By Ron Pernick

2012 proved to be an unsettling and difficult year for clean energy. High-profile bankruptcies and layoffs plagued many clean-tech companies, overall venture investments retreated in the face of increasingly elusive returns, and the industry was begrudgingly transformed into a partisan wedge issue during the U.S. presidential campaign.

But as we highlight in our just-released Clean Energy Trends 2013 report, the fundamental global market drivers for clean technology remain largely intact. Intensifying resource constraints loom large. Unprecedented climate disruption in the U.S. and abroad is putting resiliency and adaptation front and center. And President Obama has signaled a strong commitment to expanding clean energy and energy efficiency in his second term, calling for another doubling of renewable power by 2020. Similar commitments exist in China, Japan, and the European Union.

The report found that lower prices for many clean-tech goods and services, combined with a renewed focus on scalable projects, resulted once again in record annual solar, wind, and biofuels deployment. Against this continued expansion, however, combined global revenue for solar PV, wind power, and biofuels expanded just one percent, from $246.1 billion in 2011 to $248.7 billion in 2012. This marginal growth was one of the many consequences of rapidly declining solar PV prices.

Some of the report’s key findings include:

• Biofuels (global production and wholesale pricing of ethanol and biodiesel) reached $95 billion in 2012, up from $83 billion the previous year. From 2011 to 2012, global biofuels production expanded from 27.9 billion gallons to 31.4 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel.
• Wind power (new installation capital costs) expanded to $73.7 billion in 2012, up from $71.5 billion the previous year. Global wind capacity additions totaled 44.7 GW (gigawatts) in 2012, a record year led by more than 13 GW added in both China and the U.S., and an additional 12.4 GW of new capacity in Europe.
• Solar photovoltaics (including modules, system components, and installation) decreased from a record $91.6 billion in 2011 to $79.7 billion in 2012 as continued growth in annual capacity additions was not enough to offset falling PV prices. While total market revenues fell 19 percent — the first PV market contraction in Clean Energy Trends’ 12-year history – global installations expanded to a record of 30.9 GW in 2012, up from 29.6 GW the prior year.
• Together, we project these three sectors will continue to grow over the next decade, nearly doubling from $248.7 billion in 2012 to $426.1 billion in 2022.



In many ways the shift to cleaner sources couldn’t be clearer. Renewables and natural gas made up more than 80 percent of new electricity capacity additions in the U.S. in 2012, with renewables coming in at 49 percent and natural gas at 33 percent. For the European Union, the renewables number is even higher, with solar in the driver’s seat. In 2012, newly installed solar PV accounted for 37 percent of all added capacity, followed by wind with a 26.5 percent share, and gas at 23 percent. In total, renewable sources represented more than 31 GW of the 44.6 GW of new generation capacity in the EU, roughly 70 percent of all new capacity for the second consecutive year.

Generating capacity is, of course, not the same as actual generation. But even in this regard, clean energy sources have moved past their days as rounding errors and are playing a significant role in meeting electricity demand in a number of global markets. Wind energy in Denmark blew past a 30 percent share of national electricity use in 2012, and an official target is in place to generate half of the nation’s power from wind by 2020. In Germany, clean energy already accounts for 25 percent of energy production — led by wind (9.2 percent), biomass (5.7 percent), and solar (5.3 percent) — and the country is aiming for 35 percent from renewables by 2020.

Clean energy continues to expand as a major economic force, with an increasing focus on deployment of readily available technologies.

Read more

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley

By Howard Marano and Michael Conathan

For the moment at least, the U.S. offshore wind industry has a new capital: Annapolis. By an 88 to 48 vote, the Maryland House of delegates handed Governor Martin O’Malley one of his most desired legislative victories — enactment of a bill that would earmark $1.7 billion for development of a wind farm in federal waters off Maryland’s coast, with the funding coming from up to a $1.50 monthly surcharge on consumers’ electricity bills. The bill, which passed the Senate earlier this month now heads to the Governor’s desk for signature into law.

The Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act of 2013 has been one of O’Malley’s top goals for years, as he’s sought to take advantage of Maryland’s expanse of shallow water, its “outstanding” wind resources, and its existing industrial infrastructure — all of which make Maryland an ideal place for offshore wind.

Despite these prime features, development of offshore wind in Maryland, as in the rest of the country, has been a long time coming. In two previous legislative sessions O’Malley attempted unsuccessfully to shepherd his bill though the legislature, demonstrating the political hurdles standing in the way of development even in an environmentally friendly state. At first, opponents were able to torpedo the bill due to its cost. Then when proponents lowered the price cap to $1.50 in 2012, political wrangling sunk the bill as the clock expired on the legislative session.

Since O’Malley’s bill was first introduced in Maryland, the American onshore wind industry has seen tremendous growth. In fact, with the installation of 13,000 megawatts of new capacity, 2012 was a banner year for wind in the U.S. In contrast, not a single wind turbine has been installed off America’s coasts in that time. While the offshore wind industry in the U.S. has struggled to overcome financial, political, and bureaucratic hurdles, offshore wind in Europe and Asia has continued to expand. Maryland’s Offshore Wind Energy Act is meant to help reverse that trend.

Like its predecessors, the current bill would require that, within Maryland’s renewable energy portfolio standard program, a certain percentage of electricity be supplied by offshore wind starting in 2017. In order to protect consumers from excessive rate increases resulting from the higher costs of wind energy production, the bill creates a “window of maximum rate impacts for both residential and nonresidential electric customers.” Currently, this would amount to $1.50 per month for a household and a monthly surcharge of 1.5 percent for businesses. The new law is the first of its kind requiring direct subsidies from ratepayers, and was made politically palatable by a 2013 poll showing 72 percent of Maryland residents would be willing to pay $2 more per month for their electricity bills to develop an offshore wind industry.

The benefits of offshore wind in Maryland would still be substantial. The Governor’s office estimates the project would create 850 construction jobs and 160 supply and operation and maintenance jobs. According to an analysis completed by the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development, a 200 megawatt project would create $1.3 billion in economic activity over a five year period, generating $5.6 million in state tax revenue. And data from the National Academy of Sciences suggests Maryland stands to gain $17 million in annual public health benefits as a result of reduced fossil fuel use for electricity production.

The return on investment from any first-in-class offshore wind project will be just the tip of the iceberg. The Center for American Progress released a report in February detailing the overall benefits of developing a commercial scale offshore wind industry in the U.S. The report found that the investment required to develop an offshore wind industry would be far less than the federal government has spent on subsidizing fossil fuel industries, and that the cost to ratepayers could be as low as $0.25 per month.

While passage of the Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act represents a victory for advocates of offshore wind, substantial obstacles still remain. Concessions made to secure the bill’s passage have caused industry analysts to warn that any project will be reliant on additional tax incentives to become profitable. Even Governor O’Malley has recognized this concern at a press conference, saying “I don’t believe any one state can do this by itself.”

Fortunately, Maryland won’t have to act on its own. Under President Obama, the Department of Energy has prioritized offshore wind, pursuing its “Smart from the Start” program that has already identified wind energy areas off the coasts of several northeast and mid-Atlantic states. And just last week, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced the latest step in granting the Commonwealth of Virgina a research lease for a wind energy area off its coast. Even Congress has gotten into the act, passing a one-year extension of key tax credits that move the industry a step closer to offshore wind production.

From Denmark to China, other countries have already realized the benefits of generating electricity from strong, consistent offshore winds and revitalizing sagging coastal economies. O’Malley’s legislation is an excellent step forward on both counts for his state and for the country.

Howard Marano is an intern with the Ocean Program and Michael Conathan is Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress.

Kyocera Solar and VGI Energy are teaming up to bring solar power to affordable multifamily housing units in Urban Chicago, according to an announcement flagged by SolarLove.org.

VGI Energy is a “socially and green-minded company” as SolarLove.org puts it, and Kyocera is a solar manufacturer that produces, among other things, the MyGen Pro system — a package of solar modules and mounting equipment that can be sized for the architectural specs and power requirements of most residential and light commercial buildings, according to its press release. The partnership is part of a push by VGI to bring more sustainability and energy independence, as well as more efficient appliances, infrastructure and plumbing, to residents of Chicago’s low-income urban areas:

VGI’s retrofitted buildings throughout Chicago have been outfitted with 20kW rooftop solar arrays, providing electricity from the clean, renewable energy of the sun and contributing to VGI’s goal of achieving zero-net-energy-capable buildings.

Since 2010, VGI has installed Kyocera solar modules on six Chicago buildings ranging in size from 18 to 70 units, providing more than 600 people with the opportunity to use renewable energy in their daily lives.…

“Our housing developments aim to enhance the quality of life for each resident with programs that integrate independent lifestyles with a sense of community; utilizing solar energy to reduce the environmental footprint is a key component,” said Van Vincent, CEO, VGI Energy.

The announcement is an encouraging sign for several overlapping reasons. First, low-income Americans often have less support and resources than their wealthier fellow citizens — the bulk of public housing assistance goes to homeowners and single-family units, even though most low-income Americans rent or live in multi-family residences. In fact, over half of all federal assistance in 2010 went to households making over $100,000. So any program that scales up investment in the quality and infrastructure of affordable housing is a welcome development.

Second, low-income Americans can also be vulnerable to power outages. After Hurricane Sandy, affordable and public housing projects were left without power for 11 days or more, even while power to wealthier adjacent neighborhoods was quickly restored, leaving residents to tackle dropping temperatures, health problems and disability on their own. Conceivably, outfitting affordable and mutli-family residences with solar arrays provides the opportunity for a bit more energy independence should the grid fail them.

Senior Fellow Daniel J. Weiss testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on Thursday:

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today on “America’s Onshore Energy Resources: Creating Jobs, Securing America, and Lowering Prices.”

Wind, solar, geothermal, efficiency, and other forms of clean energy creates jobs—three times more per dollar of investment compared to oil and gas. These sources are secure—the wind and sun aren’t subject to human disruption. Energy efficiency saves families and businesses money. And renewable fuels are free and shielded from price spikes that occur when fossil-fuel prices rise.

Domestic oil and natural gas are valuable and important commodities. But their production creates fewer jobs compared to renewables. They heavily contribute to climate change, which Commander of the U.S. Pacific Command Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III recently said will “cripple the security environment.” They are vulnerable to sudden price volatility, like the high oil and gasoline prices of this winter. And producing more oil won’t lower gasoline prices.

It is imperative that we continue to invest in energy efficiency and renewable power for jobs, security, and family budgets.

Renewable energy projects on public lands create jobs and improve public health

Clean energy is a critical part of the economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that “In 2010, 3.1 million jobs in the United States were … green goods and services.” The Christian Science Monitor also reported that “the clean-economy sector … includes 2.7 million jobs. The oil and gas industry … has 2.4 million jobs.” Wind and solar industries in particular employ nearly 200,000 people and are expected to grow to nearly 800,000 jobs by 2030.

There are also permits for projects with more than 11,000 megawatts of renewable electricity generation for public lands, enough to power at least 3.8 million homes.These projects will support 13,500 jobs. What’s more, a CAP analysis determined that appropriate public lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah could support 34,399 megawatts of wind, solar, and geothermal electricity, enough to power all the homes in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. These projects would create an estimated 34,399 jobs.

Read more

What do you call a future of dangerous pollution, catastrophic extreme weather events, giveaways to Big Oil companies, and even greater reliance on fossil fuels? If you’re House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), you call it “The Path to Prosperity.”

Not coincidentally, that’s the name of the fiscal year 2014 budget plan Rep. Ryan released yesterday. It contains so many false or misleading attacks on clean energy that you could be forgiven for thinking that some of it just sounds, well — ridiculous. He decries support for so-called special interests; he claims that there have been billions of dollars in failed loans; and he asserts that energy prices are being raised arbitrarily.

His proposal makes clean energy sound terrible. Fortunately, however, none of it is true. The reality is that clean energy is the real “path to prosperity,” and the Ryan plan would take us down exactly the wrong road.

While we shouldn’t hold out much hope that Rep. Ryan will ever change his tune on clean energy, it’s important to know just how wrong he is. There are three key facts about clean energy that he chooses to simply ignore, which leads to the terrible policy recommendations in his budget.

Fact No. 1: Americans of all stripes support clean energy, not fossil fuels.

The Ryan budget proposal makes it sound like no one in America besides the Obama administration supports clean energy. But that is simply not the case. In a poll of four swing states — Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, and Virginia — taken after the November 2012 election, more than 70 percent of voters supported continued government investments in clean energy.

Americans support these investments because they know that these are the clean, renewable energy sources of the future. That’s why the government needs to invest in these emerging technologies now as opposed to continuing to subsidize the fossil fuels of the past.

Rep. Ryan’s budget would spend more on dirty fossil fuels than on clean efficiency and renewable power. There’s no reason for the government to be spending anything at all on mature fossil-fuel technologies. How can Rep. Ryan ignore the century’s worth of tax breaks for fossil-fuel companies, which dwarf the recent investments in clean energy? In fact, according to a report by DBL Investors, the oil-and-gas industry received almost 100 times as much federal support as renewables between 1918 and 2009.

While Rep. Ryan writes that “[the Obama administration] pours money into its favored industries,” the fact is that the administration is doing exactly what the American public wants it to do: supporting a transition to a clean energy future by investing in emerging technologies.

Fact No. 2: Clean energy investments are sound investments.

Fortunately, investments in clean energy are good sound investments for the government to make.

Much of the Ryan budget is dedicated to slandering companies that received loan guarantees from the Department of Energy. According to Rep. Ryan, “Many of the administration’s loan-guarantee projects have failed.” The fact, though, is that the overwhelming majority of loan-guarantee recipients are thriving and will pay back the government with interest. Just last week, for example, electric-vehicle manufacturer Tesla reported that it will pay back its government loan a full five years ahead of schedule.

In fact, the entire loan-guarantee program for advanced energy technologies is healthy. Just last year, Herb Allison, the national finance chair of Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) 2000 presidential campaign, conducted an analysis of the entire program’s portfolio and concluded that it will cost taxpayers $2 billion less than initially expected.
Read more

By Felix Kramer and Max Baumhefner, via Switchboard

When it comes to consumer products, environmentalists generally don’t encourage people to buy new and buy now. But that’s what we’re about to do because electric cars are significantly cleaner than gasoline vehicles, and driving one can save you serious cash at the pump.

Perhaps you’ve already thought about buying an electric car, but dismissed the idea for one reason or another. Let’s look at some common misconceptions, and offer some good reasons why you might want to reconsider:

“I should drive my current car into the ground.”

“Hold on,” you say to yourself, “I already own a car that gets 25 miles a gallon. I want to get my money’s worth from the investment.” The sooner you start saving gas, the better it is for the planet and your pocketbook. There’s no use in throwing good money after bad at the pump, and the sooner you sell your current car, the less money you’ll lose to depreciation.

“I’d just be switching my pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant.”

If you want to go green, driving on electricity is a clear winner. Using today’s average American electricity mix of natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, geothermal, and solar, an electric car emits half the amount of climate-changing carbon pollution per mile as the average new vehicle. In states with cleaner mixes, such as California, it’s only a quarter as much. To find out how clean your electric car would be today, plug your zip code into the EPA’s “Beyond Tailpipe Emissions Calculator.” You should also know that, because old coal plants are increasingly being retired and replaced by cleaner and renewable resources, plug-in cars are the only cars that become cleaner as they age.

“What I save on gas, I’ll pay in electricity.”

On average US residential electricity rates, driving one of today’s electric cars is the equivalent of driving a 27 mile-per-gallon car on buck-a-gallon gasoline. It’s been that way for the last four decades, and is forecasted to stay that way for the next three decades. Experts basically throw up their hands when asked to predict the price of gas next year, let alone 30 years from now. One thing we do know: the price at the pump will jump up and down due to geopolitical events beyond our control. If you’re tired of that rollercoaster, call your local utility to ask about electricity rates designed for plug-in cars.

“I’ll hold off until prices go down and there are more places to charge.”

If you’re thinking you’d be better off waiting for a cheaper, better electric car, and a charging station on every block, consider the following:

Read more

A new study out of Stanford University, scheduled to be published in the journal Energy Policy, argues that New York State can eliminate fossil fuels from its energy mix entirely by 2050.

Written by Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi — who helped produce a similar plan for the world as a whole in 2009 — along with several other coworkers, the report suggests that New York State’s end-use power could be supplied by a mix of various forms of solar, wind power, and water-based and geothermal sources. That goal could be met as early as 2030, and all conventional fossil fuel generation would be phased out no later than 2050.

On the demand-side of the ledger, because renewables generally deliver power more efficiently — electric cars lose far less energy to waste heat than standard combustion engines, for example — the state’s end-use demand would be cut by roughly 37 percent. Efficiency updates would to buildings, infrastructure, etc. would make up the rest of the gap. By the report’s analysis, this would all cut the United State’s climate costs by about $3.2 billion a year by 2050.

The major points of the plan are:

Replace all fossil fuel electricity with solar, wind, and other renewables. This would include mostly offshore wind and some onshore, together supplying about half the state’s energy needs. Standard solar arrays and concentrated solar power systems, plus wide deployment of residential rooftop solar (a goal already getting a boost from third-party leasing, among other things) as well as commercial and governmental rooftop solar, would deliver another 38 percent of the state’s energy. A mix of hydroelectric, wave, tidal, and geothermal would fill in the rest. The offshore wind would arguably be the most dramatic project, requiring an area of ocean surface equivalent to about 4.6 percent of New York State’s land area.

Replace all combustion-driven transportation with electricity and hydrogen. Standard passenger cars would go electric, while most larger road vehicles, non-road machines, ships, and trains would be driven by hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen combustion. Electricity and ground sources would provide heating and air conditioning, and electricity and hydrogen combustion would power industrial processes.

Efficiency retrofits to reduce energy demand. Residential, commercial, institutional, and government buildings would be updated with improved insulation, lighting, and heat and filtration systems. Solar power would be more broadly used for lighting, water heating, and passive seasonal heating and cooling. Future infrastructure would be framed towards encouraging public transit use and telecommuting.

Delucchi went into more detail with NY Times blogger Andrew Revkin on how the study’s authors think these goals could be hit in practical terms.

The plan also involves deploying a smart grid to manage these various energy sources, as well as integrating weather forecasting into operations. The researchers chose not to include natural gas since it remains an emitter of carbon dioxide and methane, and because the extraction of natural gas remains highly carbon-intensive. More interestingly, they decided not to include biofuels either, due to their inefficiency in comparison to electricity for transportation, the high land-use required to grow either corn or cellulosic feedstocks in comparison to land-use of wind, and because the agricultural production of biofuel crops offsets a lot of the carbon reduction and creates other pollution.

According to Stacy Clark at HuffPost, Jacobson estimated the total cost for the project at $600 billion — no small ask. However, Jacobson and his co-authors also estimate the project would create 4.5 million jobs during construction, and maintain 58,000 permanent jobs thereafter. Using rough metric’s economists have developed for estimating the financial value of a human life, as well as the costs to New York State from deaths due to pollution-induced illnesses, they also estimate the project would pay for itself in 17 years.

Let’s get started.

By Adam James, via the Center for American Progress

America in the 21st century will look radically different than it did in the 20th century. There are two interesting trends worth noting that will account for at least part of this difference. First, women are now a majority in the workforce, although progress is uneven, with fewer women in leadership positions. Second, the clean energy economy has begun to take off, currently accounting for 2.7 million U.S. jobs — or 2 percent of all employment — and growing.

At the intersection of these two trends is a real urgency to ensure that gender equity is at the forefront as our nation transforms to become more low-carbon, resilient, and sustainable. Placing gender equity as a priority in the clean economy could help rapidly transition our overall workforce, as the clean economy continues to grow at a rapid pace, taking up a larger and larger portion of total jobs within a variety of sectors.

Embedding gender equity into the booming clean energy market does not necessarily require new policy solutions. The fact is that we already know how to create strong, progressive workforce standards and how to put safeguards in place that prevent discrimination in all its forms. But as we think about the gender gap that exists more generally throughout the economy, it is incredibly important that we continue to consider its impact on the sectors within the clean economy.

This way of thinking has two components. First, we need to make sure that the clean economy does not replicate or reinforce gender inequality. Second, the transition to a clean economy will be faster, stronger, and more sustainable if women are participating equally. As these sectors continue their rapid growth, the incorporation of best practices and standards will ensure that the future is much more equitable, sustainable, and vibrant than the economy of yesterday. The clean economy should be considered an opportunity to model the principles of gender parity that we seek to demonstrate in economic development more broadly.

Below, we examine the gender gap in employment before looking at the sectors that are most commonly employing clean economy workers to give some sense of why it is important to apply best practices and undo some of the damage inflicted by the chronic under-representation of women.

Looking At The Gender Gap And Implications For The Clean Economy

Hard data on the participation rate of women in the clean energy economy is hard to come by. The best studies on calculating jobs in the clean energy economy — or “green goods and services” — do not disaggregate male and female employment. But as the global Clean Energy Ministerial noted when launching its initiative to involve women more in clean energy:

Read more

By Bill Becker

As debate heats up again over the Keystone XL pipeline, each side will drop cluster bombs of data on why President Obama should or should not allow the project to proceed. The conventional arguments can be summarized in two words: jobs and carbon.

There are much bigger issues to consider, however. They include Obama’s credibility in the fight against climate disruption, the United States’ credibility in international climate negotiations, and whether the President’s “all of the above” energy policy will destroy any chance we have to prevent catastrophic changes in the world’s climate.

Before considering those issues, let’s touch on jobs and carbon.

Jobs: Proponents claim the project will create 20,000 direct construction and manufacturing jobs in the United States, plus 100,000 indirect and “induced” jobs. In its latest environmental impact analysis, the State Department puts the number at 5,000 to 6,000 direct jobs during the two years it takes to build the pipeline.

The Global Labor Institute at Cornell University estimates Keystone will create no more than 2,500 to 4,650 jobs, depending on where TransCanada buys its materials, but only a fraction of the jobs will go to local workers and only for the two years while the pipeline is being constructed. Estimates of permanent jobs created by the pipeline range from 20 to a few hundred.

Carbon: The State Department says that once the pipeline is operating, it will result in annual carbon emissions equivalent to 626,000 passenger vehicles and 398,000 homes operating for one year.

On the other hand, an analysis last year by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded that the pipeline project would produce greenhouse gas emissions (a different unit of measure) equivalent to as many as 4 million passenger vehicles and 1.8 million homes.

Proponents say that tar sands oil will allow the United States to reduce the petroleum it’s importing from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. But there is a carbon consequence. Citing data from the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, CRS concluded that oil sands crude will drive up the carbon emissions of oil production by 102 percent compared to Middle Eastern oil and 92 percent compared to Venezuelan crudes. The life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands oil will be 19 percent higher than Middle Eastern oil and 18 percent higher than conventional crude oil from Venezuela, according to CRS.

Read more

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa intends to sign two agreements that will get the city off of coal-generated electricity entirely by 2025, according to reports flagged on Monday by the Sierra Club. Currently, the the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) relies on two coal-fired power plants — Intermountain Power Plant in Delta, Utah and the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona — for about 39 percent of its power.

Villaraigosa made the announcement last week at a green cities event sponsored by UCLA’s Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, just days after the “Forward On Climate” rallies brought tens of thousands of people out across the country to protest both the Keystone XL pipeline and the general lack of policy momentum to fight climate change — including 2,000 protestors in front of Los Angeles City Hall.

“We’ll be out of Navajo, 2015. Intermountain looks like 2025,” Villaraigosa said. “It will be a big deal.”

About 39 percent of L.A.’s power comes from the two out-of-state coal plants now. The Navajo Generating Station in Arizona represents around a third of LA’s coal-fired power; the Intermountain Power Plant in Utah produces about two-thirds of that power, which along with natural gas remains cheaper than less-polluting renewable energy like geothermal, solar and wind power.

During his second inaugural address in 2009, Villaraigosa announced plans for L.A. to eliminate coal from its energy portfolio by the year 2020. Subsequent shakeups at the top of the Department of Water and Power, a bruising political battle over a “carbon tax” and related energy rate increases slowed progress toward that goal.

Villaraigosa’s timeline for the Navajo plant matches up with recommendations put forward by the LADWP in its 2012 Integrated Resources Plan.

Getting a city of 4 million people off of coal-generated electricity, especially when it accounts for almost 40 percent of their total energy supply, was always going to be a heavy lift. So it’s no surprise the original 2020 goal fell short. A late 2011 report from the LADWP recommended scaling back that target, and Villaraigosa eventually agreed to pursue 33 percent renewables by 2020.

At the same time, Los Angeles actually hit another one of its recent environmental goals: getting 20 percent of its power from renewable sources in 2010. That same LADWP report warned that success could be temporary, with renewables falling back to 13 percent of L.A.’s portfolio in 2015 if further investments weren’t made. Hopefully, the $2.5 billion California voters decided to set aside in the 2012 elections for energy efficiency projects will help bring the complementary goal of more energy from renewables closer to realization.