Climate-change groups are calling attention to the environmental destruction linked to the wood pellet industry - even as California is considering a proposal to build two plants. The U.S. is the biggest wood pellet exporter in the world - mostly to Europe.

Laura Haight, U.S. policy director for the Partnership for Policy Integrity, wants the European Union and the U.K. to change their policies.

"In Europe, they treat burning wood as renewable energy and heavily subsidize it. And they're importing massive quantities of wood pellets to fuel their power plants," she said. "And a lot of that is coming from the United States. That's where a lot of our forest destruction is happening. "

More than 100 groups recently wrote
to European Union leaders asking them to prohibit subsidies for wood that comes from living trees. Wood pellet companies claim they only use waste wood from logging or dead wood in the forest that fuels wildfire. But investigations have produced proof that companies have clear-cut forests in the southeastern U.S.

Haight added that burning wood for energy is terrible for the climate.

"There's a large release of carbon dioxide emissions into the air when you burn it. And at the same time, you're removing the tree that is helping us lock in our carbon and so you're both increasing emissions and reducing our capacity to store carbon," she said.

Two wood pellet plants -- the first of their kind in California -- are proposed for Lassen and Tuolumne counties. The plants would be built by Golden State Natural Resources, a public benefit corporation whose board members are local county officials.

Elly Pepper, deputy director of international wildlife conservation for the Natural Resources Defense Council, opposes the projects.

"It would be bad for the air, bad for the wildlife and lands, bad for the communities. And it would be basically California assenting to bioenergy as a renewable energy source when it's most definitely not," Pepper said.

The company did not respond to a request for comment but says on its website that the plants would quote "procure and process sustainably sourced excess forest vegetation into a pelletized renewable fuel source to replace the use of coal."

The feasibility of putting solar panels over the state's network of canals is the topic of a big new research project, co-led by the University of Southern California.

The California Solar Canal Initiative builds on a study from the University of California-Merced, which found solar arrays over the canals could generate clean energy, conserve water, reduce air pollution and save land.

Monica Dean, director of climate and sustainability practice at the University of Southern California-Dornsife, said the research will answer practical questions.

"How would we do it? Which canals make the most sense? How much energy could they actually produce? What would the economic implications of doing this be?" Dean outlined. "We're taking a hypothetical scenario and making it real."

The research phase will last about two years and is expected to provide a roadmap for policymakers, utilities and communities. The original Merced study estimated covering the Golden State's canals with solar panels could generate enough electricity to power about 2 million homes each year.

Covered canals also prevent evaporation and could save enough water to meet the residential needs of up to 2 million people per year and they could lower maintenance costs, since fewer weeds grow in shade.

Dean estimated the arrays could save about 50,000 acres of land.

"Rather than needing to put a solar panel on land that could be used for housing or farming or some other purpose, now you're just repurposing existing infrastructure and making it work a little bit harder," Dean emphasized.

The initiative is cosponsored by the independent advisory firm Solar AquaGrid. It will also include faculty from the University of California-Berkeley, the University of California-Irvine, the University of California-Merced and the University of California College of the Law-San Francisco, plus San Jose State University and the University of Kansas.

Insurance rates are rising quickly in California because of fires and floods linked to climate change and now, two new bills in Sacramento seek to make oil and gas companies pay.

The Affordable Insurance and Climate Recovery Act would create legal pathways for homeowners, insurance companies and the state insurance plan to sue and recover losses from oil and gas companies.

Melissa Romero, policy advocacy director for the nonprofit California Environmental Voters, said the companies misled lawmakers and the public.

"The one group that hasn't paid their fair share in all of this is oil and gas companies," Romero contended. "They knew since the '70s and the '80s that their products were creating runaway climate change. They hid the science, they did nothing about it, and they continued to push an agenda that stymied a lot of efforts to switch over to clean energy."

The Western States Petroleum Association called the bills a way for politicians to capitalize on tragedy. The California Independent Petroleum Association said the real culprits for the fires are arsonists, environmental lawsuits that prevent forest management, and cuts to firefighting budgets.

Romero also supports the Polluters Pay Superfund bill, which would charge fossil fuel companies according to their role in climate change and invest in climate-resilient communities.

"It requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to do a report about the actual costs, both looking backwards and forwards, that climate change has caused to California in terms of our infrastructure, disaster response and things like that," Romero outlined.

Proponents of the bills complained insurance ratepayers and taxpayers are hard hit by climate disasters. The state's FAIR Plan, the insurer of last resort, has assessed insurers and ratepayers $1 billion for Los Angeles wildfire claims so far. Meanwhile, State Farm is likely to get regulators' permission to raise homeowners' insurance rates by 22% after a hearing on April 8.

In the face of the severe effects of climate change across the country, new research offers a framework for how to measure Washington's climate resilience.

The research supports Washington's Climate Resilience Strategy, which was published last year.

Carlie Stowe, climate resilience specialist for the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington and the paper's lead author, said building resilience is critical in order to minimize effects from droughts, fires and other extreme weather events.

"As the government is investing in resilience, we want to make sure that we're spending that money wisely," Stowe urged. "And that the programs and activities we're investing in are resulting in increased resilience."

Stowe pointed out the research compares Washington's and South Carolina's approaches to climate preparedness to serve as a guide for other states. She added the research is one way to demonstrate Washington's leadership in this area, as taking such measurements is a new practice at the state level.

Stowe noted measuring climate resilience means incorporating data from dozens of sources, across communities, infrastructure, land and governance. It includes air quality levels, damage to infrastructure, and evacuations in extreme events like floods or wildfires.

She emphasized it was helpful to partner with South Carolina on this research, even though each state ended up with a different measurement framework.

"There's a lot more that we can learn together," Stowe stressed. "Continuing partnerships like this is really important for further building resilience across our country."

Stowe added the Washington State Department of Ecology will be implementing the plans and the public will start seeing initial results of the measurements in September.