 Hello, everybody, and welcome to SDSN's Spatial Planning and Low Carbon Transitions webinar. Thank you for joining us today. Quick background on SDSN. We are a global network of academic and knowledge producing institutions. We have over 1,400 members across 34 national and regional networks. And in 2018, our SDSN-USA network launched. And over the last year, they have been working on a U.S. Pathways project. Earlier this spring, we published two reports, one on the Midwest and one on the Southeast United States. These reports asked, how does the physical infrastructure in these regions need to evolve in order to enable the low carbon transition? And also, what are the key opportunities and challenges in those regions? Later this summer, we'll also be presenting a national level study where we're modeling the transition at the national level. And alongside this work realizing the massive expansion of renewables that the transition will require, we've started working with Grace Wu. To better understand the land use implications of expanding renewable energy and how to do it in an efficient, cost effective and environmentally friendly way. So Grace Wu is joining us today. She is from the David H. Smith Conservation Research Fellow with the Nature Conservancy and the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis. Grace's research focuses on identifying and understanding the co-benefits and trade-offs between climate change mitigation strategies, including renewable energy development, other human land uses, and habitat conservation. So before I welcome Grace into the webinar, just some housekeeping, you will all remain muted today in our webinar. However, we will have a Q&A session towards the end. So if you have questions for Grace as she's presenting, please put your questions in the chat box and we'll work to get through most of them. Also in your control panel right now, you should see a few handouts. We've put Grace's paper on the spatial planning for the low carbon transition and also the Midwest and Southeast report that I mentioned earlier. This webinar will also be published on SDSN's YouTube site later today. So if you want to share it with colleagues, we encourage you to do so. And also we'll be sharing Grace's presentation. We've put it actually in the chat box there. So if you're having any issues connecting, please follow along on her presentation. Without further ado, Grace, would you like to turn on your camera and join us? Sure. Perfect. Everyone, can you see me? Yep, you look good. Go ahead. Hi. So thank you for the introduction, Elena, and for the invitation to present to the SDSN network. I am going to give a very quick overview of the main contents of the chapter that Elena shared. With a particular focus on renewable energy, though, as the title claims, it is an overview of planning for low carbon transitions, including ag forestry and other land use sectors. So if you want to learn more about that, please refer to the chapter itself. So I'll just get started because we want to leave enough time for Q&A near the end. Just a quick overview of what I'll cover. I will motivate the need for a topic like this and why spatial planning in particular is really critical for deep decarbonization planning. And that we need to add more spatial specificity to a lot of the deep decarbonization studies we've already seen to date. We'll provide a analytical framework for how we can do this. As I said, mentioned earlier, there is a particular focus of this framework on renewable energy and specifically on utility scale wind and solar. We're going to use a case study called the power of place that looks specifically at California's deep decarbonization goals out to 2050. And I'll summarize with some key messages as well as some recommendations for future work. So let's start with trying to understand the scale of this challenge this land use transition challenge that's associated with renewable energy development. This is a figure from Jim Williams and evolved energies latest study that's currently in submission. But is is currently in report form that was also done for SDSM deep decarbonization pathways project. It's called carbon neutral pathways for the US. And this figure shows the annual average capacity additions for every five years for renewables and those yellow blue and green bars correspond to solar PV wind and offshore wind onshore wind and offshore wind. So as you can see, there's a tremendous growth in renewable energy additions that's necessary to achieve carbon neutral pathways for by mid century for the US. To give you a sense of the scale of that in terms of the land requirements to take one of the lower end cases in terms of capacity additions this is the central low fuel price case. That corresponds to about almost 1000 megawatts of onshore wind. And I'm sorry, that should be gigawatts 1000 gigawatts of onshore wind and 1485 gigawatts of ground mounted solar PV that roughly corresponds to the state area equivalent for wind, including spacing between turbines of the area of New Mexico. And for solar PV, the area of Vermont and New Hampshire. And that does not include spacing between panels. Of course that challenge that you see here on the left and the the equivalent figures is met by the fact that a lot of the land in the US has already been spoken for. As this figure on the right shows how the US land in the US is currently being used. And that studies are anticipating energy sprawl as being one of the largest drivers of land use change in the US, though historically it has been agricultural land use. And that though we are very much still on the cusp of a exponential growth in renewable energy development, we're already seeing quote unquote green civil war cases over utility scale wind and solar projects. And this is a study that looks specifically at solar PV challenges on public lands in the in the Southwest. And just to just to caveat the map that you see on the left. It does not include any of the other capacity requirements for other technologies required in those deep decarbonization pathways. And that doesn't include any biomass for transportation fuels. Any of the fracking wells that's necessary as a bridge fuel for natural gas. Any additional hydropower and any negative emissions technologies including facts, all of which require additional land. So, another question that a lot of energy planners often want to understand is how important is citing as a barrier compared to other challenges to renewable energy development. Unfortunately, there aren't very, very few studies on that actually quantify this barrier. Here I list several major headliners as anecdotal evidence that signing has been a barrier, though we have very few installations relative to what we need to achieve by 2050. This has often been referred to as green versus green battles when it's in environmental when the clashes are with environmental organizations and with wildlife. And increasingly, the last two headlines you see on the bottom are starting to highlight food versus energy conflicts throughout the US east and west coast. So there's definitely a solar versus prime farm land conflict that we're starting to see crop up. And as I mentioned, there are very few quantitative studies examining this question of what the drivers of project failure are. There are two that I'm citing here and there's one more that's in the chapter. I know they found authors have found that up to 40% of all failed renewable energy contracts were due to siding and permitting, though this is from a much earlier decade. And the latest study to look at this, which is currently still under review, but the report is available. This is one of the benefits of low risk siding, and they found that looking at just wind development in the farm in the wind belt that 50% I'm sorry, projects for 50% less likely to be canceled when they're located in a low risk area. And by low risk. The study is referring to this area in the map, you see, of the group of wind area potential areas in the Great Plains. This is from the site when rate analysis and study that priests predates this particular cancellation study. And they also found that when projects receive higher positive publicity, they found a 25% decrease in the likelihood of cancellation as well. Social receptivity and potential wildlife conflict in terms of low risk do lead to more favorable and successful wind development outcomes. And one important consideration. And this is one of my last motivation sides is, how do we quantify the cost impacts of reciting restrictions on renewable energy and what are they. So that that as can be used as a proxy for understanding the importance of siding as a barrier. Not just on the ground, but potentially in the long term, especially with large scale, highly ambitious renewable energy development by mid century. And this is a study that NREL published in 2016. As it's one of the very few, they're just a handful of studies looking at this question. They looked at the incremental cost of installing the first 1000 gigawatts of developable wind potential in the US. And they also found moderate and siding consideration representations, and these restrictions the siding restrictions do include wildlife radar and distance to human settlement so both environmental and social siding restrictions. And those you see the divergence of these two lines. The cost increases and levelized cost of electricity on the y axis. So as you can see, the more capacity that's developed the greater the divergence of those two scenarios. So the greater the cost increases and the higher, more severe the impacts of siding restrictions are on levelized cost. In terms of what the outcome is for development, so our system costs. An additional study, not for the US but for the UK and out to 2050 so another deep decarbonization study has shown that land availability for both onshore wind and solar could lead to cost increases of 13% just for land restrictions alone. And as a follow up to the Tegan study, they did an analysis using capacity expansion model and found that the siding restrictions that you see here in the moderate scenario do increase system costs by 4%. And if we install just 400 gigawatts of wind, which is only about a third, or between one half to one third of the wind that's needed by 2050 depending on the scenario. So those that cost burden would increase to achieve those highly ambitious goals and does not include any restrictions on solar. So that I'm going to describe in some detail a case study that I worked on with the Nature Conservancy and a consulting think tank called E3. And we, as I said earlier we did this for the state of California looking at a bill called SB 100. I also mentioned that this case study is described briefly in the chapter. And if you want to learn more dive into the details there is a journal paper that's published. The link is provided as well as a detailed report that's focused on California assumptions and geared for towards California decision makers. So what is a spatial electricity planning framework? The way that I've defined it here is that it's an analytical planning framework that should estimate possible land use requirements of energy infrastructure, land use impacts of infrastructure, and importantly land use constraints on energy infrastructure. And in addition to those, how all these factors could affect the electricity system costs and other key considerations that traditional energy planners would require in decision making in terms of procurement. So the motivation behind this study and the decision to come up with a analytical framework that examines this is really the passing of Senate Bill 100 in California in September of 2018. And Governor Brown signed a bill that would put California on a path to achieve 100% carbon free and renewable electricity by mid-century. And this is a highly ambitious target, putting California on par with now several other states with very similar ambitious targets. So the goal of our work was to examine how natural and agricultural land protections and the availability of regional energy trade assumptions affects several factors. So how it shapes the amount of renewable resources available for California, the optimal technology investments. So that means the balance of capacity between the various technologies, primarily ground mounted solar PV and onshore wind, alongside other technologies, balancing technologies like natural gas, hydropower and geothermal. Importantly, the total electricity system costs, so these are costs that are borne by ratepayers. And finally, the social and ecological impacts due to possible land conversion from achieving SB 100. So we took in approach that is akin to the integrated resource planning framework, and this is the approach that the California regulator and utilities have adopted for the state and IRP approach. And so it starts with resource mapping. In our case on the supply side, we used a model to to perform the analysis that allows us to estimate how much land is available for wind and solar development under particular assumptions. In the second step, we used the resource mapping outputs as an input to a capacity expansion optimization and we used a model called resolve that is the official IRP decision support tool for the state of California is open source and open access. We took the outputs of resolve and we spatially allocated or cited those portfolios that you see. So that disaggregation of wind solar and geothermal we put on the map, basically. And with those solar and wind footprints we performed a strategic environmental assessment to get at that last question of what the ecological and possible social impacts are of each of those portfolios. So I'll go into a bit more detail on the steps and then show you some intermediate results. Just to provide some framing for these the main scenarios. We chose a deep decarbonization pathway that is characterized by high electrification, and this is in contrast to alternative pathways like a high biofuels or high hydrogen pathway. And this is the most likely outcome for the state of California. So in terms of cases and sensitivities that we ran. I'll focus here and presentation on the exciting levels, or what we were for what we refer to assigning levels but are effectively land protection scenarios. And then the geographic availability is the amount of regional trade for energy and availability of out of state wind and solar projects. And I won't go into detail on the others but we also ran several other sensitivity scenarios and those are all in the report. So in terms of the study area and geographic cases. So California we looked at an in state scenario, which California can only procure electricity from within the state. And there's a part West scenario which we look at neighboring procurement from neighboring states and politically aligned states with similar similarly ambitious targets. And we also examine a full West or interconnected scenario which we have access California has access to high quality wind in Wyoming in particular. And in terms of the signing levels I mentioned earlier which are as I said effectively protected area scenarios. We came up with four categories of different levels of ecological protection for high conservation value areas. So the first category follows what typical, what you would see in energy planning to date is everything that's legally protected is restricted from any energy development project. And that includes national parks national wildlife refugees. And in category two, we called this the administratively protected areas because this category includes land that would trigger an administrative review process. If there were to be a proposal for energy development on that parcel of land. And that does include wetlands critical habitat for threatened endangered species as well as tribal lands. And in the third category, this category required a lot of data collecting from every state nature conservancy chapter in our study region. And these are areas that don't have any legal protections, but are deemed by science by ecologists and other conservation scientists to have high value for conservation. And then I've listed several examples below. And finally in the last category we looked at everything that's more of a landscape metric as opposed to a biological metric. And those are connectivity so wildlife corridors and areas that are deemed intact or less impacted. To construct the siding levels we basically overlaid these categories. So setting level three does include categories one, two and three. And so setting level four includes all four categories. These are the results of the first step which is that resource mapping step in which we identified eligible and suitable areas for renewable energy development in the West. And so this I'll step through the next series of maps that show the how the availability changes under each of those four siding levels. So setting level one. So legally protected is assigning level to administratively protected three. And this high conservation value areas protected. And then finally for which has those landscape intactness areas protected. There's still plenty of solar in every state in the West, and in terms of quantified or estimated availability that still exceeds vastly exceeds California's needs. These are the are the similar maps for wind potential. And so this is a setting level one legal to administrative three high conservation value and finally for which is the intact areas protected. We can visibly tell when does a lot more spatially restricted and sensitive to those environmental protections than solar is. And that an estimate of the availability really comes close to the California needs by the highest level of environmental protection. Okay, and in so in the second step, we ran the capacity expansion model, which was called resolve. And what resolve does is it is it produces least cost optimal portfolios for the amount of wind and solar and geothermal, as well as conventional capacity that's required by 2050. And so the results I'm showing here are the results, the total capacity requirements by 2050 for the state of California. And so orient you on the layout of all of these figures that I'll show on the three panel show the three geography scenarios, and the x axis shows the environmental scenario so those that space case has no is basically an unmodified capacity expansion model and then when you siding levels one through four on the x axis on the waxes shows the capacity that's been selected by the capacity expansion model. So these lines show just the solar selected capacity. As you can tell the trend is that the more resources that are available from out of state, the last solar that's required by the state of California. And that environmental siding protections have a tendency to increase the reliance on solar technologies. And that's particularly true in the full west scenario. The opposite trend is shown for onshore wind, typically with onshore wind the further out west we go with more wind availability and non California states. So the tendency to select more wind capacity by the model and, as you saw in those maps, the environmental protections to restrict the amount of wind available and so you see a drop from left to right within each of the panels. This is the amount of distributed PV that's required in each scenario. So as we go from left to right in on the x axis so more protections. There is a tendency to select more distributed PV so that becomes economically competitive with utility scale. The more environmental restrictions there are. And in general, there is a lot more distributed PV in the in state and part Western areas compared to the full west. So certainly this is a total selected renewable capacities or this includes some geothermal that I don't specifically show. But the trend is generally, it generally holds that the further out west California can procure electricity, the less selected capacity that's required. And that the selective capacity does increase as we increase the amount of land protections. And this is what it looks like with all the technologies in place. And we so we find that overall environmental protections and geography do significantly shape the technology mix. And if we look at corresponding system costs for so the as I said these are rate payer costs. That's $16. We can see that the shape of those cost curves very much resemble the shape of those selected capacity curves which makes a lot of sense. The more investments we make the more it'll cost to rate payers. And what's interesting to note with the red circles that you see is that in the in state scenario with the base case so that's actually applying no more than what is currently protected in the modeling assumptions. It's actually more expensive to do it completely in state scenario versus a full west at a much higher level of environmental protection achieving setting level three which protects all areas of high conservation value. So it's actually more cost effective to do regional energy procurement and protect land than to do then for California to procure in only within its state. So regional renewable planning that includes wind resources really significantly reduces costs as well as protects land. And in terms of storage the storage numbers. And this is primarily battery storage really closely track the trends in solar capacities selected as you can tell. So that and that makes a lot of sense for balancing purposes but the reason I pull out these numbers is to show that storage does play a significant role in driving the cost as well. And then finally, we also modeled the footprint of transmission requirements for each of those portfolios. Both the long distance or both transmission requirements as well as the interconnection requirements for addition all the new capacity that selected. So the trend is of course that's the further out west we go the more we rely on this bulk transmission. But in addition to both transmission we can see that the interconnection requirements are also greater the further out west California procures its generation. And that's in the lower level protections that's marked by wind primarily, and then the higher level setting level three and four and both part west and full west we see that that contribution also significantly comes from solar installations. So transmission does require does increase with geography and environmental protections. And then this next step what we did was we took the outputs of the classic expansion model, and we basically modeled their land use footprint. So we can see spatially where the projects are most likely to be developed and we used a heuristic that I is noted here. We did this by minimizing the total land area, which effectively maximizes the resource quality. In that in our case that meet basically means maximizes the solar, the insulation as well and the wind speed and minimizes the distance the nearest trend transmission line. And these are two siding criteria that is often used by developers so getting higher up on the interconnection queue and in reducing levelized costs effectively. So the maps I'll show you here are those build out maps for each of those scenarios that I described so there's an in state signing level one. One, two, three and four so as you can see there's a trend of solar being developed in the southwest of the state in the desert and into the central valley and in this more extreme scenario, even up to northern California. In the part West we can see the same maps. So I'll just step through them one, two, three and four. So the main trend is that most of that solar starts to fan out into Arizona, and the concentration of wind in New Mexico and Pacific Northwest also starts to fan out become less concentrated. So those trends are now going to be even more pronounced in the full West scenario. So this is one, two, three, and four so that concentrated wind that you see in New Mexico and Wyoming gets allocated and reduced to Pacific Northwest and some in Idaho. There's a lot more solar development in Arizona and California, and even Utah. And finally, we took those footprints that you saw there in previous those previous maps, and we performed an impact assessment on various land use and land cover types. In the interest of time, I am showing just the agricultural lands and range lands, though we did this assessment for many other land cover types including those high conservation value and ecological land covers and land uses. So, to give you an orientation of this figure, the same three panels for the three geographies. And on the x axis for each of those panels, you see the same increases in land use protections going from left to right and then on the y axis instead of selective capacity. We here show the square kilometers of land use for each of those tech, wind and solar technologies. So everything that you see that's dark, darker in colors of the dark orange and the dark blue show here the amount of land area that's impacted for that particular row. And that row corresponds to particular land cover type so on the top row it's prime farmland on the bottom row it's range lens. So the overall takeaway from looking at this figure without examining every bar in particular. We can see that about a third to a one half of all solar capacity could be located on agricultural land in most scenarios so we do see dark orange in almost every bar across all of land cover types and across all geographies, and that the impacts are significant for both technologies so though I pulled out the numbers for solar we do see a lot of dark blue for wind as well. And this is important to note. So hearkening back to that motivation slide, we're already starting to see solar development restrictions and conflicts on farmlands. And we anticipate that this will only worsen, unless there are policies in place to mitigate those impacts and or allow co location or agrivoltaic. This is an overview of the framework that I was describing earlier so what is a spatial electricity planning framework. What does it look like to actually integrate land use barriers in energy planning. I don't want to details on this but just to use this as a way to highlight that what we currently see in an IRP process is in orange and that's the integrated resource planning process. As an example, that California uses and many other states. Basically uses just a supply curve that's non spatial and uses a lot of other demand side and supply side assumptions puts it into a capacity expansion model and produces non spatial outputs. One is we've taken that as the heart of the IRP process and made a lot more get provide a lot more spatial specificity to that the modeling assumptions and we use those outputs and provide a lot more spatial specificity to those outputs in order to do X post analysis that will enable other stakeholders including land use managed land managers and environmental organizations and even communities at the county level to be able to engage in some of those modeling outputs because they're spatially specific. And so quick summary of those the key findings from the study that could be very useful learnings for for other cases in the US. We do find that it's possible to conserve natural working lands to meet and meet energy targets, but notably there are significant land use requirements and the note to put the numbers in perspective here. We are approximately double the historic land use conversion rates in California so that's primarily from urbanization. So we would effectively be doubling that in order to meet renewable energy goals. So land protection and both land protection and geography so out of state availability does affect technology costs and thus should be considered early in the planning process and as part and parcel of the planning process as opposed to after. Third and the absence of a plan to limit impacts to scale up renewables the impacts to natural and agricultural lands could be significant. So, we can anticipate the possible impacts and we can also model what it would look like if we mitigated or avoided those impacts. Finally, we find that regional access is actually a very important conservation and cost strategy, and that California and other states should continue engaging in regional energy trade. And that generally the message is that integrating more spatially explicit conservation data in energy planning process can encourage solar wind development and lower impact areas and avoid some of those signing conflicts that we anticipate. Okay, so to wrap up. This is just a very high level set of messages. I wanted to leave you with an analogy, though imperfect. I believe does capture more or less the essence of the role of spatial planning and signing in deep decarbonization that planning climate solutions without land use planning is like playing chess without a chessboard. And that's because we really need to know where the pieces go in order to strategically come up with solutions to avoid conflicts and to make renewable energy an opportunity as opposed to a threat. We do find that tiny bears are very important challenges for cost effective rapid renewable energy development, though we need to do any better quantification of those signing barriers in comparison to other barriers. In the case study, we find that renewable energy could be a threat or an opportunity, depending on how it's managed. And that a spatial planning framework can be developed and integrated into existing planning, energy planning processes. Just a couple slides on recommendations. Some food for thought for decision makers. I recommend that these the maps that we produced for the western states be replicated for other states planning low carbon transitions. So having environmental and social risk maps are critical for for getting this process, this land use and energy planning integration process started. And with this integration planning integrated planning, we can facilitate zoning of arts governing of energy development. And that helps to streamline transmission and generation planning and that's important as with the figure that you see on the right. That's because there's a chicken and egg problem with with generation and transmission planning that it takes much longer to build transmission than it does generation, but it's hard to figure out what should come out. And so zoning helps basically align these two different planning processes within an in integrative resource planning framework. And it will help that if once the zones are in place that zones allow pre approval permits on lower impact sites. And I think that we have lower land costs and plan transmission for development on those lower impact areas. And we expedite permitting for transmission upgrades on existing right of ways as opposed to entertaining new right of ways for every new project. And importantly, though I don't mention in the motivation, but the chapter goes into this. And the backlash issues are also increasingly important. And we find that in the literature that if communities are engaged in decisions, especially in compensation. A lot of those conflicts can be avoided. And finally, we find that agrivoltaics could be an important strategy. And that's because or agrivoltaics or signing renewables on networking lands. And the 1% of the Great Plains is actually cropland, passionland or rangeland, and the Great Plains is is effectively the wind hotspot for the US. And cropland is typically located on that flat sunny and accessible areas, which is also prime suitability for ground mounted solar. Agrivoltaics really can have major co-benefits and that really should be investigated further. In terms of transmission planning, where we don't have economic incentives, we really should have policies in place that really can drive further transmission build out because it is such a critical component for achieving those renewable energy costs that you saw on those maps. So we do need to do a better job of allocating costs for long distance transmission because that's what we'll need a lot more of. We need to address any jurisdictional overlap issues for those long distance lines. And that there could be a rule for the federal government to establish authorities that help rule on any interstate disputes that is currently lacking. Okay, so with that, I'm happy to wrap up and take questions through the chat. Thank you so much Grace. That was incredible and it's so exciting to see that we're actually starting to make progress on really thinking through these critical issues, especially with the rapid decarbonization and expansion that we all know we need to do over the next few months. So we did get several questions. I've tried to organize them a little bit here. I'm going to start with one just based on the recommendations in your summary that you just finished specifically on the social backlash. Peter Ellis asked he was basically framing it in the context of the UK situation. So years ago, it was much easier because of the overwhelming public support to reduce emissions and expand renewables that it was easier at that time to do onshore wind siding. And we get more recently with the more conservative government it's gotten more challenging and the public support has waned. So it just was asking given the technocratic focus of the processes that you've described. How are you secure securing or sustaining meaningful public consent, either within this project or elsewhere in the nature conservancy. That's an excellent question. It is a very, admittedly a very technocratic process, though it is a public proceeding so IRP is by design meant to incorporate public engagement and community engagement. It's imperfect because you still have to have resources to be able to engage in the lengthy IRP cycle and the nature conservancy as well as many other environmental NGOs, like Defenders for Wildlife, Sierra Club, those are these are all parties to California's IRP. But so it is through those particular channels that have the resources and time to be able to engage with the assumptions. But what was lacking before this framework was developed was a way for communities to understand where infrastructure lands on the ground. And each of those portfolios that are very hotly debated by energy planners. And so what we've effectively done was provide a way for those communities to be able to say these are areas that we think should be off the table for development. So it's very much in a much in a spatial manner that we have tried to improve the process. Those recommendations are about social backlash and compensation are not truly well suited for an IRP framework. They're really much more what our policies that are ancillary that would facilitate implementation, as opposed to being directly associated with improving planning, but are still very highly critical. But I believe that trying to get community engagement earlier in the process by providing a much better idea to communities, particularly at the sub county level of where infrastructure should be cited. And where there's a lot more conducive or willingness for society for communities to accept certain types of projects, knowing that ahead of time and be able to incorporate that into planning and reflect that in the terms of energy cost system cost is going to be extremely important because that's currently not at all being considered. Absolutely. So and we also have a few very technical detailed questions on the actual modeling work that you did so I'm just going to try and get to those really quick. One from Susan Mikado she asked do your regional numbers taken to consideration the energy needs of other states. That's also a great question and we get that a question a lot, because it is a California focused study. Yet, we look at procurement from out of state, and the short answer is no we don't not explicitly with the resolve model, but we did a back of the envelope to assess whether or not the resource maps that you saw at the, in the earlier presentation on availability in all Western states, whether that would be sufficient for if all the other 11 Western states in the Western interconnection also had similarly ambitious targets as California. And we find that it the answer is just barely using a back of the envelope approach. And, and that's only assumed that those states adopt a similar high electrification pathway. And so, just to give you a roll from a pro estimate, California's demand is roughly this equivalent of all the other 10 states in in the West so it's effective we could double the numbers that you see in those slides and be able to get the capacity requirements for the rest of the 10 states, but we are doing a follow up study. Actually with the vault energy to look at this very question to look at the demand and ambitious targets for all 11 states and true and be able to get you a better much better answer to that question. Well that's exciting then also the states can have a really helpful productive conversation or based on that as well. Also on the model, there was a question on whether the model includes solar thermal as well as solar under your solar category. Oh, sorry. Yeah, solar thermal included with the PV. No the solar, there's no solar thermal. I'm assuming that's the question is referring to CSP, which is utility scale. There's actually no CSP in any of the current models, because they're non economical, non economically competitive with solar PV to date. There is also a question about rooftop solar versus utility scale solar and what the role of that is here. Another question. And in the slide deck that I shared, there is a slide showing the results of our rooftop PV sensitivity results. And I just, I didn't mention in the presentation itself. But we did look at a high a BAU versus a high adoption of behind the meter PV, which is primarily commercial and residential rooftop PV. And we find that at a high penetration. We can avoid some utility scale solar development, but we still 80% of the capacity still comes from utility scale, bring the ovals. So, of course, distributed PV has a role to play. And an important one because for every marginal installment of solar of rooftop PV we can avoid some ground mounted, but ultimately it's still in if insufficient for meeting California's targets, even in the high adoption scenario. I'd be curious to to see if there is some kind of consumer behavior or social benefit also to having more rooftop to make it more socially acceptable to have also large scale ground mounted. Emmanuel also asked, what was the grid resolution of the study used in the study. We used a for all of the roster inputs. So those are the gridded inputs were at 250 meters, and then all of the environmental and ecological data sets are in their native feature class or vector resolution so we used to have basically whatever was given to us in raw format we use that particular resolution. So it's basically the highest resolution we could have done the study and we used what was the sources of much of your data across the different layers that you described. So we actually have, that's hard to generalize, because there are about 200 data sets that went into those maps that you saw on the siding levels. And they are all listed in the appendix for the paper, as well as the report, but broadly for siding level one so that's the legally and administrative one and two so legally and administratively protected a lot of those are So either Bureau of Land Management, our Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service, for a lot of those are federal lands, or state lands, and then in categories three and four, a lot of those come from a variety of sources, some of which are conservation NGO provided. And so, as an example, their category three has eco-regional analyses that the teens see conducted for many parts of our study area. But yeah, the whole list is, and with links, most of that data is publicly available and the maps themselves aggregated are all also publicly available for download. If you follow the links on, and I'm happy to provide those links to separately to the journal paper. Great. Yeah, we'll make sure to include that in our follow up email as well. Another question so this, this exercise focused very heavily on wind and solar but as we all know there are other technologies in the decarbonization story, including negative emissions efforts which also require land use. Has that kind of, has this kind of land use planning been done for other technologies specifically negative emission technologies in other parts of the country? And if not, will the nature conservancy be looking into that? Not that I am aware, so amongst the negative emissions technologies, the nature conservancy has conducted a very, one of the first studies for the US on natural climate solutions, which does include a large part of which is reforestation, and other kinds of land management strategies like extended rotation and wetland restoration and grassland conversion avoidance. That has been mapped and, but it is not, it's a technical techno economic potential analysis, it's not truly looking at opportunity costs or allocation of those strategies across the landscape to meet a particular target. So nothing, that's the equivalent of what you see on the energy planning side exists for other negative emissions technologies. There have been separate technology specific studies like on bioenergy, BAX in particular, looking at where we could be procuring biomass feedstocks for a certain amount of maybe like a giga ton of emissions reductions from BAX, but there hasn't been a holistic planning framework for all technologies that have land use implications for deep decarbonization and that's that is what's missing. What I've shown you here is just for the electricity sector. There hasn't, there's nothing that encompasses all other major land use requirements from other technologies. In your work grace, have you come across to other case studies or countries or examples of this kind of very detailed land use planning tools that we could share. We have a pretty global audience on with us today. I haven't seen anything that does the, what we've done for California so that's why we just wanted to establish a more generalizable framework. There have been other, the studies that I have mentioned earlier in the motivation side looking at the United Kingdom. They have coarsely restricted land and looked at those cost impacts in a capacity expansion type model. That's the closest equivalent study outside of the US that we are aware of. And so for the most part this is a very underdeveloped an area topic and very much right for innovation and a replica expansion into other areas. I think that this is critically important. Now that we have a better sense of the scale of renewable energy to development that's required. And the landscape possible landscape impacts in particular places we I do think that that's real motivation for trying to understand whether those possible impacts could be true and other places. And a related question is the models that you referenced are they publicly available so that other researchers could test or try to apply them to different data sets. The capacity expansion model that I, we used is publicly available. And that's because it's the state of California's official IRP decision support tool. The, all of the spatial modeling tools are also available so that's, it's not in a off the shelf format but the code, the, basically the code to do the analysis is all available online and it's associated with the journal paper. I will also send a link to share that will is basically a tool that does the resource assessment it's called the map RE zoning tools that I helped develop and it's publicly of it's free and publicly available. I will send a link to that but the methods are all very laid out in detail in the, both the journal paper and the report and the links to the GitHub repository that has all the scripts is also available. Wonderful, we'll have to make note of all of these links we promised to make sure to include them in our email. I'll ask one final question because I think we're at the hour here, but it's about offshore wind so the prospect of increased offshore wind to kind of take some of that load off and reduce our land needs has that been considered at all. So that's a, that's also a really good question. They are not in this particular study for California, and that's because we used the version of resolve that does not have offshore wind in its supply curve. And that was primarily decision made by California decision makers and parties, mostly because offshore wind is all the resource characterization is not well developed. But in the next round of the IRP it will be. And when we do the West wide study. We will include offshore wind as well. And we do think mostly because we do think it'll be a critical like pressure release valve for the land use sector. So as you can see with some of the results on the very first slide from Jim study for SDSN the the fraction, the proportion of offshore wind to onshore wind is still relatively low even by 2050 due to costs. So there's going to still be a tremendous role for onshore wind and it would be interesting to look at how land use restrictions could possibly change that relative proportion of those two technologies. And that's a great segue. So that report that Grace mentioned in that she actually referenced also in this paper will be published later this summer, mapping out seven different scenarios of getting to net zero by 2050 in the US through a national study. So stay tuned for that. Thank you so much for joining us grace will make sure that we follow up with all of our listeners here in an email with all the links we promised and another version of Grace's paper. And then please do get in touch with her if you have other questions. So we can all continue to share our learned experience and make progress on this challenging but super important issues. Thank you. Thank you. Bye everyone.