By Caleigh Wells for KCRW.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

California's newest infrastructure project will hit two proverbial climate birds with one stone. And Los Angeles city officials just decided last week to try one of its own.

The plan is to cover some of California's exposed water canals with solar panels. It will prevent evaporation amidst the state's historic drought. It will also create renewable energy as the state attempts to meet lofty decarbonization goals.

Piloting a win-win

The idea gained traction in California after researchers at UC Merced studied the possibility on the state's canals last year.

"If we put solar panels over all 4000 miles of California's open canals, we estimated we could save 65 billion gallons of water annually," says Brandi McKuin, who led the study. "That's enough for the residential water needs of 2 million people - enough to irrigate 50,000 acres of farmland."

Researchers found the panels could also generate 13 gigawatts of renewable power. That's about half of the capacity needed by 2030 to meet the state's goals. "The political wind is at our back right now and that's another reason this is gaining traction," she says.

It's gained so much traction that the Turlock Irrigation District in Northern California is breaking ground on its first solar canal installation as soon as the equipment arrives early next year. They will try it out on a couple miles of their canals first.

"We thought we were the absolute perfect agency to pilot it, since we're both the water agency and the electric utility," says Josh Weimer, external affairs manager with the Turlock Irrigation District.

Besides the water and power benefits, Weiner says they're hoping the solar panels will stop weeds from growing in their aqueduct. "We spend over $1 million a year to clean our canal system to make sure that those weeds are not blocking drops or side gates that really would jeopardize the reliable delivery of irrigation water," he says.

It also skirts around one of the biggest problems with solar energy: land use. Large solar farms can disrupt the habitat of plants and animals that live there. Where there are canals, there's already ecological disruption, so there's no added ecological harm to add panels on those acres. Plus, covering state-owned aqueducts with solar panels means no one has to buy or rent a new piece of land.

Lessons from the other side of the world

A similar project in India is more than a decade old. The first project only covered 750 meters and produced about a megawatt of power, but they've added several more projects since then. It's an idea that makes a lot of sense for California: We've got the largest state water project in the country. Most of the state's water comes from the northern half of California, and most of it gets used in the southern half.

Like any new idea, it's not without its hurdles. The project with India came with lessons on what not to do: Don't use expensive, cumbersome steel to hold up the panels, which corrodes over time. And don't install panels that are difficult to move, which makes cleaning it pretty difficult.

"It inspired us to look for a design that would be lightweight, less material and allow access, and so our designs are cabled steel suspension, and they're at least 50% less material, 50% less weight," says Jordan Harris, co-founder of Solar Aquagrid, the company in charge of figuring out how to install California's first project.

Bringing solar canals south

Last week, the Los Angeles City Council voted to investigate funding a similar project over the LA Aqueduct, which is hundreds of miles of canals snaking their way from the Owens Valley down to LA, supplying our dry climate with the water it needs to support the millions of people who live here.

Councilmember O'Farrell, who chairs the City of LA's committee on energy, climate change and environment justice, introduced a motion to essentially copy what's happening up north.

"We thought, 'Well, wait a second, we've got 370 miles of an aqueduct. How about we do it here too?'" he says. "How come no one thought of this before? I chuckle because it is so obviously a path that we should head down and fully investigate."

O'Farrell says about 10% of LA's water gets lost to evaporation. Covering the LA Aqueduct could save enough water to satisfy the needs of roughly 4,000 homes. The solar panels could generate up to 100 megawatts of solar power, which is enough to power tens of thousands of homes, he says.

"We're looking at the cliche of the lowest hanging fruit - and this is certainly one of them - because it could bring power from the rights of way that we already control right into the urban core of the city of Los Angeles," he says.

Plus, solar panels floating over water are actually about five percent more efficient than solar panels floating over land. It keeps the panels cooler so they work better.

But solar over canals also comes with its downsides.

"Installation costs are high. And when I mean high, I'm talking about an order of magnitude five to six times higher than if you were to install ground mount," says LADWP Power Engineering Manager Arash Saidi.

That added cost would normally get passed onto the ratepayers, but O'Farrell says for now, federal money set aside by the Biden administration for infrastructure projects can fund this one.

The other problem: Transmitting electricity generated from a set of solar panels in the middle of nowhere isn't an easy task.

"This is 62 miles, if we run 62 miles of cable, you're going to have immense losses, especially at lower voltages." Saidi says.

The possible solution to that is providing the power from the solar panels to homes near the canals, so the electricity is not traveling as far.

There isn't a great timeline yet for when the panels will cover the LA Aqueduct. But O'Farrell is optimistic. For now, LA is on track to meet its goal of having 100% renewable energy by 2045. And solar canals will bring the city one step closer.

I've always thought of this as a spiritual quest. And I'm excited about it," he says. "The roadmap is there, it's very clear. And we know we can do it."

Caleigh Wells wrote this article for KCRW.

As state budget negotiations continue, groups fighting climate change are asking California lawmakers to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies rather than slash programs designed to slow global warming.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's current proposal would cut oil and gas tax breaks by $22 million this year and $17 million the following year.

Barry Vesser, COO for The Climate Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, would like to see all subsidies eliminated.

"Oil and gas companies are one of the drivers of climate change, so we should not be making their profit margins bigger by providing public subsidies, and making it harder for renewables to compete against them," Vesser argued.

Gov. Newsom has also proposed to cut funding for climate-friendly programs helping lower-income families buy an electric vehicle or switch from gas to electric appliances.

Kevin Slagle, vice president of strategic communications for the Western States Petroleum Association, said in a statement, "California's already tough business climate is pushing companies to the brink. Removing incentives will drive California straight into the arms of more expensive foreign oil, ramping up costs for everyday Californians who can least afford it."

Vesser countered the threat of higher gas prices is a red herring.

"There's a lot that goes into calculating how much the cost of gas is, and this is not even pennies on the dollar," Vesser contended.

The state Senate's early action proposal estimated the budget deficit will be between $38 billion and $53 billion. The governor is expected to release new details on his budget priorities in mid-May. The Legislature must pass a balanced budget by June 15.

The New York HEAT Act might not make the final budget.

The bill reduces the state's reliance on natural gas and cuts ratepayer costs by eliminating certain rules. It was in both legislative chambers' one-house budgets, but last-minute scrambling could remove it.

New York League of Conservation Voters Policy Director Patrick McClellan said, aside from people's preference for natural gas, other challenges have made the bill hard to pass.

"I think that there has also been some irresponsible fear-mongering against this bill from some people who oppose it," said McClellan, "basically telling people this means that their natural gas service is going to be taken away from them tomorrow, or it's going to happen without warning, and that's just not the case."

The bill would not mean gas companies could walk away from providing service to new customers, since its effects occur over a longer period.

Rural lawmakers have been skeptical about relying solely on electricity, since people could lose power in bad storms.

If the bill isn't part of the budget, McClellan said the Public Service Commission can do more to require gas utilities factor climate change into their long-term plans.

It will take more than one bill for New York State to reach its climate goals.

McClellan said developing thermal energy networks is one way to build on what the HEAT Act would do, and provide good ways to decarbonize on a larger scale instead of going house by house.

"You're able to get a larger number of buildings and people all at once," McClellan explained. "The other exciting thing about thermal energy networks is, because you are talking fundamentally about piping systems that are underground, it's an extremely similar skill set for people who already work in the fossil fuel industry."

The bill would also eliminate the Hundred Foot Rule. This requires utilities to connect new customers to a gas line for free based on their distance to an existing main gas line, typically 100 feet.

This rule allowed utilities to shift around $1 billion in costs onto about 170,000 ratepayers.

Virginia's General Assembly will consider budget amendments to reenter the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin pulled the state out of RGGI at the end of 2023, and now experts said the holes in the budget left by RGGI funding going away are not being filled. Money from the program was used to fund climate mitigation work.

Jay Ford, Virginia policy manager for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the state saw many benefits when it was part of RGGI.

"We were reducing fossil fuel emissions that were being created here in Virginia," Ford pointed out. "There were some clear reductions as a result of our participation. So, we're improving air quality and we are helping expedite that transition to a clean economy."

Virginia residents mostly favored staying in RGGI, but Youngkin has said the reason for pulling out was in his view, it was a "hidden tax" for ratepayers. Ford estimated homeowners paid around $2 a month from their electric bills for RGGI and argued the trade-offs were worth it.

Between 2021 and 2023, RGGI revenue generated around $828 million for Virginia. Ford thinks not rejoining the initiative could slow down Virginia's ability to reach the Clean Economy Act's climate goals, and warned other effects could be costly to communities.

"On the ground in communities around the state, if we don't get back into RGGI, there's a real potential that the work to prepare the Commonwealth, and prepare our communities for climate impacts, could grind to a halt," Ford contended.

Virginia used RGGI money to help towns and cities fund their climate resilience plans. The state used 25-million RGGI dollars to establish a Climate Resilience Fund. There have been 107 "billion-dollar disasters" since 1980 in Virginia, with long-term costs totaling between $20 billion and $50 billion.