A new report from the think tank Energy Innovation showed if the Inflation Reduction Act is repealed, Californians would pay $60 more a year for household energy bills by 2030 and $180 more by 2035.

The Trump administration has already paused funding for IRA projects and called for a repeal of its climate provisions.

Robbie Orvis, senior director for modeling and analysis at Energy Innovation, said the clean energy tax breaks and grants have spurred $600 billion in new private investment and created more than 400,000 jobs nationally since 2022.

"The IRA creates an incentive for developers to build even more clean electricity," Orvis contended. "And when those clean electricity plants come online, they help to lower the cost of electricity and bring down rates for the average American household."

President Donald Trump said his goal is to lower fuel costs and create jobs by boosting oil and gas production, and has repeatedly called climate change a hoax. The study found if Congress repeals or weakens the IRA, California would be particularly vulnerable, and predicted by 2030, the state gross domestic product would take an almost $30 billion hit compared to maintaining current policies.

Ric O'Connell, executive director of the nonprofit Grid Lab, said a repeal would be a lose-lose proposition.

"It's going to raise costs. It's going to make it harder for states that have clean-energy goals to meet those clean-energy goals, and it's going to reduce jobs," O'Connell outlined. "We're going to have dirtier air and we're going to have worse effects of climate change."

The analysis estimated reducing new clean-energy projects would increase air pollution in California by nearly 5 million metric tons by 2023, the equivalent of the annual emissions from a coal-fired power plant.

The Pacific Northwest Water Year Impacts Assessment, an important resource for managing drought and other climate extremes, was published today. The assessment tracks impacts of weather conditions on different sectors across Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The 2024 water year, which starts and ends in the fall, was Washington's fourth warmest in more than 100 years. Higher temperatures and low snowpack contributed to drought in much of the state, according to the new data.

Karin Bumbaco, climatologist and lead author of the assessment, says the research is helpful to understand cumulative impacts of drought on the region.

"Even though our snowpack is doing better now compared with last year, that really has to be seen through the lens of deficits from the previous year and even before," she explained.

Bumbaco added that in the last decade, droughts have been more frequent than usual in Washington. The assessment focuses on impacts of either too much or too little water on seven sectors, including agriculture, drinking water, fisheries and forestry.

Bumbaco said the agricultural sector in Washington reported the highest number of impacts from dry conditions last year.

"That can range from limited water availability, reduced crop yields. There was also quite a few reports about negative consequences for livestock and grazing," she continued.

Bumbaco said heat, fire and smoke forced recreation areas to close, and the drought brought increased insect activity and tree mortality. This is the fifth Water Year Assessment, and Bumbaco added that along with the challenges she has noticed more people working to mitigate impacts of a changing climate.

"There seems to be more climate resilience being built across our region. And people are taking actions to kind of avoid the worst impacts from either really wet conditions or really dry conditions," she said.

For example, she said farmers are changing crops, as well as the timing of irrigation, and monitoring water use and availability more closely. While some areas of the state saw reduced stream flow, increasing salmon mortality, the assessment was not all bad news. Bumbaco said a well-timed August rain supported a record salmon run in North Central Washington.





get more stories like this via email

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.