The $6 Billion Cost of Meeting Net Zero Emissions by 2050

In this episode, Jessica Wilkinson and Nels Johnson of The Nature Conservancy discuss the pathway they see for a rapid, low-cost clean energy transition that minimizes impact on environmentally sensitive land.

(PDF transcript)

(Active transcript)

Text transcript:

David Roberts

A great deal of confused and misleading information is circulating about the land-use requirements of the energy transition. Everyone agrees that building the amount of clean energy necessary to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 will require an enormous amount of land.

But is there enough land? Will the transition require industrializing green fields and virgin forests and other environmentally or culturally sensitive lands? Can the energy transition be done big enough and fast enough while still remaining respectful of natural resources and other species? What mix of technologies will go most lightly on the environment?

To provide a definitive answer to these questions, The Nature Conservancy launched its Power of Place project — first in California, then for the greater American West, and now, this week, for the entire nation.

Using various metrics related to wildlife, ecosystems, cultural resources, and protected natural areas, the Power of Place project attempts to comprehensively map out sensitive land areas. It then tallies up the amount of clean energy required to reach net zero by 2050 and tries to match those needs to the available lands, to see if there is a pathway to net zero that protects them.

The good news is that, with some wise planning, the amount of environmentally sensitive land impacted by a business-as-usual clean-energy transition can be substantially reduced at relatively low cost.

To discuss this and other findings of the report, I contacted Jessica Wilkinson (Power of Place project manager) and Nels Johnson (the project’s science and technology lead) of The Nature Conservancy. We discussed the technology shifts that will enable a lighter footprint, the policies that could help encourage them, and the best ways to avoid community resistance.

Alright, then. Jessica Wilkinson and Nells Johnson. Welcome to Volts. Thank you so much for coming.

Jessica Wilkinson

Thank you for having us.

Nels Johnson

Yeah, thanks for having us, David.

David Roberts

Jessica, let's start with you. The subject of land-use and renewable energy, there's a lot of weird information and misinformation floating around about this, a lot of weird myths, a lot of sort of people with strong opinions who don't know what they're talking about. So what inspired this series of reports, the Power of Place reports? What inspired you to start undertaking this project?

Jessica Wilkinson

Yeah, this is precisely one of the reasons that we were inspired to do this project under sighting, as usual. Like the way that we're proceeding now with a renewable energy build-out, we are seeing an increase in local opposition, and we are seeing concerns about land-use issues. And land-use and environmental issues are indeed kind of one of the obstacles that's popping up in the way of us being able to meet our clean energy goals and meet our clean energy goals rapidly. So we really started this work in California, which was the first time we kind of developed this Power of Place methodology and that refurbished report came out in 2019.

We refined it and then released Power of Place West in 2022. And this is kind of the next iteration where we further refined it. And each time we've kind of added new kind of levels of detail and asked some slightly different questions. But the land-use issue is exactly one of the reasons we've done this. So really what we're trying to do is question the premise of whether or not we really need to make these huge trade offs between conservation and climate.

David Roberts

I think the conventional wisdom is that if we switch from fossil fuels to renewables there are a lot of advantages. But one of the disadvantages is you need a bunch of land and you're going to end up consuming a bunch of crop land or environmentally sensitive land or land that the locals don't want you on. All this kind of stuff. And so your take is that that stuff is exaggerated. So what is the power of place? What is it meant to convey?

Jessica Wilkinson

Yeah, it's not to say that it's exaggerated, it's real, it's happening. The question is how much of it is avoidable?

David Roberts

Right.

Jessica Wilkinson

So what we are seeking to do is ask that question do we need to make all these huge trade offs for nature and for people on the path to decarbonization? So we've asked in Power of Place, it's a modeling exercise and you can ask the model, okay, go achieve net zero emissions by 2050, economy-wide. And model please kind of exclude these environmental data layers and let's see if that changes, whether we can get there, the pace at which we get to that goal and what the cost differential is.

David Roberts

Right before we jump into what you found, how would you describe the status quo of land-use planning and energy?

Jessica Wilkinson

This is a relatively new land-use, right? I mean, this is not something a lot of communities have seen before. They're leasing it for the first time and they may be seeing it come at them really quickly. And so there is a response. Just like local governments adopt local land-use planning and zoning for industrial uses, for commercial uses, for residential uses, they are adopting ordinances to ensure that the renewable energy is going to places where that community would prefer to have it. So we are seeing a lot of local ordinances go up around the country.

There have been projections from NREL. That report they released recently said that there were 3,000 local governments that adopted ordinances. And I think it's important to keep in mind that just because this is happening, just because these ordinance are being adopted doesn't necessarily mean that they're being adopted to block wind and solar. In every case, some of them are again, just a natural reaction to land-use planning and a desire to direct it to places that the community feels is most appropriate. Certainly, and the NREL study from 2022 showed that some of them are overly restrictive and likely intended to be.

But I think it's important not to assume that just because there is an ordinance, it was intended to block renewables.

David Roberts

To what extent is this response and there is a very widespread backlash happening. To what extent is that a fair critique of the way renewable energy has been planned and cited thus far? And to what extent is it just sort of an inevitable reaction to social change?

Jessica Wilkinson

Right. We have looked at this and we do think that more or less about half of the renewable energy that is being deployed now is in areas that at least the Nature Conservancy might consider to be highly sensitive to wildlife inhabitant.

David Roberts

Yeah, that's a lot.

Nels Johnson

I'll just add one sort of thought here about where are we today in terms of planning for this major infrastructure build-out that's coming our way? So first of all, just the scale of it is really huge. It's something like on the order of the interstate highway system that we built between the, in terms of the land area, in terms of the investment, in terms of the pervasive effects, mostly for good. But if it's not done in the right places, it can cause adverse impacts to natural areas, to local communities. So one way of thinking of this is we plan a lot for transportation, for housing, for commercial and residential development.

And up until now, we really haven't done spatially explicit energy planning. And that's one of the things we're hoping to accomplish with this series of power place studies is encouraging at all levels. Utilities, state energy offices, the federal government, regional transmission organizations, all to get more explicit about where are the best places to put all this infrastructure, and engaging the public at the community level, variety of levels to provide input into that planning.

David Roberts

Well, it does seem like if you sort of measure the amount of backlash that has been produced by the amount of renewable energy so far, and then you multiply that by the amount of renewable energy we're going to try to build over the next decade or two, if you apply that same multiplier to the backlash, that's a very big backlash. Right. I guess part of the point here is that it's less, maybe less about poor planning than just no planning. There's just not a lot of coordinated planning around the renewable energy build-out yet.

Nels Johnson

Yeah, I think that's fair to say that right now there's very little planning that the public has an opportunity to engage in and that needs to change to promote wider acceptance of this build-out. People have to have a voice in what that energy future looks like for them and they need to be reassured that they're going to get benefits out of the development that's taking place and that the energy isn't just being produced in their backyard and sent hundreds of miles away to a different user.

David Roberts

I want to come back to this question of public participation because I have a few troubled thoughts about it. But first, so this report, this is a national report and you created several different scenarios for different kinds of pathways to zero carbon by 2050, which have varying impacts on sensitive lands. And sort of like you did these increments like here's, we can avoid 10% of these damages, 20% of these damages, all the way up to 90%. So one question I had about the scenarios up front was because I feel like this is another sort of mythology that's floating around is in any of these scenarios, did you run into an absolute shortage of good land?

In other words, did you at any point encounter like there's just not enough suitable places to build enough renewable energy to do what we're talking about doing? Did that come up at all?

Jessica Wilkinson

Yeah, I mean, you'll see that kind of our big take home message that we really lead with is that we can get to net zero emissions by 2050 while avoiding impacts to most natural and working lands. Not all, but most. And we recognize that there still are going to be trade offs. However, what this study did show is that we can reduce those trade offs significantly with some better planning. So there won't be none, there won't be zero trade offs. We think we can reduce those trade offs significantly and but by doing that, by reducing environmental and social trade offs, we really can accelerate the renewable energy build-out and avoid some of that conflict, which some of which is unnecessary.

Nels Johnson

We've found that there is enough land for all of those scenarios to get built. What's important to recognize is that wind is probably the most land intensive of these technologies. And so as you reduce impacts, you do start to constrain wind a little bit more. But even so, there's more than enough land for wind to be accommodated. So for example, in the Power Place West report, we found that there was three times the amount of land available for low impact wind sighting in the western United States. Even under the most protective approach to natural areas and agricultural lands, we would still have more than enough to accommodate wind.

David Roberts

Right. So whatever land issues we run into, not having enough land is not going to be one of them. Because I think people have in their head some very inflated ideas about because this stuff about land-use has been floating around so long. I think people have very inflated ideas about the amount of land required and just thought we should clear that up front. There's enough land.

Nels Johnson

Yeah. And with solar in particular, we have lots and lots of flexibility for where we put solar.

David Roberts

What the report shows is here's the energy mix for a 10% reduction in land impacts, 20%, 30%, 40%. And as you are moving up that scale and avoiding more and more of these impacts. What you see is that wind declines and solar grows. So insofar as you are taking land-use impacts into account, you are shifting somewhat from wind to solar, at least relative to sort of baseline projections. I just want to know why that is, because it's a little bit counterintuitive to me, because my impression is, and I think a lot of people's impression is that solar takes the most land, is the most sort of like sprawling per kilowatt.

So why is it that when you restrict land-use to more appropriate swathes of land, why do you shift from wind to solar? Just maybe explain that a little bit more.

Nels Johnson

Well, so the main reason, David, is that solar project actually are much more efficient in the use of land compared to wind. So, for example, a wind project that's 100 megawatts needs about 9,200 acres to accommodate those turbines. Those turbines have to be separated by a certain distance so they don't interfere with each other. And so you need a project area, about 9,200 acres. A solar project the same size 100 megawatts nameplate capacity needs about 430 acres. So it's significantly smaller. Now, within that wind project area, of course, not all the area is being impacted. In fact, only about 3% of it is.

You have the turbines and you have the road, and you have a power line that's connecting it all to the main grid, and those areas in between are available for agriculture. Right? So wind is really compatible with agriculture, but when it comes to species, when it comes to habitats, that's not always true. So when, for example, you clear a turbine pad, if it's in a forest, for example, you create what's called an edge effect, and that extends about 400 feet into the forest. And so that area is no longer good habitat for a variety of species, and it changes the kinds of plants that will grow there and other things.

David Roberts

But even so, if you're only impacting 3% of that 9,200 acres, I mean, even if you have little islands of impact around the turbines, it still seems like a relatively small area that you're impacting them.

Nels Johnson

Yeah, of course, it depends on the species. So when you take prairie chickens, lesser prairie chickens and greater prairie chickens, they're both very sensitive to tall structures in grassland environments because tall structures are associated with places that hawks and eagles can see. And so they have an aversion to being in areas near large tall objects, including wind turbines. So that area is larger than the separation distance from those turbines. I see. That's kind of the indirect or displacement effect we see for certain species. So bottom line is, wind is very compatible with agriculture. It's less compatible with some species, particularly birds and bats.

David Roberts

Speaking of compatibility with agriculture, let's talk a little bit about ... Jessica, one of the things the report does is focus on a couple of strategies, I guess, to build out renewable energy in such a way as to impact lesser use. One of those is colocation. One of those is agrovoltaics. Can you maybe just tell us real quick what those two are and why the report sort of singled those out?

Jessica Wilkinson

Yeah. So this Power Place National really, again, was an evolution from some previous work where we were trying to ask some novel questions. And this issue in particular land saving approaches, really is a novel approach to decarbonization scenario planning. And what we wanted to do is in addition to considering how the mix of technologies changes the footprint, we wanted to consider how land saving approaches and there's a lot of different land saving approaches out there. One could argue nuclear is a land saving approach, but we wanted to consider how some land saving approaches could again affect the overall footprint and therefore kind of maybe by reducing that footprint, reduce some conflict.

And the three kinds of land saving approaches that we're able to really kind of dig into because the data were there were agrovoltaics colocation of wind and solar and then fix tilt solar. So those are the three that we really kind of dove into deeply.

David Roberts

And was that because you thought that those were the three most potent or just three common ones? Or why those three?

Jessica Wilkinson

There was robust data that was robust enough for us to consider this. This is the first time folks have taken a stab at this. So it's pretty novel approach. And for the colocation of wind and solar there, we're looking at wind and solar on the same project area. And when we looked at this approach, it was really promising for agrovoltaics. It's again an apportment and promising strategy for producing food and generating solar energy on the same land. Not all crops are compatible.

David Roberts

Just so listeners know what we're talking about, agrivoltaics is just putting solar panels on agricultural land, on the same land where food is being grown.

Jessica Wilkinson

Exactly. And it's very popular conceptually. It's not like, at the moment, super scalable. But we wanted to ask how much more agrivoltaics could we do as a way to again get some of these co-benefits? And what we did find was that by using agrivoltaics we could grow the amount of agrovoltaics we currently are projected to have from 216 square miles to about 600 square miles. So that's a significant increase.

David Roberts

It's a significant increase. But is it a significant impact in the context of the overall land-use picture? Like, is this a big player in the final mix, do you think?

Nels Johnson

It's not currently a big player. And we don't project it to be under the assumptions we used. We do think it has the potential to grow with technological innovations and more incentives and more experience. So, for example, agrivoltaics that we looked at primarily are focused on fruit and vegetable crops there is some evidence that potatoes, wheat, cattle can benefit from agrivoltaics too, but there's just not enough data for us to be able to model the effects of agrivoltaics in those settings. But hopefully over the next few years we'll start to see more experience and that may expand the role that agrivoltaics can play in the future.

David Roberts

Why agrovoltaics and not aggri-wind, wind-agra, whatever the wind equivalent is? It seems like I mean, intuitively there's so much space between wind turbines, it seems almost more sensible to try to do agriculture amidst the wind. Is that not a thing?

Nels Johnson

It is a thing. And in fact, a fair amount of the wind that's being deployed now is in agricultural landscapes. And that's what we show as well. The area that we show being directly impacted in agriculture, that's cropland, that's a subset of the most productive, at least from a human food point of view, areas croplands, about 2% of them we project could be directly impacted by 2050. But that indirect impact or the area of agriculture that's in wind projects is going to be significantly larger than that. But that land benefits potentially from those wind turbines because the farmer or the rancher is getting an income stream not just from the agriculture they're doing between the wind turbines, but also the revenue they get for leasing land for that energy production.

David Roberts

People understand the land saving benefits of agrivoltaics are very sort of intuitively obvious. Similarly with colocation, like if you put the wind and solar in the same place, then you don't need two places. It seems straightforward enough. But what's the deal with this fixed tilt solar? Explain that a little bit. The land saving benefits, what's involved there?

Nels Johnson

The main land saving benefit from fixed versus tracking is that the fixed panels are able to be packed together in tighter rows than the tracking. The tracking needs more space between the rows of PV panels in order to do that tracking. So that makes those tracking panels have a higher capacity to convert sunlight into energy. You can actually squeeze more energy capacity into the same amount of land using fixed PV. So at least in areas where there's not that much difference in the capacity advantage for tracking over fixed, fixed can be one of your land saving approaches because it uses somewhat less land than the ...

David Roberts

Oh, interesting, that is not at all what I would have predicted. I would have predicted that tracking because it has higher capacity, because it produces more power, you just need less of it and thus would cover less land. But that turns out to be wrong.

Nels Johnson

Well, except as you go further south, then the advantage for the tracking really starts to pay off, including and exceeds what you can gain by packing more fixed into the same amount of area. Because that tracking differential, once you're further south in the southwest, places like Nevada or places like Georgia and Florida, there you're always going to have tracking is going to be the technology of choice. Fix probably doesn't make sense in those kinds of settings.

David Roberts

Interesting. Okay, so the report takes sort of a close look at these three land saving, let's say, technologies fixed versus tracking, agrivoltaics and colocation. But those are mostly just novel inquiries to figure them out. The bulk of the land saving that's done in these scenarios is by shifting the technology balance. Is that fair? Like that's the primary instrument in what is or is not saving some land.

Nels Johnson

So there are three steps that we kind of recommend. So one is use environmental and social data no matter what technologies you're using. Then look at those technologies you have available and figure out which combination makes sense for your region, for your landscape to achieve your climate goals, as well as your conservation and local community goals. And that may involve substituting solar for wind and maybe adding storage to the solar so you can better make up for the gap that the wind might leave behind.

And then the last is within those technologies that you have, say, solar. What are your options for saving land, for example, agrivoltaics. One thing I want to say about land saving approaches are two things that we didn't model as variables, but we assumed fairly high levels of implementation and that is efficiency and distributed or rooftop solar. So we made some pretty aggressive assumptions about how much rooftop solar will be built by 2050. We assume that about 35% of available rooftops would have solar 30 years from now, which is at the high end of projections that are out there. And so it's a decent chunk of the solar contribution, but it doesn't get us all the way to where we need to go.

It gets us something like about 10% of how far we need to go.

David Roberts

But a big piece of land saving via solar is by moving the solar onto rooftops.

Nels Johnson

It is an important piece and we should certainly support efforts that make economic sense to get solar on rooftops because it means there's somewhat less that has to go out in the landscape somewhere else.

Jessica Wilkinson

But I would say if you look at the main kind of figure that shows how total land-use impacts shift based on the different impact reduction scenarios we looked at and how the mix of technologies changes, I guess one way to look at it is we didn't challenge the model super hard on pushing the envelope on rooftop. We asked the model to kind of push the envelope as much as possible in considering how shifting technologies makes a difference, how agrovoltaics and colocation and switching from tracking to fixed makes a difference. There's a lot of opportunity, I think really to push the envelope more and challenge some of those assumptions about rooftop solar and policy policies that we can get in place really to kind of nudge us up as much as we possibly can because ultimately that and energy efficiency are some of the best land saving approaches.

David Roberts

Right. And energy efficiency, I guess, is obvious enough that don't have to spell it out too much, but just the less energy you use, the less you have to build, so the less land you use. Yeah, I meant to ask about efficiency in rooftop solar because I noticed that they were not highlighted, but those are the main things I generally hear from people when they talk about how to save lands. Another question, Jessica. You mentioned earlier that you could view nuclear power as a land saving technology. This is something you hear very frequently from nuclear fans, that it uses tons less land than wind and solar for the same amount of power.

So I was a little surprised. I mean, I guess I would have expected that as you move toward reducing these impacts, you're going to get lots and lots more nuclear out of the model. But that didn't happen. It was a big shift from wind to solar, but there wasn't really a huge shift in anything else. I guess sort of bioenergy kind of declines sharply once you get up to avoiding a bunch of impacts. But the main technology shift was from wind to solar. So what explains that? Why not more nuclear if you're trying to save land?

Jessica Wilkinson

I think it really comes down to cost.

David Roberts

Nuclear's old Achilles heel.

Jessica Wilkinson

Yeah. And as part of this study, the modeling, we work very closely with Evolved Energy and Montara Mountain Energy and Grace Wu at UC Santa Barbara. And Evolved has the kind of energy capacity modeling expertise. And so what we're telling the model to do here is try and avoid natural and working lands as much as you can model and consider cost. And so as we're seeing cost play out in how the mix of technologies changes and it would select nuclear if it were competitive from a cost point of view to more wind and more solar.

David Roberts

So then a follow up question about that. Then you say rooftop solar can save X amount, but advances in technology or policy, we could and should push that higher in the name of saving land. Do you take that same basic approach with nuclear? Like, would you support reforms? Do you support reforms that make nuclear either technologically, these smaller, allegedly cheaper nuclear plants that are allegedly coming sometime soon, or just regulatory reform? Do you support pushing the envelope on nuclear as well in the name of land preservation?

Jessica Wilkinson

So the Nature Conservancy, kind of, has focused a lot on the process also being incredibly important, having the local communities have a very important role to play here. And this is one of those technologies that for sure that we need to be particularly sensitive about. But we do acknowledge that current nuclear production is really necessary component of reducing emissions in the short term and even possibly in the long term, provided there are improvements for people and wildlife in the cost, safety and environmental performance of nuclear technology and as well as waste storage and mining practices.

David Roberts

Nels, one thing that jumps out at me as a longtime fan of electrification is that the scenario that performs best in terms of land preservation, sensitive land preservation, is the high electrification scenario. Why is that?

Nels Johnson

Because it gives you more flexibility in how you get to net zero. So you have a range of technologies, some of which are more spatially efficient than others, and so that gives you the option. So nuclear, for example, is one of those very efficient options. And so as we reduce impacts, push really hard to reduce impacts, the model starts to choose some additional nuclear because it is so efficient.

David Roberts

So it does boost a little bit. Nuclear does get a little bit.

Nels Johnson

It about doubles the amount of nuclear that's online by 2050 when we really work hard to reduce impact. So it's not a lot, but it does increase somewhat. Keep in mind that the experience with the small modular nuclear plants isn't in the commercial space yet, so our data is very limited. And so the model just isn't able to really get enough good data to make it a cost effective option. Based on what we know now, that may change in the future. And I'll just say that's true of all technologies. So could be technology breakthroughs in lots of different places.

For example, I was listening to the show with Jamie Beard on geothermal not too long ago, and that's one of those technologies where there really could be a breakthrough that really makes it a much more attractive way of getting to net zero. But currently our data on geothermal is not exactly very promising in terms of cost effectiveness. But there's some really interesting innovations going on right now, really change that picture.

David Roberts

And it is notably light on land geothermal.

Nels Johnson

It is.

David Roberts

That is worth noting.

Nels Johnson

That isn't to say there aren't other issues, but generally it's more spatially efficient. You do have to look at aquifer effects and things like that and there can be things that are important to really avoid or mitigate with geothermal. But yeah, overall breakthroughs in geothermal could lead us to much more land efficient approaches to getting to net zero in 30 years.

David Roberts

Jessica, what are energy communities and what role do they play in this? One of the results is that if you move to this more land sensitive approach, these more land sensitive scenarios, you end up with more jobs in energy communities, which seems like a good thing, but A. what's an energy community? And B. why do you end up with more jobs in them?

Jessica Wilkinson

Yeah, so we didn't necessarily say anything about jobs, but when we were working on the modeling and building the assumptions, we had the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, so big deal. And so we wanted to consider. How that tax credit that is included in the Inflation Reduction Act would affect ... So IRA gives a 10% tax credit for clean energy deployment in energy communities and it has super wonky definition, as you would expect, it includes areas with historic fossil fuel production and processing.

David Roberts

Right. So these are communities that were embedded in the fossil fuel economy and we're worried about them because we're moving away from fossil fuels.

Jessica Wilkinson

Right. And energy communities, the definition also included brownfields. But treasury is still working out kind of the technical definitions for a lot of this.

David Roberts

Right.

Jessica Wilkinson

Which made it hard when we were building this model several months ago. But kind of the mapping that has been done around the fossil fuel production aspects of energy communities is a little bit clearer. So we looked only at those and we were able to model areas again, those areas associated with historic fossil fuel industries, as I mentioned, evolved models, the evolved energy energies, their models takes into account kind of price. And we weren't able to kind of build that 10% tax credit into the energy model just because the rules haven't been set quite yet. Instead, and we might get to this, we use this dynamic scoring approach in this study and we basically put a finger on the scale in favor of these communities.

We gave them a negative social impact score to just see whether or not if we're incentivizing them, we see more of the renewable energy build-out in these communities.

David Roberts

So kind of an attempt to simulate an incentive.

Jessica Wilkinson

Exactly. And what we did find was that when we do that, we do see an additional 10% of the clean energy deployment being directed to these communities. So about 32% of the total 2050 energy portfolio in our scenario is built in these energy communities. And under one of the scenarios we looked at most closely, the 70% impact reduction scenario, 23 million people in those communities — live in those communities that host clean energy projects compared to 21 million people in the setting as usual scenario. So we do see a larger percentage of the portfolio happening in these communities and more people live in those communities.

When we again put our thumb on the scale for those energy communities.

David Roberts

And are there land implications to that or is that just more about social impacts?

Jessica Wilkinson

Sure, there's land implications as well. Yeah, so there's going to be benefits to those communities and there'll be impacts as well.

Nels Johnson

One thing I'll just point out about the energy communities, one of the reasons why the modeling finds them very attractive for energy development is because it's likely they have the infrastructure and the energy capacity models out there looking for places that have certain characteristics. And these energy communities have the kinds of characteristics energy models looking for. So that makes them relatively attractive for new energy development. It's obviously a different kind of energy development, but it can take advantage of some of the same infrastructure. There are likely already existing transmission lines. There's road access, there's a worker force nearby.

So that's partly why we see such a large proportion of the build-out going to these communities.

David Roberts

And the land is sort of already affected.

Nels Johnson

Yeah, from a conservation point of view there's some benefit because these communities often have lands that have been previously developed for earlier forms of energy production.

David Roberts

Right. One other technical question is you're modeling finds as all modeling finds that building out renewable energy to hit the 2050 target is going to require an extraordinarily large amount of transmission infrastructure, new transmission infrastructure. But you find that an approach that is sensitive to these land and social impacts ends up using a lot more transmission, but a lot less more than in the baseline scenario. So why is that? What is it about being sensitive toward land that gets you less need for transmission?

Nels Johnson

The main story there, David, is that as we're reducing impacts to natural areas and to croplands, it's moving away from wind projects, for example, in the Great Plains that are quite distant from population centers where the energy demand is, to solar projects that are typically located closer to population centers and demand centers. So that is a big part of the explanation.

David Roberts

So the shift from wind to solar sort of carries a reduction in transmission.

Nels Johnson

And then that reduces the transmission need both in terms of interregional transmission movement because you don't have to move as much between, for example, the Great Plains in the Southeast, as one example, but also the gen-tie lines. These are the lines that connect the wind project or the solar project onto the grid. And so both of those transmission requirements goes down. It's still a massive increase in what we have today. So we need at least two and a half times, or three and a half times at the upper end to move energy between regions of the country to get to net zero.

So that is a massive expansion from where we are today. The last two decades we saw very little expansion in transmission and that's really going to have to change as we convert most of the transportation fleet to electric vehicles. That is just going to really require us to expand transmission to keep up with all that new demand.

David Roberts

And given how difficult it is, that does seem to serve as a recommendation for this sort of land sensitive approach since anything that can avoid the need for transmission is probably also going to avoid delays.

Nels Johnson

Yeah, and one thing we looked at more closely in the Power Place West report, we didn't have the time and the computing power to do it at the national level as much, but we looked at, well, what are the forms of transmission expansion that are available? And it's not just necessarily building a new line through a new right of way, but it can be things like colocating new wires on existing transmission towers. It can be reconductoring, that is, replacing the steel cable with carbon cables. It can be using what are called grid enhancing technologies that are software, for example, or new conductors and things like that, which enable the system that you already have to move more energy more efficiently.

And then, for example, two way energy flows in places where you only had one way energy flow. So all those things together we found in the west could account for half of the transmission capacity that we need to grow in the next 30 years. So that's a really good news story that we can invest in these approaches right here and now and make a big difference in that capacity while trying to figure out where are those big new lines going to go because we inevitably are going to need new transmission lines.

David Roberts

Right, but we can get a lot of just to sum that up, we can get a lot of new capacity without new lines or new land.

Nels Johnson

Yeah. So the idea here is to focus on those options as much as we can now, to make as much progress as we can while the longer term planning and investment for those new lines that inevitably are needed can take place.

David Roberts

Right. Jessica, let's get to the $6 billion question on everyone's mind, which is when you ramp up these strategies for being more sensitive toward land, avoiding environmentally sensitive land, avoiding adverse social impacts, how much is the additional cost over and above sort of the baseline status quo projections?

Jessica Wilkinson

Right. Well, at least the $1.87 trillion question. So existing studies have shown that as resighting today using sighting as usual scenario, the cost of meeting net zero emissions by 2050 is $1.87 trillion. So a significant price tag and that scenario where we use sighting as usual will also impact 250,000 sq mi of land. So that's an area larger than the state of Texas. So we looked at how under these kind of impact reduction scenarios from setting as usual, ramping it up to a 90% impact reduction scenario, how the cost change. And what we found was that half of the impacts to land can be reduced.

So under that 70% impact reduction scenario, half of those impacts can be reduced.

David Roberts

So that's half of wait, that's half of the amount of land is going to be impacted.

Jessica Wilkinson

Yes. Under that 70% impact reduction.

David Roberts

Half of the 250 what you ...

Jessica Wilkinson

Yes.

David Roberts

250,000. So the 70% reduction case gets you down to 125 ...

Jessica Wilkinson

About right, yes.

David Roberts

... thousand acres?

Jessica Wilkinson

You save an area the size of Arizona. Not too bad.

David Roberts

And how much does it cost to save an Arizona-sized amount of land from development?

Jessica Wilkinson

Right. So that comes at a 6.3% cost increase over the current trajectory.

David Roberts

Interesting.

Jessica Wilkinson

And that's not nothing, particularly for lower income communities and families. However, we really think that is kind of likely to be pretty high because those costs may be offset by lower cancellation rates, shorter permitting times, and lower monitoring and mitigation costs. So into the sighting as usual scenario, we expect a lot more conflict, and we see higher cancellation rates, we see longer permitting times. If there's a lot of both environmental and social kind of value in an area as that Q and A defines it, and we think that although it comes at a 6.3% cost increase, it really can be kind of offset by some of those lower cancellation rates.

David Roberts

To what extent does the model of the status quo incorporate those conflicts? I mean, you sort of can't can't you're just sort of guessing how big those impacts are going to be? But they're going to be there, right? I mean, does the model take them into account at all?

Jessica Wilkinson

It really can't. There's there have been a few studies that we've relied upon that show kind of how much these, you know, sighting in sensitive areas from an environmental perspective does drive up the costs. And the studies that do exist demonstrate that when projects are cited in the more environmental sensitive areas, they have a higher cancellation rate, they have longer permitting times, and as one would expect, more monitoring is required. And there may be other kinds of ways to minimize impacts that would be asked of the developer than if they were in an area that, for example, was a mine land or a landfill or other kind of degraded lands.

David Roberts

So you think 6.3% is what the model shows as additional cost, but we think maybe the status quo modeling is underestimating costs because it's not being able to predict all these conflicts over land-use. So maybe the costs are closer to comparable than at first blush. You think?

Nels Johnson

Yeah. David, those soft costs are just not really available for monitoring. As Jessica said, we have some specific places where we have pretty good evidence of what those costs are, but we just don't have nationwide data. The other thing that's important to notice is that we're also avoiding costs that are occurring when we convert natural habitats or croplands. And there's a cost of that, too, which isn't in the modeling.

David Roberts

Oh, you mean the cost of, like, lost nature?

Nels Johnson

Lost nature. If we could put a dollar price tag on that, if we could.

David Roberts

So those aren't in the model at all. They're priced at zero.

Nels Johnson

They're not. We're just modeling technology and land costs when it comes to these costs.

David Roberts

Right. So if you wanted to say that untouched land or unmolested land has some value that you would destroy if you developed it, that would change the final sort of cost balance outlook?

Nels Johnson

It could. We just wanted to take as narrow a view of costs as we had really good data for just so that we could have an apples to apples kind of comparison here. And that's why we limited ourselves to data that's really well vetted and reliable and that's the technology cost data and land cost.

David Roberts

Right, but I think it's fair to say that how you are going to view that 6.3% additional cost varies quite a bit based on how much you value land right. And how much you value untouched natural land.

Nels Johnson

Absolutely. And by the way, in terms of those soft costs that we talked about, project cancellation rates, permitting delays, there's really an important business case to be made here and we and others are working on that, but we just don't yet have the nationwide data.

David Roberts

Right. The business case just being it's more sensible to go to more appropriate land if for no other reason than to avoid the hassle and blowback and lawsuits and et cetera.

Nels Johnson

Yeah, the way I've heard some energy developers call it, it's kind of the land analytics. What is it about the place? You're thinking about the analytics, about a bunch of data related to that piece of land that relates to project success. There are lots of analytics that wind or solar developers look at.

David Roberts

Do we know that? Is that sophisticated yet? Like, do we have a good sense of the full characterization of land that ends up being economic to develop?

Nels Johnson

We don't have good enough data. Companies probably have better data than we're aware of because it's a business and that data can be proprietary. But we think there are a growing number of companies that actually are starting to pay attention to, as I say, this notion of land analytics.

David Roberts

Interesting. And Jessica, one of the ongoing discussions, let's say, areas of discourse in the clean energy world is about NIMBY-ism and about community feedback. And the sort of gathering conventional wisdom, I think, is that there's too much too many ways for communities to slow and halt things, too many ways for them to sue, too many laws and regulations that they can exploit. And thus that, like NIMBY-ism has all the power. And part of the solution is to move power out of local hands up higher on the chain, up to the.

David Roberts

State or federal government.

David Roberts

But you in this report at the end recommend more public process, more engagement with the public. So how do you square that? How does that not end up slowing things down?

Jessica Wilkinson

Right, I mean, we think there needs to be a balance. We need to make sure that the communities where this infrastructure is being developed have a voice, not only that, but that they're meaningfully engaged. And we also see a backlash when states try to go too far in taking away that local community role. And it can exacerbate, frankly, the backlash against renewable energy. This transition is not going to happen in the next five years. It's going to happen, we hope, as soon as possible, but it's going to take a few decades. And we really need to have these renewable energy developers have a long term social license to operate.

So we need to be finding ways not only to get that balance right between state control and local control, but we also need to make sure that we get the balance right in terms of how we share the benefits of this transition. And I think there's growing recognition about that as well. I think there's some encouraging signs there. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act directed about $760,000,000 in grants to state and local governments for economic development activities and communities affected by transmission, actually. And I think New York State is a place where they were trying to find the balance of that in their 2019 legislation, where they created this one stop permit review process.

That is great. And then they also acknowledge that in order to be eligible for that, you needed to demonstrate that you've consulted, hopefully more than just consulted with the host community and that you have a community benefit agreement in place. We need to make sure that the local communities that may be seeing a lot of this development in their communities are sharing in the benefits as well.

David Roberts

Yeah, I feel like that's an underrepresented perspective in this debate, which is that maybe if you engage communities earlier and share more of the benefits with them, you could speed things up and then maybe part of the slowness is your standard capitalist rapaciousness trying to capture all the profit and not share any with the communities involved. Like maybe you could speed things up if you shared some of the money, basically.

Jessica Wilkinson

Absolutely.

Nels Johnson

We really want to emphasize that when developers do the right thing, they show how they've avoided impacts, they show how they are working with communities to deliver benefits that the community wants they should be rewarded. And we think one of the most effective ways to reward them is to get them at the head of the queue in terms of permit review, in terms of interconnection queues. Because if companies go beyond what some of their competitors are doing to do the right thing, they need to be rewarded for that.

David Roberts

Interesting. Well, that segues perfectly to my final question, which is sort of what policy recommendations fall out of this? One that seems very obvious is instead of not planning, let's plan. What are the others? Jessica, what are the main sort of policy recommendations that fall out of this for you?

Jessica Wilkinson

Yeah, so we really were thinking about our audience as being those that do energy planning, state governor's offices and energy offices. So we kind of thought about the recommendations in terms of those audiences. And for energy planners at all levels, local, state, regional, national, kind of our solution is that they use the methodology outlined in Power Place to make sure that as they're planning for a clean energy future, they're doing so in a way that maximizes benefits to climate, to nature and to people.

David Roberts

Are they just not doing that at all now? Is it land? Is this sort of like environmental sensitivity of land, is that playing any role at all in the planning right now?

Jessica Wilkinson

Only a little bit. I mean, to the extent that they do and there have been some states that have they maybe are taking off the table, like in the way that you are telling the model avoid this place if you can, if you can't, but take it into consideration. They will, for example, include those lands that are currently off the table, like national parks and wildlife refuges and that really are off the table, but they tend to not include those other lands that maybe aren't regulated in that same sense. They're not designated as high priority conservation areas but we know they're really important either because they're wetlands or they are endangered species habitat or are lands that are going to be important under the changing climate to ensure that we have resilient and connected land in the future.

David Roberts

So the first recommendation is just take this into account when planning.

Jessica Wilkinson

Take this into account, use the high resolution conservation, land-use and demographic data that we do have. And then for policymakers, what we show in some of the particularly in the regional snapshots we have in this report is that different geographies are going to need different incentives and we need to tailor those incentives to the particular geographies and the specific kind of conditions. Is it highly agricultural? Is it amenable to agrovoltaics? We're going to need to adopt incentives to encourage the right mix of technologies and land saving approaches that make the most sense in those geographies. And then as Nels alluded to for those projects that are well designed and have lower environmental, social and economic risk, we do think that it's appropriate for them to be able to jump the line, not cut the line, but get to the front line for interconnection consideration and for environmental and environmental review and permitting.

Nels Johnson

And it's really important to recognize that there are states where this is starting to happen. New York, California in particular have explicit approaches to avoiding and minimizing environmental and social impacts.

David Roberts

What are they using? Is it just like a financial incentive or is it a jump the queue kind of thing or what? Do we know what works?

Jessica Wilkinson

I think we're still learning. We're very much in the learning stage. There are states that incentivize provide incentives to solar developers, for example, that build on landfills and mine lands and brownfields. There's a lot of great examples of that. Does it solve the problem? No, probably not. But it certainly helps. And then New York was that example where they do have this one stop shopping for renewable energy permitting if you are consulting with the community and demonstrate that if you have a community benefit agreement. So we are seeing a lot of really interesting innovation and I think we're in an exciting time right now to try and get this right.

And now is the time we really need to get it right.

David Roberts

Yeah. Before we headlong into this stampede of growth, which just makes as someone who has become, over time sensitive to these possibilities for blowback, just the whole prospect of this giant wave coming, just the number of possible problems, it just makes me clench up.

Jessica Wilkinson

I think our findings are really encouraging. We we can avoid a lot of these impacts, we believe, but we need to get the planning and the policy incentives right, and we need to do it now.

David Roberts

Awesome. Okay, well, that's a perfect note to wrap up on. Jessica Wilkinson and Nels Johnson, thanks so much for coming, this fascinating report.

Nels Johnson

Thank you.

Jessica Wilkinson

Thanks so much for having us, David.

David Roberts

Thank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf, so that I can continue doing doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe