Washington, 9,819.26 Because the Avista pilot consisted solely of
drivers in Washington State, we adjusted the charging load figures for Oregon vehicles to account for the
impacts of the additional VMT per driver in Oregon. The results are shown below (Figure 3).
Third, we estimate the peak load impacts for the four categories of charging patterns using the Avista
data: weekday commuters, weekend commuters, weekday non-commuters, and weekend non-
commuters. 27 As shown, we estimate that a 100% EV future would increase the weekday peak electricity
demand by over 14,000 MW.
23
24
25
26
27
Ibid, p. 59. This means that the data shown in Figure 1 reflects an average over the entire sample of EV
owners, some of whom do not charge on a given day.
Source: Alliance for Automotive Innovation. Electric Vehicle Sales Dashboard . We focus on battery electric
vehicles only because plug-in hybrids are not "zero-emissions" vehicles.
Higher total vehicle registration values would mean EVs represent a smaller percentage of all registered
vehicles and thus a 100% EV future would have a greater impact on electricity consumption and peak demand.
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics 2022, Tables VM-2
and DL-201.
For example, 92% of the participants in the Avista study were weekday commuters (and thus weekend non-
commuters). To estimate total weekday hourly charging load for a 100% EV future, we use the formula:
D [
VMT0 VMTw l . . .. LH woe= . h woe x fwoe x R0 x (1+--)+ Rw x (1+--) , where Di,h,Wtc 1s the average 1nd1v1dual ' ,, ' VMTw VMTw
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 9
Figure 3: Estimated Oregon and Washing1Dn Weekday Charging Load, 100% EV Future
Weekday Avg. Charging Load MW
16,000
'14,000
12,000
■ Commuter ■ Non-commuter ]
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour of Day
Source: Avista 2019
Although weekday charging will drive the increase in peak electricity demand, to account for the total
additional electricity consumption, we must include weekend charging data. The Avista report did not
break down data for long-range EVs between weekday and weekend charging. Therefore, to be
conservative, we use the weekend data for the non-long-range EVs, while still accounting for the
difference in VMT per driver for the two states (Figure 4).
weekday charging demand during hour h, fw•c is the fraction of weekday commuters as a percentage of all EV
owners, Ro and Rw refer to the number of current vehicles registered in Oregon and Washington, respectively,
and VMTo and VMTw are average annual vehicle miles traveled by Oregon and Washington drivers,
respectively.
101 The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Figure 4: Estimated Oregon and Washington Weekend Charging Load, 100% EV Future
Weekend Avg. Charging Load MW
4,000
3,500
3,000
■ Commuter ■ Non-commuter ]
2,500
2,000 -
1,500
1,000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Source : Avista 2019
Total daily electricity consumption for EV charging equals the area under the curves for commuters and
non-commuters, weekdays and weekends. The additional annual electricity consumption multiplies the
weekday values by 260 and the weekend values by 104, totaling38,057 gigawatt-hours (GWh) (Table 1). 28
By comparison, in 2023, total electricity consumption in the two states was about 143,000 GWh. 29 Thus,
accounting only for light-duty vehicles, a 100% EV future will increase electricity consumption in the two
states by 2 7% over 2023 levels.
Table 1: Additional Annual Electricity Consumption, 100% EV Future
Weekday Weekday Weekend Weekend
Commuter Non-Commuter Commuter Non-Commuter
MWh/Day
GWh/Year
125,780
32,703
3,715
966
28 One GWh = 1,000 MWh = 1,000,000 kWh.
8,231
856
2, Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Data Browser.
33,967
3,533
TOTAL
38,057
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 11
The estimates of increased electricity consumption in Table 1 do not include the impacts of electrification
of commercial vehicles, buses, and heavy trucks, as there does not appear to be publicly available data on
charging profiles from such vehicles, Moreover, few, if any, electric tractor-trailers are currently in service.
Both Oregon and Washington have a "Clean Trucks" program that requires increasing percentages of new
commercial trucks to be electric. By 2035, Washington will require 55% of all new "Class 2b-3" vehicles,
75% of all Class 4-8 vehicles, and 40% of Class 7-8 Tractor sales sold to be electric. 30 Although the number
of commercial trucks is far smaller than passenger vehicles, their battery capacities are far larger, and they
likely will be charged daily, typically at night. Hence, the estimates in Table 1 should be viewed as
conservative.
Estimating the Additional Electricity Demand Associated with Building Electrification
Oregon and Washington also have policies to electrify residential and commercial space and water heat.
The plan is to replace fossil fuel space and water heating systems (i.e., natural gas, bottled gas, and fuel
oil) with electric heat pumps. 31 We use the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS) data published by the
U.S. Census to estimate the impact of space heat electrification on single-family and multi-family homes. 32
Of the approximately 1.2 million single-family homes in Oregon and 2.1 million in Washington State,
approximately 40% and 45%, respectively, are heated with electricity (Figure 5), 33 In both states, natural
gas space heat is present in a bout half of all households, with small percentages of households using fuel
oil or wood. A small percentage of households report having no space heat.
31
31
32
33
Susan Woodward, "Electric trucks to join state's clean transportation future," Washington State Department
of Ecology, April 6, 2023 . The percentages for Oregon are identical.
A heat pump works like a refrigerator in reverse: it extracts heat from outside air and delivers that heat inside.
Census data are available from IPUMS USA.
Approximately 3,000 single-family homes reported using solar as their heating source. We assume these
homes will not install electric heat pumps. Because the Census data do not provide a breakdown of water
heating fuel, we assume that all homes with natural gas space heat also use natural gas for water heating.
12 I The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Ngos,52.1%
Figure 5: Breakdown of Single-Family Home Heating Fuels
None. 0.3%
011, 1.&I.
\_ Electric, 40.1~
Ngas, 48.4%
Oregon
Wood.Other,
4.1% I _None, 0.3%
Washington
I I
E:lectric, 45.4%
Source: U.S. Census, IPUMS
In contrast to single-family homes, multi-family homes in both states are heated predominantly with
electricity, with natural gas heat accounting for about 13% and 11% in Oregon and Washington,
respectively (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Breakdown of Multi-Family Home Heating Fuels
01e10n Wnhir,c-tan
Source: U.S. Census, IPUMS
To be conservative, we assume no additional growth in housing stocks to estimate the impacts on future
electricity peak demand and consumption. The load shape for heat pumps is based on a simulation model,
known as the "Simplified Energy Enthalpy Model" (SEEM), which is described in a 2019 report prepared
by PNUCC and the Northwest Gas Association. 34
The report estimates daily load sh apes for heat pumps of different sizes and different outside temperature
conditions. Moreover, because heat pump efficiency decreases as temperatures fall (because there is less
34 PNUCC/NWGA Power & Natural Gas Planning Taskforce, "A Discussion on Electrifying Light Duty Vehicles and
Natural Gas Heating in the Northwest," June 2019 (PUCCC/NWGA 2019), p. 15, Figure 9. The SEEM model is
described in Appendix A of the publication.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 13
heat to extract from the outside air), many homes will have secondary heating sources. In a 100%
electrification scenario, that backup source is likely to be electric resistance heat. On the coldest days,
households are likely to use both heat pumps and a secondary heat source. If the secondary source is
electric resistance heat (e.g., one or more room space heaters), then peak demand will increase even
more. 35
The daily load profiles for typical air-source heat pumps at different average temperatures are provided
in the PNUCC/NWGA 2019 report and reproduced below (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Heat Pump Daily Load Profiles
16.0 --o Degress
14.0 -lO olegrees
........ 20 lll!grees
♦
0.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ii 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1i! 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
Source: PNUCC/NWGA 2019
The profiles are based on average daily temperatures in 2023 for Seattle, Portland, and Spokane. The
lowest daily average for these three cities was 23• Fahrenheit. At that average temperature, individual
heat pump load peaks at an average of 6.3 kW between 6 and 7 AM, and 5.3 kW between 7 and 8 PM. 3i
35 The SEEM moelel appears to account for seconela ry heating sources. The E3 moelel eloes not.
A 2018 stuely pre pa reel by E3 estimateel peak elemanel of arounel 7.8 kW using a elifferent simulation moelel.
See E3 "Pacific No11hwest Pathways to 2050," November 2018.
141 The Crip~ing Costs of Electrification anel Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Assuming complete electrification of all single-family and multi-family heating, the overall addition to
peak demand on such a day will be just under 12,400 MW. 37
MW
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Figure 8: Additional Peak Demand, Full Space and Water Heating Electrification
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour
Source: PNUCC/NWGA 2019, U.S. Census, and author calculations
Estimating Additional Annual Electricity Consumption of Heat and Hot Water Electrification
Total annual heat pump electricity use will depend on temperatures throughout the year. To estimate
this, we use historical daily average temperatures in Seattle, Portland, and Spokane, the daily load profiles
shown in Figure 7, and assumptions about heat pump efficiency. 38 This resulted in a 14,787 GWh increase
in annual electricity consumption with a maximum 12,362 MW peak load. If this estimate coincided in the
same hour as the increase in peak demand from EVs, it would increase peak load by 27,300 MW.
To gauge the reasonableness of this approach, we compare it to an estimate of the end-use energy
delivered by residential fossil fuels for space and hot water heating. According to the EIA, in 2022,
37
38
The calculation equals the daily average heat pump load multiplied by the number of homes within the two
states that use fossil fuel for heating.
R. Johnson, "Measured Performance of a Low Tempe rature Air Source Heat Pump," U.S. DOE, Building
Technologies Office, September 2013.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 15
residential natural gas deliveries totaled 209.3 trillion Btus (TBtus). 39 Assuming an average efficiency for
natural gas furnaces and water heaters of 80% (newer ones have efficiencies up to 95%), this implies 167.3
TBtus of useful energy for space heat and hot water. As one kilowatt-hour of electricity is equivalent to
3,412 Btus, this is equivalent to 49,000 GWh of electricity. If heat pumps supply a II of this electricity, then
the total amount of electricity consumed by those heat pumps will depend on the average coefficient of
performance (COP). COP values decrease as outside temperatures decrease because less heat energy can
be extracted from the outside air.
For this comparison, we assume an average annual COP of 3.0 for heat pumps that will be installed in the
two states. Consequently, the estimated additional annual electricity consumed for electrified space and
water heating in the two states will be 49,000 GWh / 3.0, or just over 16,000 GWh. (This estimate excludes
the additional electricity required for electrifying commercial heat and hot water use.)
Adding this estimate to the 38,057 GWh of additional electricity needed to charge the two states' EVs
means a total increase in electricity consumption of 54,057 GWh, representing a 40% increase over 2023
electricity sales in the two states. 40
As shown in Figure 8, the early evening peak for heating load coincides with peak EV charging loads. This
comparison estimated an additional increase in weekday peak electric demand ofover 33,000 MW (Figure
9), more than the peak load in the two states in 2023. 41 Hence, because EV charging and heating loads
closely coincide, peak demand would likely double over 2023 peak demand due to full electrification.
3!
41
41
Source: EIA, State Energy Data System. Total residential heating oil was approximately 6 TBtus, which we
exclude from the analysis.
Source: EIA, Electricity Data Browser.
Source: EIA, Hourly Electric Grid Monitor.
16 I The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Figure 9: Combined Weekday EV Charging and Heat Pump Impact on Peak Electric Demand
MW
40,000 ~--------------------------------~
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Max Peak
Load:
33,067 MW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour Ending
Source: Authors' estimates.
ESTIMATING THE ADDITIONAL COSTS OF NEW GENERATION
AND STORAGE
Supplying the additional electricity required for electrification and ensuring sufficient generating capacity
to meet peak charging and heating demands will require new generating and storage resources, especially
if the two states eliminate all fossil generation. We estimate the additional generation capacity and
storage required, assuming consumers and businesses maintain control over the timing charging EVs
when they wish, heating their homes, and so forth.
Emission-free generating options include nuclear power and renewable generation, principally wind, both
onshore and offshore, and solar photovoltaics. Both states obtain large amounts of electricity from
hydroelectric dams, especially the federally-owned dams on the Columbia River. However, given the
current political climate in the two states, there is virtually no chance that any new large storage dams
will be constructed. Instead, environmentalists have succeeded in removing some dams, such as four
dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, whose removal was completed
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 17
this summer. 42 Although environmentalists also seek to remove the four dams on the Lower Snake River,
to be conservative in our cost estimates, we assume these efforts will be unsuccessful.
Consistent with the goal of emissions-free energy, there are no proposed new gas-fired generators in
either state. Instead, both states assume electricity demand will be met with wind generation (onshore
and offshore), and solar photovoltaics. 43 To meet electricity demand when these resources are
unavailable (e.g., at night and in periods of calm winds), battery storage, pumped-hydroelectric storage,
and emissions-free dispatchable generators (think gas turbines fueled by hydrogen, which do not yet exist)
are envisioned. Additionally, both states require energy efficiency investments to reduce peak demand
and overall electricity consumption.
As for nuclear power, Energy Northwest, the successor to the Washington Public Power Supply System
and owner of the 1,200 MW Columbia Generating Station nuclear plant, signed an agreement last year to
build up to 12-100 MW modular nuclear reactors developed by X-energy. The first reactor is scheduled
for completion in 2030. However, environmentalists strongly oppose the proposal. 44 New nuclear plants
are also banned in Oregon by law under a 1980 voter initiative which prohibits the construction of any
new nuclear plants in the state until a permanent federal nuclear waste depository is built. 45• 46 Given the
current political climate in both states, we assume no new nuclear plants will be built. 47
Another potential source of emissions-free energy is thermal. Recent legislation in Washington State
allows natural gas distribution utilities to develop thermal energy networks. These networks consist of
ground-source heat pumps that deliver heat and hot water through pipes to local areas. 48 In theory, these
networks would reduce electricity demand. However, we are unaware of any cost estimates for building
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Detailed Plan for Dam Removal -Klamath River Dams, July 2012; Abigail Lowell,
"Klamath Dam Removal & River Restoration Timeline," Environmental Protection Information Center, April 15,
2024.
Although geothermal power plants could be constructed, none of the utilities' integrated resource plans
propose constructing any such plants and we are unaware of any plans by non-utility developers to construct
such plants. Hence, for our analysis, we assume no new geothermal capacity will be constructed in either
state.
Jerry Cornfield, "WA governor urged to veto $25M for nuclear power project," Washington State Standard,
March 27, 2024.
Sudeshna Pal, "Will Oregon See a Nuclear Comeback?" Oregon Citizens Utilities Board, December 9, 2021.
Micah DeSilva, "Let Oregon Voters Reconsider Nuclear Power," Cascade Policy Institute, August 16, 2023.
PacifiCorp plans to contract with Terra Power to build 500 MW of nuclear generation in Wyoming by 2030,
2023 Integrated Resource Plan, Volume 1, March 31, 2023.
HB 2131. Curiously, the 2023 Washington State Biennial Energy Report makes no mention of thermal energy
networks.
181 The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
such networks in either state. Moreover, it is not clear what their capacity would be if built. 49 Hence, our
analysis does not consider thermal energy as a resource.
Other technologies, such as dispatchable emissions-free resources (DEFRs) fueled with green hydrogen,
have yet to be invented. Hence, claims that thousands of MW of such generators will be deployed to meet
peak electric demands are entirely speculative. Producing hydrogen, green or otherwise, requires more
energy than is contained in the hydrogen itself; that is a thermodynamic fact that cannot be overcome.
Moreover, manufacturing hydrogen via electrolysis using wind and solar power is extremely costly. 50 Thus,
we assume no DEFRs will be constructed, despite the Washington State Department of Commerce's
promotion of green hydrogen as an energy resource. 51
Methodology52
We estimate the costs of the additional generation and storage capacity required to meet the forecast
increase in electricity consumption and peak demand by 2050 in two scenarios. The first assumes that
electricity demand will be met only with renewable resources: wind, solar, and existing hydroelectric
plants, plus battery storage and pumped storage (the "RO Scenario"). The second scenario assumes no
additional wind and solar resources are built. Rather, the increased electricity requirements are met with
a mix of nuclear generation (including large nuclear plants and small modular reactors (SMRs)); natural
gas generators (both combined-cycle plants and combustion turbines); and existing hydroelectric plants
(the "NGN Scenario"). Under both scenarios, we assume conservatively that all federal hydroelectric
generation is available to Oregon and Washington, even though some of that generation is sold to public
entities in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and California, as well as returning some generation
to British Columbia under the provisions of the 1964 Columbia River Treaty. 53
Existing generating capacity in the two states totals just under 49,000 MW. To meet anticipated load
growth, especially increased peak demand, the model determines the amount of generating capacity that
must be built to meet current reliability standards, and then determines the least-cost mix of that capacity
based on the resources' costs and performance. This is done based on the average hourly load profile for
51
There are theoretical studies of such networks. See, e.g., M. Pans, et al., "Theoretical cost and energy
optimisation of a 4th generation net-zero district heating with different thermal energy technologies ,"
Sustainable Cities and Society 100, January 2024. This study estimated an average cost per dwelling of over
$13,000.
Jonathan Lesser, "Green Hydrogen A Multibillion-Dollar Energy Boondoggle," Manhattan Institute, February 1,
2024.
51 Washington State Dept. of Commerce, "Green Electrolytic Hydrogen and Renewable Fuels: Recommendations
for Deployment in Washington," January 5, 2024.
52
53
The Appendix provides a more detailed description of the modeling methodology.
For a discussion, see John Krutilla, The Columbia River Treaty, (Resources for the Future, 1967.) See also,
Jonathan Lesser, "Resale of the Columbia River Treaty Downstream Benefits: One Road from Here to There,"
Natural Resources Journal 30 (Summer 1990), pp. 609-628.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 19
the two states during 2023, adjusted for the forecast increase in hourly loads from EV chargers and heat
pumps.
Under each scenario, we assume the Centralia coa ~fired power plant in Washington will close next year,
as scheduled. We also assume the Columbia Generation Station closes in 2046 when its operating license
expires. For the renewable generation scenario, we model retirements of existing gas generators based
on the two states' zero-emissions generation laws, and those generators' ages, which average about 25
years (Figure 10}. To model retirements of these generators, we assume generators 45 years and older
are retired in 2030, generators 35-40 years old are retired in 2035, all Oregon natural gas generators and
Washington State generators that are 25-30 years old are retired between 2036 and 2040, and the
remaining gas generators in Washington State are retired between 2041 and 2045. (For the natural gas
and nuclear scenario, we assume the zero emissions laws are repealed and generators are retired when
they are 40 years old.} In both scenarios, we assume existing geothermal and biomass generation continue
through 2050.
Figure 10: Age Distribution of Existing Natural Gas Generators
Pct. of Total Capacity
30.0%
2.5.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
0-10 10-15 15-20
Source: U.S. EIA, Form-860, May 2024.
20-25
Average Age: 24. 7 years
25-30
Age in Years
30-35 35-40 40-45 45-50
As loads increase with increased electrification, we assume new generating resources are built in the two
states. Although out-ofstate resources could be added, those will have higher transmission costs to
deliver the electricity produced west of the Cascades, where most of the electricity will be consumed.
20 I The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Moreover, under the natural gas and nuclear scenario, we assume new resources can be located near
load centers (e.g., Seattle, Portland, Spokane).
Although a half-dozen pumped storage facilities have been proposed to be built in Oregon, most are in
the preliminary feasibility and perm it stages. The exception is the 400 MW Swan Lake project, 54 scheduled
to be operational in 2028.55 The proposed 1,200 MW Goldendale Pumped Storage project near the John
Day dam in southern Washington State is awaiting approval of its Final Environmental Impact Assessment,
but environmental groups and several Native American tribes oppose the project. 56 (As we write this, it is
uncertain whether the project will be approved and, if so, when it will enter service. 57) Therefore, we
include the Swan Lake pumped storage facility only.
Under the RO Scenario, the need for new generating capacity will be exacerbated by wind intermittency,
longer-term wind "droughts" that have been observed historically, and the fact that solar photovoltaics
do not provide electricity at night, including early evening hours when electricity demand peaks.
Moreover, planners in the Pacific Northwest also evaluate the need for new resources to offset periods
of low hydroelectric generation, such as those experienced in the drought conditions during the 2023
water year. 58 Thus, to meet electric needs in the two states, wind and solar generation must be overbuilt
to account for these resources' inherent intermittency and to provide surplus electricity for battery
storage facilities that will be needed to ensure sufficient electricity to meet demand. 59
To determine the wind, solar, and storage capacity needed to meet the full electrification scenario by
2050, we use hourly electricity data from 2023 published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
These data provide a baseline load profile. We then adjust that load profile to account for the change in
peak demand based on the charging patterns for EVs and space and water heat, assuming the all-electric
scenario described previously. This creates an estimated hourly electric load profile in 2050.
We then determine a least-cost mix of solar PV, wind, and storage capacity to serve this hourly load profile
using observed hourly data for wind and solar generation in the two states to determine expected annual
54
55
56
Federal Infrastructure Projects, Permitting Dashboard.
Oregon Energy Facility Siting, Project Updates, July 2024.
Courtney Flatt, "Controversial energy project in southern Washington state moves close r to breaking ground,"
Oregon Public Broadcasting, February 10, 2024.
57 The earliest feasible date for the project to become operational is 2028.
58 Scott Disavino, "US Pacific Northwest water supplies fall to 22-year low in 2023," Reuters, October 3, 2023.
See also, Karin Bumbaco, et al., "2023 Pacific Northwest Water Year Impacts Assessment." National Integrated
Drought Information System, 2024.
We do not evaluate efforts by utilities and policymakers to "manage" peak electric demand through
alternative rate structures (charging high prices when demand is greatest) br direct load controls, in which
utilities have the ability to restrict or prevent the usage of EV chargers, electric heat pumps, etc. when demand
peaks. Although peak demand can be reduced, these programs cannot reduce total consumption except
through higher average prices.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 21
generation, but more importantly, hourly generation available to meet demand. The hourly wind, solar,
and wind drought data determine the storage capacity required to ensure that demand is always met. 60
We determine the least-cost mix of generation and storage capacity by evaluating alternative wind, solar,
and storage capacity combinations that meet forecast demand at all hours. For example, although solar
PV is less costly to build than wind turbines, the absence of any solar generation at night means more
storage capacity must be built. Similarly, an all-wind mix requires enough storage capacity to ensure
electricity is available during wind "droughts" when little wind generation is available. Such a wind
drought took place in early November 2023 and lasted almost six days.
Capacity Requirements
Assuming the approximately 30,000 MW of hydroelectric generation remains in service through 2050 (i.e.,
none of the hydroelectric dams in the two states are removed), the least-cost capacity mix in 2050 under
the RO Scenario comprises approximately 66,300 MW of wind generation, 147,000 MW of solar PV, and
153,300 MW of storage (Table 2). The huge quantities of wind and solar capacity are required to
compensate for their inherent intermittency and potential unavailability when electricity demand peaks. 61
Moreover, there must be sufficient wind and solar capacity to provide electricity for battery storage. On
average, solar PV only produces electricity in about 25% of all hours, depending on location; production
in winter hours is obviously much lower because there are fewer daylight hours and greater in summer.
(The average percentage of hours a generator produces electricity over the year is called its "capacity
factor.") The capacity factor for onshore wind turbines is around 35%.62 By contrast, the capacity factor
for a typical nuclear plant is over 90%.
61
61
62
We assume four-hour battery storage facilities, that is, facilities that can supply continuous power at full
capacity for up to four hours. We make this assumption because the costs of four-hour batteries are lower
than longer-duration ones (e.g., six-hour, eight-hour). We have not modeled storage technologies that are not
commercially available because their costs, if commercialized, are unknown.
Under an absolute worst-case scenario in which neither wind nor solar generation is available for an extended
period, the storage capacity shown in Table 4 would provide electricity for less than 24 hours on a typica I
winter day in 2050. However, because the hydroelectric system can provide additional energy when called on,
less storage is required.
EIA, Electric Power Monthly, June 2024, Table 6.07B, Capacity Factors for Utility-Scale Generators Primarily
Using Non-Fossil Fuels.
22 I The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Table 2: Current Capacity Mix and Least-Cost Mix in 2050 (MW)
Scenario Hydro ThermalA Nuclear Wind Solar8 Storagec Other0 Total
Current Capacity 29,633
RO Scenario 29,633
NGN Scenario 29,633
Notes:
9,1S4
0
24,1S9
A-Includes coal, oil, and natural gas.
B-Excludes behind-the-meter solar PV.
1,200
0
9,000E
C-Includes pumped hydroelectric and battery storage.
D-Includes biomass and geothermal.
7,368
66,341
7,351
1,201
147,038
969
355
153,342
2,444
596
596
596
48,911
397,663
74,856
E-Assumes that the 1,200 MW Columbia Generating Station nuclear plant is still retired in 2046.
As Table 2 shows, the RO Scenario requires increasing the existing 49,000 MW of generating capacity by
more than 700%, while the NGN Scenario requires an increase of about 53%. As shown in the table, under
the RO Scenario the least-cost capacity mix will require increasing wind capacity by a factor of nine, solar
PV capacity will need to increase by a factor of more than 100, and storage capacity will need to increase
by a factor of more than 400. To put this into perspective, an average of about 2,300 MW of wind capacity,
5,600 MW of solar PV, and 5,900 MW of storage will need to be added annually between now and 2050
(Figure 11). The additional generating capacity needed under the NGN scenario is far lower, requiring an
additional 9,000 MW of new nuclear capacity and about 16,000 MW of new gas-fired generating capacity
(Figure 12). 63
63 These values do not include replacement capacity for generators that are retired between 2024 and 2050.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 23
MW
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Figure 11: Annual Generating Capacity, RO Scenario
■Other
■Thermal
■ Hydroelectric
Wind
Solar
■ Storage
. -
:.:~~••. •~ •. -: /_'.I • • • --~_;._:0; 0,• __ , ,0 _•_: -~ ,:'~;_.,;. •~ '.i:~{.;.:,,•~-'i, -~~_:• __ •_'._ :.:._::.i§:r,J,~?:1
2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050
Source: authors' calculations.
241 The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Figure 12: Annual Generating Capacity, NGN Scenario
MW
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000 ■Other
Thermal
250,000 ■ Hydro
■ Nuclear
200,000 Wind
Solar
150,000
■Storage
100,000
50,000
0
2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050
Source: authors' calculations.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 25
A Note on Land Requirements
The land requirements of the RO Scenario would be extraordinarily large because of the low power
densities. Power density is a measure of capacity per unit of geographic area. Nuclear plants have the
highest power density of all generating technologies. Solar PV and, especially, wind generation, by
contrast, have extremely low power density.
Wind turbines have a power density of about one watt per square meter,64 equivalent to 2.6 MW per
square mile. Thus, in the RO Scenario, the approximately 66,000 MW of wind generation would require
over 25,000 square miles of land. Solar PV has a power density of about 6 watts per square meter, 65
equivalent to about 15.5 MW per square mile. Hence, the total land area required for 147,000 MW of
solar capacity would be about 9,500 square miles. By comparison, the land area of both states east of the
Cascades is roughly 100,000 square miles. Thus, about 25% of the entire area east of the Cascades would
be needed if the wind and solar capacity could be co-located and roughly 35% of the entire area if they
could not.
Although developing offshore wind would reduce the land area requirement, the high cost of floating
wind turbines -estimated to be two to three times greater than traditional offshore turbines -makes it
unlikely that they will be built off the Oregon and Washington coasts, where the water is too deep to
locate traditional offshore turbines.
Generation and Transmission Costs
To estimate the total costs under each scenario, we assume the two states' investor-owned utilities will
build and own all new generating capacity required. Although there are numerous municipal utilities and
public utility districts that own hydroelectric plants, those plants are many decades old. 66 More recently,
municipal utilities like Seattle City Light have signed purchase contracts for electricity, rather than
construct facilities themselves. Hence, we assume new capacity will be built by the two states' investor-
owned utilities (IOUs) or private, for-profit entities. Because we assume financing costs for the former will
be lower than for the latter, we estimate total costs based on the current capital costs for IOUs. 67
64 Vaclav Smil, Power Density (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 2015), p. 67.
65 Ibid, p. 53.
66 Seattle City Light's newest hydroelectric generator is a small 5 MW hydroelectric dam on the Tolt River, which
became operational in 1995.
67 Note that we base annual capital costs on the amount of investment that is depreciated each year because
this is how a utility's revenue requirement and rates are calculated. Specifically, the revenue requirement is
the sum of O&M costs, administrative costs, depreciation, taxes, and a return on undepreciated capital (called
"rate base.") For additional detail, see Jonathan Lesser and Leonardo Giacchino, Fundamentals of Energy
Regulation, 3d ed. (2019).
26 I The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Unlike most businesses, IOUs do not profit from the amount of product (in this case, electricity) they sell
to their customers. Instead, they earn a return on their investments in physical assets before they are fully
depreciated. Thus, the more infrastructure a utility builds, the more profits it earns if utility regulators
approve those investments. Under this system, the state's IOUs will benefit considerably from an energy
transition that forces the closure of still-useful power plants and encourages a major build-out of brand-
new generation facilities and transmission lines.
For both scenarios, we use data published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) to calculate
the costs of new generating capacity, and associated operation and maintenance (O&M) costs (Table 3). 68
We also use EIA data on average lifetimes for new generating assets to estimate annual depreciation
costs.69 For existing generators, we rely on cost data published by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission in annual files that the agency requires electric utilities to submit. Finally, to estimate the
costs of new transmission capacity that will be required under the RO Scenario, we use estimated costs
for several existing transmission projects and an average estimate of $145,000 per MW of generating
capacity by the Bonneville Power Administration, which reflects different locations for new capacity. 70
Table 3: Generation and Storage Costs (2023$)
Overnight
A Fixed O&M Variable O&M Regional Cost Technology Capital Cost .
$/ ($/kW-year) ($/MWh) Multipher8
( kW)
Wind $1,489 $33.06 $0.00 1.059
Solar PV $1,502 $20.23 $0.00 1.040
Advanced Nuclear $7,861 $156.20 $2.52 1.087
Small Modular Reactor $8,936 $121.99 $3.19 1.061
Battery Storage (4-hour) $1,744 $40.00 $.0.00 1.045
Notes:
A-overnight capital costs exclude all financing costs.
B -reflects the difference from the E IA's estimated national average for generations built in the Pacific Northwest.
The additional costs associated with building new generating capacity are offset in the RO Scenario by
reductions in fuel costs and savings on O&M costs. Finally, because many wind/solar/storage proponents
68
71
EIA, "Capital Cost an d Performance Characteristics for Utility-Sca le Electric Power Generating Technologies,"
January 2024.
We assume straight-line depreciation, which is consistent with standard utility regulation. The assumed
lifetimes are shown in the appendix.
For example, the estimated cost of the 290-mile Boardman to Hemingway line?) has an estimated cost of ill
billion, just over $4 million per mile. The 100-mile Cascade Renewable Transmission Project from The Dalles,
Oregon, to Vancouver, Washington, has an estimated cost of $1.5 billion, or $15 million per mile. PacifiCorp's
Gateway Transmission projects have an estimated total cost of $8.0 billion for 2,300 miles, about $3.5 million
per mile. A study by the Bonneville Power Ad ministration estimated an average cost for transmission needed
for new renewable generation to be about $0.145 million per MW.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 27
argue that the costs of these technologies will decrease over time, we include a lower-cost renewables
scenario. This scenario assumes the capital costs for wind, solar, and storage decrease 2.5% annually on
an inflation-adjusted basis, or 50% by 2050, even though the increase in demand for these resources will
make large reductions in capital costs unlikely.
The overall cost increase for the RO Scenario totals just under $550 billion (Table 4), over six times greater
than the increase in total costs of $86 billion for the NGN Scenario. Under the Lower-Cost renewables
scenario, the total cost is $418 billion, still almost five times larger than the NGN Scenario. Assuming an
annual inflation rate of 2%, the resulting costs total $780 billion for the RO Scenario, $123 billion for the
NGN Scenario, and $510 billion for the Lower-Cost renewables scenario.
Table 4: Total Costs for Each Scenario through 2050 (Millions of 2024$)
Capital Eixecl O&M Varia61e Utility Total Scenario Taxes CostsA Costs O&M Costs8 Profitsc Costs
RO Scenario $232,791 $73,229 ($11,381) $48,363 $206,909 $549,910
Lower-Cost $170,488 $73,229 ($11,381) $35,267 $150,884 $418,488 Renewables
NGN Scenario $17,953 $7,282 $3,226 $10,889 $46,587 $85,937 ~
A-includes generation and transmission costs.
B -includes fuel costs (savings).
C -based on Puget Sound Energy's current capital structure and approved cost of capital. Includes financing costs and
return on equity capital.
Comparison of Load Profiles to Ensure Reliability
As discussed previously, overbuilding of wind and solar will be required to ensure there is sufficient
generation and storage to meet electricity demand when there is little wind, solar, or both available. The
wind drought that took place over the six-day period, November 24, 2023 -November 30, 2023, provides
an example. 71 Using this period, we modeled the need for solar and storage to overcome the lack of wind
generation over the six days (Figure 13). As shown, large quantities of storage (almost 1.8 million MWh)
are required to meet total electric demand (5.5 million MWh).
71 By 2:00 PM on November 24, wind generation fell to about 10% of the level in the early morning hours. It
remained low until 5:00 AM November 30, when it began to increase.
281 The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Figure 13: 2050 Hourly Load Profile, RO Scenario During November Wind Drought
MW
1120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
11/24/2050 11/25/2050 11/26/2050 11/27/2050 11/28/2050 11/29/2050 11/30/2050
Wind Solar -Stora~~ -l ~mand
Source: authors' calculations.
By comparison, the hourly load profile for the NGN Scenario requires just over 94,000 MWh of storage
(Figure 14). That is, the storage requirement to account for a wind drought is more than 19 times that of
the NGN scenario. Similar comparisons exist for both winter and summer peak periods; large quantities
of storage are required to compensate for the unavailability of wind and solar. For example, using the
August 1-2 hourly demand profile for 2050 and the historical availability of wind and solar during that
period, storage is required to supply 250,000 MWh of the total demand of about 1.4 million MWh (Figure
15).
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 29
Figure 14: 2050 Hourly Load Profile, NGN Scenario During November Wind Drought
MW
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
.20,000
11/.24/.2050
Wind
11/2.5/.2050 11/.26/.2050 11/.271.2051} 11/2.8/2.050
Solar -Hydroelectric -Other -Nu clearSMR -GasCC
Source: authors' calculations.
11/.29/.2050 11/30/.2050
Gas CT -storage -Demand
30 I The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
MW
160,000
140,000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
8/7/2023 0:00
Figure 15: load Profile for August 7-8, 2050, RO Scenario
8/7/2023 12:00
-Hydroelectric -Other
8/8/2023 0:00 8/8/2023 12:00
W ind -Solar -Storage -Dem and
Source: authors' calculations.
8/9/2023 0:00
RETAIL ELECTRIC RATE AND BILL IMPACTS
The additional generation and transmission required to meet the 100"/o electrification goals will increase
customer rates. (We exclude the costs of local distribution system upgrades that also will be needed to
accommodate increased peak demand.) To estimate the rate impacts, we begin with average rates by
customer class (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial) in the two states, and the overall average rate as
reported by EIA. We assume that the current rate differentials among the different customer classes
remain the same.
In 2023, the retail rate paid by all customers in the two states averaged 9.84 cents/kWh, with residential
customers paying an average of 11.57 cents/kWh, commercial customers 10.16 cents/kWh, and industrial
customers paying an average of 6.68 cents/kWh. 72 These average rates represent a 16% increase over
72 Under full electrification, residential customer peak demand is likely to increase relative to commercial and
industrial peak demand based on the patterns of EV charging and space heating. Typical approaches to
allocating fixed costs would then assign proportionally more of those fixed costs to residential customers. To
simplify the analysis, we have ignored these cost allocation impacts.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 31
average rates in 2020 for all customers; average rates for residential and commercial customers rose by
12% and 13.5%, respectively, between 2020 and 2023, while average rates for industrial customers rose
by over 25%.
As new generation and transmission are added each year, rate base (i.e., the net, undepreciated value of
utility capital assets) increases. At the same time, continued depreciation of existing generation and
transmission causes the rate base to decrease. Because the former overwhelms the latter, the total rate
base increases over the 2024 -2050 period. This increases the return on rate base earned by utilities and
the income taxes they pay. 73
Under the RO Scenario, customer rates will more than double in inflation-adjusted terms to 24.6
cents/kWh by 2046 (Figure 16). (Because of depreciation and decreased capacity additions, average rates
decrease slightly after that year.) Again, this excludes the costs of distribution system upgrades that will
be required. Residential rates will increase to 28. 7 cents/kWh by 2046, commercial rates will increase to
25.4 cents/kWh, and industrial rates will increase to 17.4 cents/kWh. Assuming an annual inflation rate of
just 2.0%, these are equivalent to nominal rates of approximately 48 cents/kWh, 43 cents/kWh, and 29
cents/kWh for residential, commercial, and industrial rates, respectively.
Under full electrification, and assuming an inflation rate of just 2% annually, the average residential
customer bill will increase fourfold, from just over $100/month today to over $700/month in 2050. The
average commercial customer bill will increase from $600/month today to about $3,800/month, even
excluding the additional costs associated with operating commercial EVs and switching to electric heat
pumps.
Not only will the two states no longer rely on some of the lowest cost electricity in the nation, but the
adverse economic impacts will be widespread. Quadrupling electric rates will raise the cost of producing
and transporting goods and the cost of providing services. Virtually everything will be far more costly to
produce. This will mean higher levels of energy poverty for consumers, fewer jobs as companies, especially
energy-intensive manufacturing ones, migrate to regions with lower-cost electricity, and less agricultural
production in the two states. In short, the two states' economies, which have historically relied on some
of the lowest-cost electricity in the nation, will no longer enjoy that luxury. While those customers will no
longer spend money on natural gas, the savings will be dwarfed by the higher cost of electricity.
73 We assume the current U.S. corporate tax rate remains at its current level of 21%. Although there are
municipal utilities in both states, we do not differentiate between the rate impacts for customers of IOUs and
those municipal utilities because we assume transmission and generation investments will be undertaken by
the former, or independent, for-profit developers.
321 The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Figure 16: RO Scenario-Projected Retail Electric Rates, 2024-2050
2024 Cents/kWh
35.00 .--------------------------------------~
30.00 -
25.00
~Average
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050
Source: authors' calculations.
The NGN Scenario, on the other hand, offers a much more benign energy future. Rates under the NGN
Scenario would increase far less (Figure 17}, rising to an average of 13.6 cents/kWh in inflation-adjusted
terms by 2046, less than half the rate increase under the RO Scenario.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 33
Figure 16: NGN Scenario -Projected Retail Electric Rates, 2024-2050
2024 Cents/kWh
35.00 .-----·---------------------------------
30.00 -
25.00
~Average
20.00 -
15.00 -
10.00
5.00
0.00
2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050
Source: authors' calculations.
FULL ELECTRIFICATION WILL HAVE A NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT ON
CLIMATE
When Washington Governor Jay lnslee signed CETA into law in 2019, proponents claimed that
"Washington is driving forward new ways to confront climate change."74 The reality is that CETA and
Oregon's clean energy legislation will have no measurable impact on world climate. Using the MAG ICC
climate model that the EPA sponsors, 75 and assuming both states' energy-related carbon emissions were
eliminated by 2040, the reduction in world temperature in the year 2100 would be 0.0029 °C, that is, less
than three one-thousandths of a degree centigrade. Such a reduction in global temperature is far too
small to be measurable. By comparison, the best outside thermometers have an accuracy of about+/-
0.5 °c, about 170 times larger.
74
75
Washington Governor's Office, "Washington powers a new path toward clean energy future," Medium, May 7,
2019.
This is based on a comparison with the MAG ICC default scenario.
341 The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
The two states' combined energy-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions totaled about 150 million
metric tons in 2019, the most recent year for which data for both states are available. 76 Assuming these
emissions were reduced at a constant rate until they were eliminated entirely by 2050, the reduction in
GHGs would total about 1.8 billion metric tons. By comparison, in 2023, world carbon emissions were
estimated to be just over 35 billion metric tons. 77 Thus, even if the 100% electrification efforts eliminate
all energy-related GHG emissions in the two states, the entire reduction in G HGs between 2024 and 2050
would amount to less than three weeks of 2023 world emissions. Under the RO Scenario, the average cost
to achieve these reductions in carbon emissions would be over $300 per metric ton. Under the RO Low-
Cost scenario, the cost would average about $250 per metric ton.
The net result will be that Oregon and Washington consumers will see their electric rates more than
double in inflation-adjusted terms and pay hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve emissions reductions
that will have no measurable impact on world climate. By contrast, the impacts on the economic well-
being of those individuals and businesses would be only too real.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
European experience, especially in Germany and Great Britain, has already shown how rising electricity
prices have devastating economic impacts. Electric price increases have led to deindustrialization as
energy-intensive industries have either contracted or left Europe entirely. 78 Soaring electricity rates also
have exacerbated energy poverty, especially in Great Britain. 79
The results of this study demonstrate that Oregon and Washington's efforts to achieve a zero-emissions
energy future by electrifying their economies and relying almost entirely on additional wind and solar
power to supply the electricity needed will impose huge costs on individuals and businesses. At the same
time, the emissions reductions will be so minuscule that the efforts will provide no measurable climate
benefits. Instead, the zero-emissions efforts will be a recipe for economic disaster. The two states would
be best served by abandoning these goals, focusing instead on providing reliable and far less costly
electricity from new natural gas and nuclear plants.
76
77
78
Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Was hington State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory: 1990-2019.
December 2022; Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality, Oregon Greenhouse Gas Sector-Based Inventory.
2022.
Energy Institute, 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy. p. 16.
Tilak Doshi, "As Europe Deindustrializes, Can Economic Suicide be Avoided?" Forbes, May 9, 2024.
Suzanna Hinson and Paul Bolton, "Fuel Poverty." House of Commons Library, February 19, 2024.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 35
APPENDIX: MODELING METHODOLOGY
We use the Always-On Energy Research (AOER) model, which contains two sub-models.
The first sub-model is the reliability model, which uses historical hourly electricity demand and capacity
factors for wind and solar to determine the cost-effective buildout of wind, solar, and storage resources
necessary to meet demand without thermal resources. New wind and solar resources are built
according to capacity values and to satisfy necessary reserve margins to maintain reliability. The model
then balances the load by filling any remaining generation shortfalls with 4-hour battery storage
facilities. Data sources include the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for hourly electricity load
shapes and capacity factors for wind and solar, Avista data for EV charging consumption and load
shapes, and PNUCC data for heat pump load patterns.
The second sub-model is the cost model. This model determines the revenue requirements for building
and operating the new portfolio of energy sources, determined by the reliability model, compared to
today's cost. It utilizes historical cost data from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Form 1
filings and cost assumptions from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) for future builds.
Transmission costs are assessed using documents from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
( N RE Ll that show transmission buildouts needed for certain penetrations of intermittent energy sources
like wind and solar and cost estimates of transmission lines from the Midcontinent Independent System
Operator (MISO).
Capital Structure: This report utilizes the capital structure of Puget Sound in Washington of 49 percent
equity and 51 percent debt, and a return on equity of 9.4 percent. The capital structures for other
electric utilities in the two states are similar.
Real Discount Rate: The real discount rate is 3 percent.
Subsidies: This report assumes both wind and solar use the Production Tax Credit (PTC).
Load balancing costs: We calculate load balancing costs by determining the total cost of building and
operating new storage facilities to meet electricity demand during the time horizon studied. These costs
are then attributed to the system costs of wind and solar by dividing the cost of load balancing by the
generation of new wind and solar facilities (capacity-weighted).
Overbuilding and curtailment costs: Overbuilding and curtailment costs measure the cost of
overbuilding wind and solar, which results in curtailing more of their energy, lowering their effective
capacity factor, and spreading their costs over fewer megawatt-hours (MWh).
Cost of Existing Resources: This report uses cost data from the utility company form 1 filings at the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, and
fuel costs.
Cost of New Resources: This report uses cost information from the assumptions of the Annual Energy
Outlook Electricity Market Module by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). For new pumped
storage, this report uses cost estimates from PacifiCorp.
36 I The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Unit Lifespans: This report assumes a 20-year lifespan for wind turbines, a 25-year lifespan for solar
panels and inverters, and a 15-year lifespan for battery storage facilities before they are repowered.
Transmission: Transmission costs required for the buildout of wind and solar were based on the per-M
cost for the buildout of wind and solar for Bonneville Power Administration (BPA).
Hourly Load Shape: This report uses data from the electric grid monitor provided by the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) for historical electricity usage. Hourly demand for electric vehicle (EV)
electrification was projected by utilizing data by Avista and extrapolating for the states of Washington
and Oregon. Hourly demand for home heating electrification was estimated using data provided by
PNUCC and extrapolated for the rest of Washington and Oregon using historical temperatures.
Wind and Solar Output: This report uses historical wind and solar output data from the electric grid
monitor by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Wind output is taken from data published by
Puget Sound Energy, and solar output is from PacfiCorp.
Discovery lnstitute's Center on Wealth & Poverty I 37
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Jonathan Lesser is the president of Continental Economics, an economic consulting firm
specializing in energy regulation and policy, and a Senior Fellow with the Discovery Institute. He is
also a Senior Fellow with the National Center for Energy Analytics. He has worked in the energy
industry for almost 40 years, including for electric utilities, state government agencies, and as a
consulting economist. He has written numerous academic and trade press articles and co-
authored three textbooks. His writing has appeared in various publications, including The Wall
Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Post. Dr. Lesser holds a B.S. in
Mathematics and Economics from the University of New Mexico, and an M.A. and Ph.D.in
Economics from the University of Washington.
Mitchell Rolling is a co-founder and Director of Research at Always-On Energy Research, where he
models energy proposals, analyzes the energy industry and electricity policy, and writes about
energy and environmental issues. His research has been featured in publications such as The Wall
Street Journal and Forbes. Mr. Rolling holds a B.A. degree in History from the University of
Minnesota and an M.S. in Finance and Economics from West Texas A&M University.
38 I The Crippling Costs of Electrification and Net Zero Energy Policies in the Pacific Northwest
Climate Action Plan
Reporting and Dashboard
Katie Hentrich (she/her)
Climate Action Plan Administrator
July 22, 2025
1
C cityof
Carlsbad
Receive a report on Climate Action
Plan reporting and an online
dashboard on the plan’s
implementation.
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
RECOMMENDED ACTION
2
C cityof
Carlsbad
TODAY’S PRESENTATION
•Previous Climate Action Plan
•Monitoring and reporting
•Dashboard overview
•Next steps
3
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
C cityof
Carlsbad
PREVIOUS CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
•Adopted in 2015, amended in 2020
•Surpassed 2020 reduction target
•Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 4%
below 2012 levels
•7 annual reports to City Council
4
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
Climate Action Plan
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN UPDATE
•Adopted Nov. 2024
•23 measures grouped into 6 categories
•Each measure includes metrics to track performance
•No annual report for 2024 – only 6 weeks of implementation
•Next annual report will be presented in 2026
5
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
(city of
Carlsbad
ACCESSIBLE REPORTING
•Annual reports published to city website
and presented to City Council
•Lengthy, technical, not easily digestible
•Comments from the public and City Council
provided during outreach for Climate Action
Plan Update
•Nov. 7, 2023 City Council meeting
6
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
{city of
Carlsbad
DASHBOARD
Overview
Energy
Transportation
Carbon sequestration and waste diversion
Future measures
7
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
7
•
{city of
Carlsbad
8
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan
Overview .__ ___ E_n_•'_9_Y __ _,I ._I __ li_,a_ns_p_o_rta_t_io_n _ _,11 Carbon Sequestration & Waste Diversion 11 Future Measures
Overview
The City o f Carlsbad's C limate Action Plan out lines t he city's strateg ies and p o licies to reduce g reenho use gas emiss ions
and suppo rt enviro nmenta l sustainab ility.
The plan includ es 23 actions o rg anized into six focus areas. These act io ns help Carlsbad meet state goals and address local
p riorit ies. The city tracks p rogress by collecting d ata on each action and reports the results every year, along w it h u pd ates to
the g reenho use g as emissio ns inventory.
The Climate Act ion Plan Dashboard makes this infor matio n easier to find and und erstand. You can explore t h e lat est data
and updat es here. Fo r help u sing the d ash b oard , select t he questio n mark icon at the to p right o f t he screen.
Greenhouse gas emissions
981,000
MTC02e
9
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan
Overview Energy ___ li_r_an_s_p_o_rta_t_io_n __ ..,11 Carbon Sequestration & Waste Diversion H ___ F_ut_u_re_M_e_as_u_re_s ___
Energy
Energy use i n homes and businesses, mainly from electricity and natural gas, makes up 4 1 % of Carlsbad's emissions. By
switching to cleaner ene rgy soL1rces, using less natural gas a nd making b u ild ings more e ner•g1y efficient, t he city can reduce
emissions and sL1p port a more sustainable future.
Electricity production from
renewable energy
infrastructure at citv facilities
L Kilowatt-hours
Average residential
electricity usage
360
Kilowatt-hours
J l
J
Electricity usage at city
facilities
6,194
Megawatt-hours
ean Energy Allianc
participation
91%
Natural gas usage at city
facilities
Therms
Non-residential building
permits required to make
eneirqy efficiencv upqrades
164
Permits
City-owned solar carports Electricity used for city-
owned street and safety
liqhtino
1
Carport JL 5,889
Kilowatt-hours J
Residential building permits
required to make energy
efficiency upqrades
252
Permits
Average residential natural
gas usage
27
Therms
10
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan
Overview Energy ,__ __ li_r_an_s_p_o_rrta_t_io_n __ ..,U Carbon Sequestration & Waste Diversion 11._ __ F_ut_u_re_M_e_as_u_re_s _ __,
Energy
Energy use i n homes and businesses, mainly from electricity and natural gas, makes up 41 % of Carlsbad's emissions. By
switching to cleaner energy sources, using less naturali gas and making build ings more energy efficient, the c ity can reduce
emissions and support a more sustainable future.
Electricity production from
renewable energy
infrastructure at citv facilities
659,997
Kilowatt-hours
Average residential
electricity usage
360
Kilowatt-hours
J
J
Electricity usage at city
facilities
6,194
Megawatt-hours
Natural gas usage at city
facilities
Non-residential building
permits required to make
enerav efficiencv uoorades
L 164
Permits J
City-owned solar carports
1
Carport
Residential building permits
required to make energy
eff1dencv uoorades
252
Permits
Electricity used for city-
owned street and safety
liohtino
Kilowatt-hours
5,889 J
Average residential natural
gas usage
L 27
Therms
11
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
Transportation
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse g as emissions in Carlsbad. These emissions are measured by the
number of miles d riven, al!so known as vehicle miles traveled . Each weekday, d rivers in Carlsbad-residents, workers and
v isitors-gene rate more than 3 millio n vehicle miles traveled. These vehicle trips can be reduced wit h investments in
alternative transportation and by tran sitioning to zero-emission vehicles.
Oty ze..,...,mission fleet vehldes
12
Vehicles
Employees ~overed by the
Transportation Demand
Management ordinance
8,700
Employees
568
Miles
Oty--owned publk elett,k veh.ide
d,argi ng stations
28
Stations
Mode share
95.5%J
Vehicle
Publi~ eledrk vel,ide d'larging
stations
111
Stations
Ro..,daboUIS and traffk drdes
23
Roundabouts & circles
Zero emission ~id'"" S<>ld in
Carlsbad
2,310
VehicJes
Traflk signals optimized
C"ny stBif par1ld:pa:ling in
Transportation Demand
Management programs
530
Employees
Miles of bllce lanes
l 53
Traffic signals JL 196
Miles
12
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
...._ ___ o_v_e_M_·e_w ___ _,H._ ___ e_n_er_g_y ___ _, Transportation Carbon Sequestration & Waste Diversion !._I __ F_ut_u_re_M_ea_s_u_re_s _ __,
Transportation
Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Carlsbad. These emissions are measured by the
number of miles d riven, also known as vehicle miles traveled. Each weekday, d rivers in Carlsbad-residents, workers and
visitors-generate more than 3 million vehicle miles t raveled. These vehicle trips can be reduced wit h investments in
alternat ive t ransp o rtation and by transitio ning to zero-emission vehicles.
Oty zero-emission fleet vehicles
12
Vehicles
568
Miles
City-<>wned public elettric vehicle
charging stations
28
Stations
Mode share
95.5%
VehicJe
Public eledric vel,lde charging
~tions
111
Stations
Ro1mdaboU1S and traffic drdes
23
Roundabouts & circles
Zen, emission wehides sold In
Carlsbad
2,310
VehicJes
Traffic sl•5""ls optimized
53
Traffic signals j
Ci1y staff partidpatlng In
Tnmspo,t,tion Oema,nd
Management programs
530
Employees
Miles of bla, lanes
196
Miles
13
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
Carbon Sequestration & Waste Diversio n
r.1fi Carbon Sequestration
Capturing and storing carbon, known as carbon sequestration, is one way to support long-term di m ate goals. It also help s
maintain the many benefits t hat trees and natural areas provide, like cleaner air and healt hier environments.
City-maintained trees
planted
63
Trees
Jl Waste Diversion
Tree canopy cover
16.66%
Trees
Keeping solid and organic waste out of landfills helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Providing easy options to reuse,
recycle or compost this waste makes it easier for people to make more sustainable choices. Reusing, recycling and
composting not only prevent emissions but also give materials a second life and return nutrients to the soil instead of
sending them to a landfill.
Recycling diverted Organics diverted
37,551 36,418
Short tons Short tons
14
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
r.1fi Carbon Sequestration
Capturing and storing carbon, known as carbon sequestrat ion, is one way to support long-term climate goals. It also helps
maintain the many benefits thattrees and natural areas provide, like cleaner air and health ier environments.
City-maintained trees
planted
63
Trees
JI. Waste Diversion
Tree canopy cover
16.66%
Trees
Keeping solid and organic waste out of landfills helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Providing easy options to reuse,
recycle or compost this waste makes it easier for people to make more sustainable choices. Reusing, recycling and
composting not only prevent emissions but also give materials a second life and return nutrients to the soil instead of
sending them to a landfill.
Recycling diverted
37,551
Short tons J
15
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
City of Carlsbad Climate Action Plan
.__ __ o_v_•_rv_i•_w __ _,I ._I ___ e_"_"'_9_Y __ __,I, ,I __ li_,._n_sp_o_rt_at_io_" __ ,11,.._ea_r_b_on_s._q_u_•s_t,_at_io_n_&_w_._s_t•_D_iv_•_rs_io_n_, Future Measures
Future Measures
Each act ion in the Climate Actio n Plan includes a t imeline fo r w h en it w ill be ca rried o ut. Some action s are scheduled for the
medium ter m (6 to 10 years) o r lo ng te rm (11 years o r more). These actions are n ot yet i ncluded in t he d ashboard b ecause
the p rograms have not started , o r data is not yet ava ilable .
By 2025
• Urban tree ca nopy coverage p ercentage (Measure CS-1)
• Percentage of c ity facilit ies powered b y 100% renewable energy (Measure E-1)
By 2030
• Number of city-owned gas-powered leaf b lowers replaced w ith e lectric models (Measure OR-1)
• Urban tree ca nopy coverage p ercentage (Measure CS-1)
NEXT STEPS
Continue to adjust dashboard
Update dashboard at least annually
Prepare 2025 annual report in early 2026
Present 2025 annual report to City Council
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
carlsbadca.gov/CAPdashboard
C cityof
Carlsbad
Receive a report on Climate Action
Plan reporting and an online
dashboard on the plan’s
implementation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
17
ITEM 10. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN DASHBOARD
C cityof
Carlsbad