California’s clean energy leadership depends on smart planning

Capitol Weekly welcomes Opinions on California public policy or politics. Please read our guidelines for opinion pieces before submitting an Op-Ed. Submissions that do not adhere to our guidelines will not be considered for publication. 

OPINION – California has demonstrated that ambitious climate policy and economic growth can move in lockstep as we have reduced carbon emissions and built one of the largest clean energy economies in the world. This directly resulted in the creation of thousands of jobs within California and supported innovation that other states now imitate.

That success has not been accidental. It has been the product of deliberate policy choices: building renewable energy at scale, investing in transmission, and ensuring that the benefits of the clean energy transition accrue to California workers and ratepayers.

Today, this is at risk. We must adjust our model to ensure we support California’s forward progress.

The draft Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) proposes meeting a significant share of California’s future energy needs by relying on over 15.5 gigawatts (GW) of new solar generation in Arizona and Nevada rather than prioritizing development in California. From a system planning and economic perspective, this approach is deeply flawed.

First, it shifts the economic benefits of clean energy investments out of state. California ratepayers would finance generation that creates jobs elsewhere, undermining the workforce pipeline that has supported our clean energy buildout for more than a decade. Stable, skilled careers, particularly those created through apprenticeship programs, are not a side benefit of clean energy policy – they are a cornerstone of its economic durability.

Second, the draft IRP undercuts one of California’s most promising recent policy achievements: the Pathways Initiative. Pathways is designed to reduce renewable curtailment and unlock new markets for excess low-cost solar generation. To accomplish this, Pathways depends on expanding transmission from Southern California to Northern California and the Pacific Northwest. Planning future solar development outside California weakens the very rationale for those transmission investments, leaving curtailment unresolved and economic benefits unrealized.

The consequences for ratepayers are not theoretical. Northern California ratepayers pay roughly $1 billion more each year than Southern California ratepayers because of transmission constraints in the Central Valley. Planning new generation in Arizona and Nevada would only worsen those constraints, especially if the CPUC prioritizes out-of-state procurement over lower-cost, in-state resources that meet the same reliability needs.

Third, the model used by CPUC staff assumes availability of out-of-state generation that may not materialize. Arizona and Nevada face rapid load growth driven by data centers, population increases, and intensifying cooling demand due to climate change. Planning California’s reliability around surplus generation in those states ignores the reality that new resources are needed locally, particularly during extreme heat events when regional demand peaks simultaneously.

And lastly, distance matters. PG&E is experiencing unprecedented load growth from data centers concentrated in the Bay Area. Meeting this demand with generation located hundreds of miles away, across state lines, and subject to competing claims will add complexity, cost, and risk to an already strained system. Sound grid planning should prioritize proximity to load, not theoretical availability.

While the draft IRP looks out of state, California already has a ready solution in the Central Valley. The Valley Clean Infrastructure Plan (VCIP) within the Westlands Water District would enable up to 20 GW of in-state solar and storage in the Fresno area while addressing critical transmission bottlenecks. This approach delivers far greater benefits for California while keeping renewable investment in-state and producing a stronger, multi-benefit outcome for jobs, rates, and reliability.

The project leverages willing landowners and fallowed agricultural land with low habitat value – precisely the type of land environmental experts have long identified as appropriate for utility-scale renewables. It has also completed its final Program Environmental Impact Report, allowing for faster and more cost-effective deployment.

The CPUC staff has done important technical work in developing the draft IRP. But the next phase, translating modeling outputs into actionable policy, requires the CPUC to use judgment and leadership to achieve the best outcome for all Californians. The location of generation and transmission is not a purely technical decision; it is a strategic one with critical implications for jobs, rates, and reliability.

California has long been a global leader in clean energy, and maintaining that leadership requires clear, deliberate choices. Prioritizing in-state clean energy development keeps skilled workers on the job, ensures tax revenues stay in California, and relieves transmission congestion that continues to penalize Northern Californians with higher energy bills. This is not just better planning – it is the path that keeps California moving forward.

Bob Dean represents the Coalition of California Utility Employees.