 Good afternoon and welcome to today's energy seminar. It's a great delight for me to be introducing our speaker today, Jane C.S. Long, who I knew when she was only, Jane Mogg, about 25 years, starting about 25 years ago. I guess that's the price of fame, Jane. She started with a BS degree from Brown University, probably one of the first females to do so. PhD from UC Berkeley, I worked at Berkeley National Labs for a while, then went to be the Dean of Engineering at University of Nevada, Reno. And then my great fortune is when she was the Associate Lab Director for Environment and Energy at Lawrence Livermore Labs. She actually had a division with about 230 people at her own building that held all those people, including me part-time for a while. And then moved from that position at the lab into strategic studies. And then as she left that, got into more strategic studies, which is one of my favorite things to be doing. And now, consults for the Environmental Defense Fund as a visiting researcher at UC Berkeley, Co-Chair of the Task Force on Geoengineering at Bipers Policy Center. And most importantly, I think for today's talk, the Chairman of the California Council on Science and Technologies, California Energy Futures Committee. I've always envied people in and around the California Council on Science and Technology because of the work they do. And today, Jane's gonna talk about a CCST study, the Chief Organized Hunchhood Coordinated called the SB 100 Pathways Project. So with great, much less ado and great affection, it's my pleasure to introduce my former boss, Jane, CSLav, Jane. Thanks, John. It's wonderful to be here with you today and it's great to see you again, John. It's been too long. John mentioned this is a study that we, collaborative study that we've put together on SB 100. And it was a collaboration between the Environmental Defense Fund, the Clean Air Task Force, E3, which is a consultancy and Princeton University and Stanford University. It was a self-organized project and it's kind of important because we didn't write a proposal to say, here's what we wanna do. We deliberated what the questions were as well as how to answer them. And I think that made a huge difference in the product. So basically we were looking at the situation where California had passed SB 100, requiring the state to go to zero electricity sales, retail sales by 2045. And we said, well, how are you gonna get there, especially in light of the governor's executive order requiring the whole economy to be carbon neutral? So how can you affordably and reliably get rid of the carbon from electricity by 2045? The project design was to basically end up using three different optimization models and each of these models identified strategies for meeting electricity demand. So all of them were created reliable energy systems, reliable electricity systems and they also had to eliminate emissions. So those were the constraints. And then they ran these models with and without a class of energy called clean firm power and clean firm power is defined as power that's available whenever you need it for as long as you need it. So in some cases, they ran the models without allowing this kind of power. So it would be mostly wind and solar energy and then gradually add in and batteries and then gradually add in other forms of generation. Then because the constraints were that had to be reliable as well as minimize the cost, you could evaluate the impacts on cost of the various portfolios and how fast the build out would have to be what kind of land use they would require and some storage and transmission. Sorry, my finger is a little triggered happy here. So you can evaluate these factors and compare the different models. So you can compare what constraints, how the constraints you place on the portfolio affect cost, land use, transmission, et cetera. So three different models, they actually did things slightly differently. The E3 model is one that's used in California extensively as a consultancy. A lot of the policy work in California is supported by E3. Stanford with E.J. Bake, a Sally student did a fantastic job with the Stanford model herbs. And then the Princeton model was Gen X and they all looked at slightly different geographies as kind of illustrated here. I won't go into too much detail but different geographies and slightly different ways to optimize and make their calculations. And this kind of summarizes the differences. So they're all linear models. They all have a different temporal kind of spatial and temporal resolution that they looked at. The only one that looked all WEC-wide was the Princeton model. The most limited in terms of geography was E3. They all included neighboring states in some way and they all had rules about imports that you couldn't take more than for your fair share and that you're not allowed really to cause emissions to go up anywhere else. So that was all, again, just to reiterate system always meets demand and the total cost of the system is minimized in all of these models. They just do it a little differently. So we made some assumptions about what it was gonna look like in 2045 that electricity electrification was gonna go and that was essentially gonna roughly double the demand which is a pretty common assumption in California planning. The future costs were based on what we found in the literature mainly work that has been done by NREL. And as I mentioned, nothing in California can cause a problem someplace else. So you can't solve your problem by, as the city of San Francisco did there, we're gonna have zero carbon electricity so we're gonna stop selling our Hatshachi power to anybody else. That would cause somebody else's emissions to go up. So you can't do things like that. And also when you go to zero, there are no offsets. Zero is zero, so we did not allow offset solutions. And as I said before, we're no constraints on land use and no constraints on transmission. So these become things that we can compare. The resources that we allowed are in the portfolios were on the left, the variable resources, wind, solar, small hydro and batteries. And then we gradually allowed the use of a firm or a clean firm power sources of energy, so carbon capture and storage or advanced nuclear zero carbon fuel. We didn't actually look at geothermal explicitly but geothermal would qualify and would act much like CCS. And to be clear, the role that these play in the energy system is for some of these sources, for example, for zero carbon fuel, we don't have to differentiate where that fuel comes from in terms of these models. We just look at it as a price range for different kinds of fuel because the behavior of the fuel in the system is the same. So this is just, I'll just throw this up to hear the prices that were used if you wanna get into more detail, that's here in the materials. So clean, again, let's talk a little bit more about clean firm power. Here are some of the things that you can include in clean firm power. It could be geothermal, biomass with natural gas, any kind of clean fuel. So it could be methane that's reformed to hydrogen and then the CO2 put underground. It could be blue hydrogen or green hydrogen. It could be advanced nuclear. So any of these things, even though they behave very differently, they're all clean firm power. They're all available for as long as you need it whenever you need it. California, why do we need clean firm power? Well, basic fundamental reason we need it is because we could build a lot of renewable energy but in the winter that supply of renewable energy goes down dramatically. And both for solar and wind, and especially if we're going to electrify and especially if we're going to electrify heat, the demand for electricity is gonna go up in the winter while the supply is going down. So this is a seasonal mismatch between supply and demand that is really the biggest reason why we need, why we're gonna end up needing clean firm power. And here's another way to look at it. In this graph you're seeing the daily load in the solid line and the more green it is, the more able the renewable energy is able to provide for all the energy. There's plenty of renewable energy in the summer but it gets redder and redder. In other words, less of the load is able to be served by renewable energy in the winter when it's not there. So what do we learn? First of all, how much does it cost? We got what I think is a fairly remarkable result that basically no matter what kind of clean firm power we picked and they have all different roles in the energy system and all different price ranges. If as long as we had roughly 30 gigawatts or so of clean firm power, the price of transmission and generation, the cost of transmission and generation doesn't go up in California, stays about the same. But if you don't allow these resources then the price goes up by something like 65%. And it's easy to see why that is because on the right you see here how much renewable energy you have to build which is largely redundant. You don't use it most of the time but you have to overbuild it in order to cover those what we call dunkel flaute or dark doldrum times in the winter. And so that's why it costs so much more and because in this case, I'll go back here the utility of the clean firm power is so high that even though it is per kilowatt much more expensive the system costs are kept low because the utility is so high. And I think that's one of the most important points out of this study. You wanna keep costs low and you wanna keep them sort of what they are today and serve especially the underprivileged people in California who can afford increases in prices. It's really important that we put in some clean firm power so those prices stay about the same. There may be other reasons that the price of electric is gonna go up but we don't want it to have to go up for carbon removal if we don't have to. We looked at a whole bunch of different sensitivity studies on price and basically what you're seeing here is again the issue is the utility of the clean firm power so high that it doesn't really matter much that it's more costly per kilowatt. And this is a case now where we're gonna see the long-term issue, the long view of putting these kind of resources in play is very important. And if you stuck to the short view the short-term view where you would only look at price per kilowatt hour, you wouldn't put these in and it's only by looking at the system costs over the long view that you understand why it's so important to have them. We also looked at long duration storage and I could say too much about this except that it's only a partial solution replacement for clean firm power. You still need on the right, if you only have long-term storage and you don't have a clean firm power you're still gonna be looking at something like 25% increases in costs. So it's a good compliment. Maybe if as these things come along there's certainly nothing wrong with trying to do more long-term storage but it doesn't obviate the need for clean firm power. So how fast does it have to be built? This is a graph which goes right along with the capacity graph we looked at before. If you have to put that capacity in you've got to build it by 2045. The red line is if you only do the renewables and batteries and don't allow clean firm power. And at the bottom left you see the current buildout rate, historic rate. We're talking about many orders of magnitude increase in rate and then on the lower wedges there if you have fuels or gas with CCS or nuclear power or even all of them you significantly decrease to well something comparable to historic rates of growth. The ability to build out the system. So the more options we have on clean firm power the less fast we have to build it. So meanwhile, for those people that are promoting renewable power there's nothing wrong with that. The renewable power, all of these models build a lot of clean solar and wind particularly solar. And you can see here all these different portfolios that we put in place and you focus a little bit on the yellow bars here which are the dark yellow is solar and the light is wind. And you can see except when you put in nuclear they pretty much get most of their capacity build is in solar. So they're still gonna build a lot of solar and the energy that the system derives from the portfolio is even more focused on solar. And here you're just seeing the effect of very low price solar energy. The system wants to build a lot of solar as much as it can without making it so redundant that it becomes more expensive. So again, a lot of the energy is gonna come from solar. So how much does it need? Well, all of these models built a different amount depending on what they different amount of clean from power but from, you know, I've sort of eyeball it seems like a pretty safe bet that if California put a target on 30 gigawatts at this point that would probably be a no regret strategy for some kind of clean from power and they can keep it pretty open. We don't have to sign on to any one kind of clean from power pretty much every kind will be helpful. And they all but on the other side they all have deployment challenges. So obviously on nuclear, there's a law against new nuclear in California until there's a license repository. There's, you know, there's a lot of public resentment or that's a movement to keep it in the ground on fossil fuels. So the idea of continuing to use gas and sequestering CO2 is difficult for people to believe as a good solution and would require a lot of retrofit available. And then the fuel issue, which isn't on this graph is also quite expensive. On the CCS side though, which is from my perspective one of California's best bets and we'll see this as we go along here even more because a lot of the facilities for transmitting the for transmission of the electricity for storage of the gas, for storage of other gases underground is already in place in California. And we have plenty of storage to last up through the rest of the century and even just depleted oil and gas reservoirs. So I think the, I think CCS is probably one of California's best bets. And if we built out nuclear, the build out rate, although again, it's gonna be a very hard sell in California is certainly within the scope of what has been done in the past. So these are not crazy changes as the solar all solar and wind would be. So the role of these different forms of clean firm power is a little bit different. And this is based on some work that EJ did as in the audience, I hope. And as you get questions, I hope she'll answer them but nuclear power is more like a flexible base and it ramps down a bit during the day when you have more solar and so does gas with CCS but maybe a little bit ramps up a little bit more and these both ramp up at night when there is no solar. And the fuels tend to be very expensive. So the systems that build only fuel for a clean firm power tend to build a lot more solar. And they are used only when they really are needed. But they all work. They can all fill the role of solving the donko flauta problem. And here's a graph showing the role that each of these play in a sample day. And you can see the nuclear there in the purple on the upper road ramping down a little bit during the day and the solar pumping in coming in and CCS coming in even more strongly and the fuel being the least prevalent of the three and having a lot more yellow, a lot more solar. So here's another way to look at why it's the least expensive solution because as you look at how much of the load is gonna be carried by each of these different sources and you stay on the lowest price curve for each of these, you get the first 10% of your load or 10% of the load, the most effective way to deal with it is zero carbon fuel. And then the next piece is from CCS and the next piece from nuclear. So basically what you're doing is optimizing the capacity factors for each of these and therefore keeping the cost as low as possible. That's why it does that. And this is another way to look at that same thing. I think I'm gonna move on from this though to get to some other points. So the other issue that's gonna come up is what happens to land use. And I think the difficulty that we see with the high renewable strategy is that it uses a lot of land. And what we saw in the case where it was only renewables and batteries allowed that this, the models were trying to use over 6,000 square miles of California land for utility solar. And that's actually quite a bit would be very difficult and would probably probably push up against barriers that would, you know, where land use for solar utility wouldn't be allowed or wouldn't be functionally allowed for some reason like you couldn't get the land holders to agree or it's too steep or it's too remote or it's on public land that's protected. There are many reasons why that amount of land may just be very difficult in California. And some recent studies are showing that it's probably the amount of land that you could probably use for solar certainly deserves a lot more attention and a lot more analysis, but it's probably less than 6,000 square feet to a miles and it's still a lot of land. If we allow the clean farm power, we're still getting maybe an order of magnitude less but maybe only like half that say for the fuel case if we wanted to go with the fuel case you still might be using an awful lot of land for solar utility solar. And so I think one of the big questions that this brings up is what's a realistic assumption about how much land you're actually going to dedicate to utility solar because to the extent that the system can't buy all the solar that it wants to from an economic perspective it's stopped because of their land use issues then the push and the need for clean farm power is going to increase. Likewise, the transmission, one of our Princeton model looked at transmission increases and found that without clean farm power over 9 million megawatt miles would be needed of new transmission whereas only two to three which is still a lot for clean farm power and the current amount of megawatt miles in California is about 15. So this is not a small thing either and if you can't build all this transmission then again you're going to be looking at clean more clean farm power. And again, I think this is another reason why CCS may turn out to be a godsend because it would necessarily minimize this. And remember this is not a transmission plan this is the megawatt miles. So this isn't telling you where the actual miles a circuit miles of transmission would go and some of them would obviously go along existing trunk lines. So, there's still work to be done to understand this problem. How much transmission can you really effectively expect to build by 2045? And if you can't build everything you want to build again more clean farm power. So in summary, which it doesn't want to do clean farm power is going to help keep the costs low about what they are today. They are going to, if we don't build clean farm power we're looking at building 470 some gigawatts of new solar and wind. And the entire generating capacity of the United States is about a thousand gigawatts. So it's a pretty hefty lift, hefty lift anyway but a daunting lift if you don't build clean farm power. Energy storage, all of these models were allowed to build as much short-term battery storage as they wanted, they built a lot. But in the case of clean farm power they built a thousand gigawatts hours, a thousand gigawatt hours of battery storage. And my numbers here are actually wrong. The largest battery facility in the world is being built in California. It's actually 0.4 gigawatts or 1.6 gigawatt hours. And that's, so you can see there's a huge lift on batteries and that's another area where you could question whether the competition for lithium or whatever is actually gonna allow you to get the amount of battery storage that these models really wanna build. Land use, we just talked about basically this could be the limiting factor on solar expansion and as could transmission. So keep in mind about renewable energy it's the price is not the limiting factor anymore. The limiting factor is gonna be land use and seasonal variability and transmission issues. So we need to stop thinking about saying, okay, we're all gonna do solar because it's just become so cheap. There are other costs and those other costs are gonna be the ones that dominate energy storage. We're projecting a lot of energy storage and we're just at the beginning of building this kind of this ability to store energy and battery. So I think the good question about whether we can get there with only batteries. Firm power, we can do, the good news is we can keep prices pretty much the same for generation and transmission but we need clean from power to do it. And it doesn't matter what kind we build it really is the system costs are gonna be dominated by the utility of that power. And the other pieces that if we've led in renewable energy it's now time for California to lead in clean from power because we need it with all the solar and wind that we have a lot of other entities are gonna need to. So plan for clean from power. That's number one plan for realistic land use and transmission develop some realistic understanding of where we might get to with batteries and plan for some other batteries and other kinds of storage. So I think I'll stop there. I have a few slides about other questions but I'm sort of the end of the time. So we'll stop there. Great, terrific Jane, I appreciate that. We have a lot of audience questions but first I'd like to call on our own Sally Benson who is the leader of the Stanford team in the study. And of course you all know as the former director or co-director of the pre-court Institute for Energy our colleague here in energy resources engineering. So Sally take it away. I think you're gonna give up kind of set of comments from your own perspective but also from the participant perspective of one of the participating models in the study, Sally. Okay, terrific. Anyway, Jane, thanks. Thanks, great, great talk and summary of what was done. Number one, it was a real pleasure to get to be involved in the study. Really top-notch modeling groups each bringing something special. But together, I think Jane, as you articulated the main conclusion was that some form of clean firm power is going to be needed if we're going to cost effectively and reliably get to a zero emission grid. So engaging in academic studies around this topic turns out that in Europe and the United States, North America, there are actually many studies which support this notion that some kind of firm clean power is needed. But when you go out into the broader world of people trying to solve the climate and energy problems there's like a real disconnect between sort of what the academic community says is known based on many case studies. And really, I think the decisions being made in policy circles now that really have yet to recognize that we need to make progress on this idea that we need clean firm power. So sort of maybe when we come back to you again, Jane, it's like, how do we address this disconnect? And certainly, your study I think has gone a long way because it's very detailed study with specific examples but I think that this is a broader issue that would be helpful for every region or state or nation trying to contemplate how to do this. So that's sort of my number one observation is that there is a real disconnect in what we know and think we know. The second one, and I'm sure you've heard this, Jane, so many times is that presented with these results, we hear that nuclear is too expensive and natural gas plus CCS is too expensive that the levelized cost of both of these technologies is three to four times higher than solar or wind in the best location. And therefore, how could it be possibly true that these could play a valuable role in cost-effectively decarbonizing? And I think that there's a lot of work to do on the idea that what we're trying to optimize is the full system cost. And that by just finding the lowest cost individual technologies, it doesn't lead you to the lowest cost system. And anyway, I found there are real challenge to try to make the argument to support that idea. And I think the shame is that what we're seeing is people are not thinking about investing in these technologies, natural gas plus CCS as an example in the electricity sector. Often we hear, oh, well, no, CCS is for industry. But again, this study clearly showed that even though the levelized cost of natural gas plus CCS is higher than solar or wind, it makes it so you have overall lowest system cost. So that's sort of the second point. The third one is that if you look at the current policies you know, nationally and so forth and in California they're really focused on the next tranche of renewables and in short-term storage. And if we think about these clean firm power technologies they all have very long lead times. You put up the list of hurdles. And if we're going to absolutely need these by 2035, 2040, 2045 whatever you pick the date, I think now is the time when we need to do regional assessments of what are those clean firm power options available in different regions and what kind of policy measures could be put in place so that we don't wait till the last minute that we basically get to work on those now and give those the long lead times that they will need to scale up. And I've just got two more points. You know, another notion that I think we often hear about is that if we have very wide area integration of the electric grid. So for example, if you could integrate over an area as broad as WECC that somehow that the seasonal variability and renewable generation across this vast domain would somehow equalize out and therefore we wouldn't really need clean firm power. Maybe at all, or maybe not so much. And I think this study really put that issue to bed in some ways, you know, the Gen X was a WECWIDE model. E3 was a California model. Herbs was, you know, it's sort of a California plus model. And again, every single one of them concluded, you know large amounts of clean firm power would be needed. And that wide area integration is not gonna be sufficient. And then finally, just one last point, I think it was also striking that the models which had different geographic domains, but they also had very different approaches to dealing with time. In the case of herbs, it was 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. So really model an entire, you know every single bit of a year. E3 did representative days and Gen X used representative weeks, I believe. And I think there are many who would have said, oh, well, you know, you can't come up with major conclusions about sort of want, you know, energy storage and so forth, unless you do the 365, 24 hours a day. But again, the similarity in all these studies suggests that, you know, appropriately selected, you know, representative days or weeks or whatever, you know, can get you long way towards useful answers. And I think because these three models with such different assumptions were used, it really supports the robustness of the conclusion of the study. So those are kind of some reflections on both being engaged in the process, as well as maybe some food for thought that you might wanna say something about, Jane. Yeah, that's good points. You know, I think it's been interesting because we've been doing a lot of briefing around the state, you know, COISO and PUC and the legislature and CEC and it's like everybody saying, you know, fantastic. We get it. They understand it. And we gotta do something about this. And then they kind of fibrillate, you know, I think they just don't feel that they have the agency to deal with it and it's really fascinating. COISO probably more than anyone is saying, you know, this is it, we gotta do this. And then kind of, well, I don't, how do we do it? How do we get there? So I think that answer, part of the answer is kind of simply, simple conceptually, although I know it gets much more complicated in practice because of community aggregators and who's responsible for this, you know, who's actually gonna buy it. But on one level, if you can figure out what entities to nail on this, you know, saying there's a mandate here, you have to build this and we're gonna allow you to get cost recovery, you know, that and you have to start, you know, you can build whatever you want. You can do whatever experimentation you need, but you need to have X, you know, gigawatts by such and such a time and X more by, you know, 10 years later. And you figure it out. I think that would be wonderful because, but people aren't gonna do it until they can get cost recovery because exactly the point you made is the cost per kilowatt now is just much higher. So we're trying to force this system view, which pretty much nobody has. So the only way to do that is to, just like we said, when renewable energy was expensive, we still said, you have to do it. And then gee, guess what happened? The cost came down. So I think that's one aspect of it that's really important. And based on, you know, kind of what I've been seeing, I think there's a strong role for legislation here. You know, just like we had a portfolio standard for renewable energy, I think, you know, I think getting some kind of legislation that mandates again, that takes SB 100 to the next level and just says, okay, here's what you have to do on clean from power and just keep in mind, you know, don't get worried about, I'm not worried about them going on a strong push for solar right now. You know, they have to build a, you know, these models want a lot of solar, want an awful lot of solar. They're not going to have a regret strategy by building solar as fast as they can. So I think that's another piece of good news. The policy is not bad. And, you know, I think we get asked a lot about demand side management and regionalization and that's gonna solve all the problem. You know, we saw you make a great point. These models included all that stuff. You can't get out of this, you know, this is, there's, you know, if you wanna wave your arms at some idea that you think is gonna make this go away, it's been put in and you can't get out of it that way. So I think we have a very strong case. I think the people are hearing us, they get it. They sort of thought this was true and now the data is there. Now they can see it. So the question is who has the authority? Who's gonna take the responsibility? And I think that there's a complicated questions in our environment. But conceptually, I think it's pretty simple. You gotta have a mandate and you gotta have a cost recovery. Great, thanks. Yes, maybe John Beck over to you. Okay, thank you. That was terrific. We're now up to 36 audience questions. I'll try to consolidate them a little. Most of them are very raw, raw. We understand, agree and strongly endorse what you're doing. I would say maybe half, maybe a quarter are, why don't you even do this one step further? And some of them are kind of questioning cost and upstream clean fuel power emissions and whatnot. But let me organize it this way. I would like to get back to your recommendations on what policies you think with regulations and policies you think would be best. But since there was a lot of talk about technologies in the presentation, a lot of questions regarding that, I'll break it up into a couple of sub-components. So did you consider in the category clean firm power, things like deep hot rocks, fusion, solar concentrating, solar thermal and the like? Or not, and if not, why not, I guess? I think people are trying to give you more ideas to add to the portfolio by and large. So all of those kind of things for the most part are going to be functionally, are gonna have a function that's similar to what we put in the model. And so once it's functionally similar, then the issue is really what price range we use and did that price range include that technology? So I think, for example, zero emission CCS, if we get alum cycle, the price drops dramatically, right? So, or if you got fusion, then, I don't know whether it would be more or less, I've spent enough time at Livermore, none of that, think that it's obvious. So, geothermal, for example, would behave much like CCS in terms of functionality. So in terms of the model, it's just a price range. And I think, so the answer's not explicitly, but it doesn't change the resultants very much. Yeah, alongside that there is concern that you left out, I think I know the answer to this, fugitive emissions from gas, air emissions from CCS other than on the climate side, nuclear waste and things like that. Yeah, so I think that the, I mean, we're looking at some of the ancillary impacts. So the next step is really for California to choose, right? What kind of clean from power? So you got this thing you have to do with how much land can we actually use to get the solar? How much transmission can we actually build? What kind of clean from power is California gonna build? Which of these obstacles are we gonna try to overcome for these? And along with that is the very important question of what is gonna be the short-term forcing that results from that choice? So if you go on a hydrogen economy now, if you move to a hydrogen as a clean fuel pool, there's work that's been ongoing at EDF showing that the fugitive emissions of hydrogen can pretty much negate the climate benefits of using hydrogen if you don't do it carefully and you don't do it right. So those are that strategic plan of which you choose and why we didn't do that, that has to get done. You know, we're just saying, look, you know, you choose whichever ones are the best, but choose something because if you don't, it's gonna be a lot more expensive. Another set of technology questions regarding the future of transportation here in the state. So one questioner even suggests that you do a stage two version of this study where you put more emphasis on that. So how do you think about that including how many EVs are on the road charging capacity? If you're gonna go with EVs, how about hydrogen, small vehicles, big vehicles and whatnot? You know, a couple of years ago, I led the CCST study on gas storage, evaluating gas storage for the state and I wanted to know after Aliso Canyon, you know, was it safe? Could it be made safe? Did we need it? Were we gonna need it in the future? And you know, gas, just as an example, gas is used both for electricity and heat and fossil fuels are used for transportation and electricity is used for transportation. And one of the things that came completely obvious to us is that there's no really good integrated model of the whole thing. So, you know, you will get a view on gas that has to do just with electricity or just with core customers who use it for heat. And you don't ever get the integration of the whole thing. It's very difficult to do because a lot of the information is proprietary but I think that, you know, that question is really important. We need, you know, even if it's a toy model at this point to have some kind of model that gave us an accurate if not precise understanding of how all of that fits together and I totally agree with that comment. We need that. Super. In respect of our guest visitor this year at Stanford remotely, I would say, Amory Levens, you'll not be surprised to hear several audience members are asking another set of what abouts and that is about energy efficiency. As you know, Amory is also growing for a system-wide benefit of kind of integrated energy demanded and used systems. So I assume Amory has talked to you or you've talked to Amory or people like him, especially if you're working with, but if you're working with EDF, I think he has his disciples and former employees there as well. So how do you, how are you thinking about energy efficiency? Well, people, I mean, these all included demand side management at some point, right? They include that. I mean, you just have to do that. I didn't want to have problems with efficiency and as it leads to a little bit of rebound then I don't really understand how, I think there's poorly quantified understanding of where we can get to. I think a lot of it sounds really good and could be really good, but in terms of modeling something like this, we do run into the problem of not having really good data. Data, yeah. Yeah, there is an effort to develop better data, but I've been trying to do that for 40 years, as you know, and it's hard, it's still hard. Maybe it'll be easier on the age of big data, but we'll see. It's a problem that does bring up another problem, though, is the true believer problem, you know? Yeah, yeah. And I think what we've accomplished here is there's no, there's no true believers. There was no real true belief underlight, right? It was... Yeah, I propose another guy you brought into our group at Livermore. I really like this evolutionary theory approach that you try a lot of things and see if you can demonstrate them in the real world. It's kind of the Jeff Bezos mantra. And then the things that don't work, you kill them off like dogs and the ones that do work, you up the ante and quadruple, you know, multiply them by a hundred-fold. I would like to spend a little bit of time because you brought it up and I think people are interested in this. And policy, a lot of the questions were, we need policies to push in your direction and we have to stop pushing renewables so much. We have to stop banning natural gas hiccups and whatnot. So I'm gonna ask you to continue your nice list which I was trying to jot down of you personally who has done so much work over the long, since I've known you on looking at different systems and all these model things, non-modeling things. In your expert opinion, I know you speak to the legislature, what would you recommend as, say, the three or four most important things that they ought to be seriously considering and ultimately doing something on? Well, fundamentally, they need a strategic plan to get to 2045, right? I mean, and you sort of look at the strategic plan, they need some answers to questions that they don't have. They have to do a study to figure out how much land they're gonna dedicate. It's 6,000 square miles of California, even close to what they're gonna have. So I think it's possible to take every square inch of California and put it in bin whether it could be used or not and figure it out. What's the upside and what's the range? Second thing, if you put in all the transmission that you can, sorry, solar you can, are you limited by transmission? But what is a realistic transmission plan? So they need that strategy. And then starting even before that, they really need the plan for which clean for power they're gonna go with, how they're gonna get 30 gigawatts. I put the challenge out there, how are you gonna get 30 gigawatts? And that's just a starting number, you may need a lot more. So what is the, what's the plan for getting there? So I think those, if you did those three things, well, and as well, something on batteries. I mean, there's some people, some of our group thought that the batteries were just not gonna be a problem that the battery industry was gonna zoom forward mainly because of transportation. And so we're gonna be able to get plenty of batteries to do what we wanna do. I'm a little more skeptical, but I'm willing to put that in a slightly less concern box. I think the land use is huge and siding and getting permits for the transmission, huge. So they just, they really gotta bite the bullet on that. And then just saying, here's the mandate, you gotta get this clean for power and we'll let you recover costs through rate payment. Just an idea of how deeply you went into land use because I think it's tremendously important and you hear this as a more general thing. It's a separate question and that is what do you do with solar and urban areas? Is it parking lots, rooftops, car tops? Somebody said, maybe you put it on streetlight tops. How do you think about that? I know in general around the world, there's that big issue. If you're in, say, Beijing, what do you do with solar? Do you sprinkle it on the laptops? Do you put it remotely far away and then have to build a lot of transmission? Yeah, exactly. That's part of your strategic plan. So I talked to a friend in New Jersey and he said that the state utility is doing a lot of rooftop solar. And I said, well, how are you avoiding? I mean, one of the issues here also is equity and equity is not just about the price of electricity, which is the one thing that we've dealt with here. It's also about who pays for the system costs of providing this resource. So if you're like me and put solar on your roof because you were tired of having your power go out and every time we had a fire, the rest of the community is subsidizing us because we don't pay for electricity anymore, but everybody else has to still pay for everything, the other things that are being done. So that equity problem comes up very seriously. So in New Jersey, he said, well, the utility is gonna own all this power on people's roof. And I thought, well, that's interesting. I don't know enough about that to know what the right answer is, but I do think that that real estate's there and it's nice to use it, it is more expensive to get that kind of solar energy, but maybe that price difference doesn't make a huge difference. I don't really know, but the equity problem is, I think a serious problem and has to be dealt with. And likewise, in all of this equity has to be dealt with because if we're gonna build clean from power facilities in whose neighborhood are we gonna build them? You know, I think that one of the things we have to work towards is broadening the context of those decisions because as we go to a clean energy system, for example, air pollution is gonna be diminished for everybody. So, you know, we were riding our bikes down by the bay the other day and the traffic was just stopped on 80, just stopped full stop. And it was so quiet and so clean. You know, I think basically we have to try to understand these things in as broad a context as we can. Super, two more questions, hopefully both not too hard. One is everybody wants your slides and how to get more detail on the report. Is there a quick answer to that or should we get back? Yeah, so EDF.org slash clean from power What is EDF.org slash clean from power? We'll link to this. And if somebody wants the slides, just send me an email. I haven't been able to convince EDF to put them on the web, so. Yeah, yeah. If you could send them to Sarah, Weaver or some of our quarters you could distribute because people are already asking for about that. And finally, as you move into your up close and personal with the students, since you had such a long, illustrious, path-breaking career, what advice would you give to young people, current students about what kind of careers to pursue to help in this challenge that you laid out for us with, with actually some solutions in it? You know, I think, I think this, these students, I think the students of today should be giving us advice about how to think about these problems. I think we screwed it up pretty badly. No, I don't know. I mean, the main thing is, you know, to think broadly enough about this. That's, as you get into solving these problems to make sure that you think broadly enough. You know, that's narrow-minded solutions. And also to really, really avoid putting yourself in a career path that depends on an ideological approach to the solution. Pragmatism is what we need. Yeah, it is one of my personal mentors. You remind me of my original, the original founder of Modern Systems Analysis, C. West Churchman at Berkeley. And you give a great pitch at all levels, even this more little smaller kind of policy thing. If you don't take the systems approach, you might not be happy with what you want. So on that note, I thank you for an inspiring seminar in that direction. Thank you so much for taking the time and sharing the study with us. Amongst all your other gigs around the state, we really appreciate it. Thanks again, Jay. Thank you, thank you. Thanks, everybody.