I appreciate this discussion of how rapidly things are changing, though I worry that many readers many not know the basics about where Texas currently stands in its (extremely high) energy use and emissions.
Highlighting the growth of clean energy in Texas isn't a mistake. It's one of many data points to consider. No article, tweet, or even 100 page report is going to be able to cover everything.
Capacity growth is a leading indicator of future emissions intensity. The difference between how quickly Texas is building vs. the rest of the country suggests we should pay attention and understand what's working and bring those learnings elsewhere.
I don't disagree with any of that. Still, David said incorrectly that "red states are ahead" and while that's true for housing, it's not true for energy. This isn't your fault, of course--it's become almost axiomatic on Twitter that Texas is way ahead of California on clean energy. To some extent this idea is being driven by folks who oppose regulations more broadly and want to hold up the TX-CA energy comparison as an example to further their narrative. Anyhow, if you get a chance to highlight how low CA's per-capita emissions currently are compared to TX, I think it would help people be less wrong. I keep trying but I don't have much of a reach.
Thanks for taking the time to gather all that data and write it up!
My working assumption is that the relatively slow pace of solar deployment in CA these days is due mostly to power price cannibalization (due to solar's high % share there), not to onerous regulations.
Another important point is that CA was the pioneer of solar development and was willing to pay for it when it was much more expensive than today. TX waited for it to get cheap.
Wind, of course, is a different story because siting isn't nearly so flexible. TX has vast wind resources compared to CA.
It would be interesting to try to dig deeper into why exactly TX uses so much more electricity per capita than CA or most other states: break it down into categories such as crypto and heavy industry and building heating and air conditioning. Temperature swings in CA are generally lower than in TX so HVAC electricity use is intrinsically lower in CA.
That bar chart is 🤯
I appreciate this discussion of how rapidly things are changing, though I worry that many readers many not know the basics about where Texas currently stands in its (extremely high) energy use and emissions.
It's a good point. Maybe a good topic for a future post!
Yikes. Looks like even David Roberts made the mistake I was worried about.
Highlighting the growth of clean energy in Texas isn't a mistake. It's one of many data points to consider. No article, tweet, or even 100 page report is going to be able to cover everything.
Capacity growth is a leading indicator of future emissions intensity. The difference between how quickly Texas is building vs. the rest of the country suggests we should pay attention and understand what's working and bring those learnings elsewhere.
I don't disagree with any of that. Still, David said incorrectly that "red states are ahead" and while that's true for housing, it's not true for energy. This isn't your fault, of course--it's become almost axiomatic on Twitter that Texas is way ahead of California on clean energy. To some extent this idea is being driven by folks who oppose regulations more broadly and want to hold up the TX-CA energy comparison as an example to further their narrative. Anyhow, if you get a chance to highlight how low CA's per-capita emissions currently are compared to TX, I think it would help people be less wrong. I keep trying but I don't have much of a reach.
Dan - just wrote a post digging into the data for Texas on the theme of what you mention
https://ketanjoshi.co/2024/08/12/texas-builds-clean-power-but-it-isnt-a-climate-champion/
Thanks for taking the time to gather all that data and write it up!
My working assumption is that the relatively slow pace of solar deployment in CA these days is due mostly to power price cannibalization (due to solar's high % share there), not to onerous regulations.
Another important point is that CA was the pioneer of solar development and was willing to pay for it when it was much more expensive than today. TX waited for it to get cheap.
Wind, of course, is a different story because siting isn't nearly so flexible. TX has vast wind resources compared to CA.
It would be interesting to try to dig deeper into why exactly TX uses so much more electricity per capita than CA or most other states: break it down into categories such as crypto and heavy industry and building heating and air conditioning. Temperature swings in CA are generally lower than in TX so HVAC electricity use is intrinsically lower in CA.