Opinion

SB 100: the clean energy plan that keeps California hooked on gas

Choices between clean renewable energy and oil production. Image by a-poselenov

OPINION – California’s clean energy future is at risk. Despite ambitious goals and a trillion-dollar investment plan, the state is still on track to burn natural gas for decades to come unless we change course.

SB 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act, mandates that all retail electricity come from renewable or zero-carbon sources by 2045. However, new research exposes a critical flaw: even with massive investments in solar, wind, and batteries, there will be significant energy gaps that can’t be fully addressed by batteries alone.

Batteries, while essential for short-term energy storage and grid stabilization, are limited by their charge-discharge cycles, typically offering only four to six hours of support. During cloudy, windless days—often stretching for days or even weeks—batteries will need to be recharged by natural gas plants to meet demand. Modeling by Dr. Leonard Rodberg for the Anthropocene Institute shows that even with extensive battery deployment, natural gas would still need to fill over 80 percent of the shortfall during these periods, leaving California burning nearly as much gas in 2045 as it does today.

The solution lies in integrating a large, firm, dispatchable emission-free resource (DEFR) into California’s energy mix. Nuclear energy is uniquely suited to this role, providing reliable, continuous power at the scale required to decarbonize the grid. Unlike the combination of renewables, storage, and gas backup—which increases complexity and drives up costs—nuclear offers a stable, carbon-free baseload, available day and night. Nuclear works best alongside renewables and storage to phase out natural gas, optimizing grid flexibility and ensuring a truly clean energy system for California.

To achieve the vision of SB 100, California must lift its decades-old moratorium on new nuclear plants. Research shows that advanced nuclear can meet the state’s energy needs at no greater cost than its current plan, while eliminating reliance on fossil fuels.

California has long been a climate leader, but now we face a critical choice: continue investing billions in a system that keeps us hooked on natural gas, or embrace nuclear energy to fully decarbonize the grid. The time to act is now—our energy future depends on it. Download the full report here.

Ryan Pickering is an energy policy researcher and solar industry veteran based in Berkeley, California, focused on balancing nuclear and renewable energy to achieve a sustainable future.

Want to see more stories like this? Sign up for The Roundup, the free daily newsletter about California politics from the editors of Capitol Weekly. Stay up to date on the news you need to know.

Sign up below, then look for a confirmation email in your inbox.

 

3 responses to “SB 100: the clean energy plan that keeps California hooked on gas”

  1. Stephen Williams says:

    Wow. This is the most succinct and accessible explanation I’ve read as to why nuclear power needs to be part of California’s clean energy mix. Thanks for this information!

  2. Tyson Culver says:

    As someone that was an all-renewable fanboy a few years back, it’s stories and studies like this one that caused me to change course. Thanks for shining a light on how best to both save the climate and secure our energy future.

  3. Thanks for this succinct analysis Ryan. For stability, California’s power grid requires abundant synchronous grid inertia. Here’s an introduction which highlights the importance of keeping Diablo Canyon running. https://greennuke.substack.com/p/why-is-grid-inertia-important. The alternative is to import even more heavily-polluting electric power from Wyoming coal-fired power plants. https://TINYURL.COM/DCPP-VERSUS-COAL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Support for Capitol Weekly is Provided by: