 Good morning. If you need your second cup of coffee, go right at it. But I want to encourage you to be efficient and demonstrate energy efficiency in returning right away, because this particular conversation is one that is brand new to Energy Solutions Week. Featuring equity as an accelerant to transition is a strategy that we haven't seen at Energy Solutions Week at Stanford previously. And my name is Holmes Hummel, the first director for energy equity and just transitions at Stanford's Institute for Energy. And I'm deeply honored to be able to share the stage this morning with four members of the academic council who are bringing to our closest colleagues here some of their insights of practice and research. Previous to becoming the managing director for energy equity and just transitions, I served as the senior policy advisor at the United States Department of Energy. And I continue a field practice that focuses on accelerating transition in the most carbon intensive part of the U.S. power sector. It is not a coincidence that the dirtiest segment of the power sector in the United States is also well known to reach 90 percent of the counties in the United States recognized for persistence and high poverty rates over the last 30 years. This coincidence also highlights that underserved market segments are constraining the addressable market for the clean energy solutions that you just heard about from the Sustainable Finance Institute colleagues. They're slowing the pace of market development in a way that also has a toll on popular support across vast demographic and geographic landscapes. For that reason, I join with my colleague Dr. Anthony Kinslow in offering the course called Quest for an Inclusive Clean Energy Economy where we study the removal of those barriers to participation as a method of accelerating deployment using some of the methods you'll hear about next. We'll hear from each of these four faculty members in sequence, but I want to highlight Ines Acevedos as our initial speaker because her commitments to our students and the quality of energy education at Stanford will deprive us of her participation in the later stage Q&A. So we're going to offer questions and answers to you in six or seven minutes right here following Professor Acevedos remarks and then we will collect your questions and answers in an open dialogue for the remaining academic council members at the end. Let me proceed with those introductions now that you can appreciate the significance of their contributions on this panel for creating energy systems for an equitable transition to sustainability. Professor Ines Acevedos is passionate about solving problems that include environmental, technical and economic policy issues where traditional engineering approaches play an important role but cannot provide a complete answer. In particular, Professor Acevedos is interested in assessing how energy systems are likely to evolve and this requires comprehensive knowledge of the technologies that can address future energy needs and the decision-making processes applied to a wide range of agents in the economy. I'm going to finish my introductions for the other three colleagues before ceding this podium to Professor Acevedos. Professor Adam Brandt, seated to the right, is an associate professor in energy sciences and engineering where he is interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, energy supply and from power sectors through carbon capture and sequestration. Professor Brandt's research in this area uses two types of tools including life cycle assessments to rigorously account for the environmental impacts for our energy sources and process optimization for energy systems to improve their efficiency. We'll hear more from him in a moment followed by Professor Ram Rajakapal. Professor Rajakapal is an associate professor for civil and environmental engineering at Stanford where he directs the Stanford Sustainable Systems Lab. The lab is focused on large-scale monitoring and direct data analytics, stochastic control for infrastructure networks and in particular power networks. That's why you won't be surprised to know that he's one of the founding researchers and director of the Precourt Institute's Bits and Watts Initiative. His current research institutes in power systems are in the integration of renewables, smart distribution systems and demand side data analytics that correspond with demand side decarbonization where we find some of the most dramatic potential for advancing equity in accelerating energy transition. And last but certainly not least, a lion in energy studies at Stanford, Professor John Wyant, Professor of Management, Science and Engineering, director of the Energy Modeling Forum and the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium that has participants from more than 60 countries around the world. Professor Wyant's aim is to accelerate the use of systems models at state, country and global scales to provide the best available information and insight to governments and private sector decision makers. He has been an advisor to the United Nations, the European Commission, the United States Department of Energy and many federal agencies as well as California's energy agencies that govern the pace of transition here in the state of California where advancing equity is a central strategy for accelerating transition. Please join me in welcoming these four academic council members starting with Professor Acevedos. Welcome everyone and hopefully you can hear me just right. It's a pleasure to be here today and to be allowed by OMS who as you can see is very strict on the organization and extremely articulate as she's a model for myself to allow me to provide this presentation fairly quickly and address your questions so that I don't, I can jog but don't need to run to the class that I'm teaching on the other side of campus. So we'll be talking about the just and sustainable energy transition and I'll start by highlighting a few steps that we undertake in terms of doing so. Last year we produced opinion piece in the New York Times really thinking about okay, there is no time to waste. We can spend a lot of time debating how to get to a hundred percent renewables doesn't matter we just need to get there and keep going articulating between academia how we're going to do that last beat that that's fine but the industry can go ahead and just move forward. We know what we need to do in terms of the carbonization of the power sector at transition for electrification where possible and just move ahead with that. The second thing is that on Earth Day I had the opportunity to be interviewed by the Scientific American and the question was really what are you optimistic about in light of our climate progress and where we need to head in terms of mitigation and of course I started rambling about the things that I was pessimistic about rather than optimistic about but one of the really optimistic things is to see the growth in renewables in electricity generation throughout the globe when we're thinking about what makes this energy transition just and how can we move it forward more quickly I will echo some of the issues that the previous panel has mentioned which can be summarized as follows we need to define define what's the scope of the emissions this define what are the stakeholders define what are the metrics for equity and environmental justice we don't need to measure and find some way to track the progress we need to engage with stakeholders and with the different parties that are affected by our choices and here at Stanford we do have a few folks that are really at the forefront of doing so including Olms and Michael Mora and Siebel Diver where they really go to the engagement with some of the groups that are traditionally underrepresented in these discussions we need to assess the implications of different policies and finally provide some recommendations so I'd like to run over some of the efforts that we've been pursuing here in terms of each of these points so in terms of defining the core of our research really focuses on tracking both greenhouse gas emissions as well as other types of damages that have serious implications across different demographics and one of such is health damages from criteria pollutants both from the power sector from transportation and from other industry sectors this poses a challenge because the behavior of greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants is fairly different there may be some win-win solutions as we transition to sustainable energy technologies but not necessarily and there may be some trade-offs as we move along these different important goals of decarbonization and reducing air pollution while accounting for environmental justice. The air pollution consequences are really another facet that is quite dominant and important to track down as we think about just transitions given that PM 2.5 is still one of the largest environmental global health risks predominantly associated with emissions that occur in energy services and the energy sector occurring both in terms of direct combustion that emits PM 2.5 as well as precursor pollutants. So how can we measure so we define the sort of problem about let's find the transition let's mitigate some of the impacts from climate change and from air pollution. Second step let's measure here at Stanford we've been doing really cutting-edge measurements across different dimensions you'll hear from Hadam Brandt also on other facets of the energy system but some of the work that was done earlier on by Jack Schalender, Sally Benson and then myself on other sorts of databases is really to articulate what are the emissions hourly of CO2 and other criteria pollutants for the grid and how will those change under different pathways for transitions. What you see here is near real-time estimates of emissions of CO2 for each of the US balancing areas on the right. We've been measuring also by developing models that track the change in not only emissions but coupling it with air quality models to look at the damages imposed in terms of premature mortality associated with air pollution and we've been making all of this publicly available online so that any decision-maker that wants to go ahead and track the emissions and damages in dollar values from electricity consumed in their area can do so. So in terms of moving forward on standards and understanding how to do so we have a tool to do just that and we have several different methods to assess it whether it's marginal or average emissions factors and damages. On the issue of engaged in looking at the implications for different demographic groups some of our early work has looked at the premature death associated with the electricity sector operations in the United States. We've since expanded that to other regions and we have a lot of work going on pertaining to India related damages but just in a nutshell one of the key things that we've observed is that across the United States we have premature death associated with air pollution just from electricity generation that are around 5.3 premature deaths per 100,000 people but what you observe in this plot is that some groups of our population are more exposed to air pollution than others. This is dependent on the greeds the location of our cities and the way we're organized but we see that across all income groups black African Americans are exposed to higher levels of pollution and resulting premature mortality than other groups when it comes to electricity generation across the country and then assessment policy recommendations so we have pursued assessments of potential policy alternatives that would look at just reducing CO2 emissions at the lowest cost versus actually explicitly accounting for air pollution consequences and CO2 emissions together. The types of strategies that would be pursued in terms of where to retire coal power plants predominantly and what to build instead are vastly different when we consider those things together rather than in isolation. Still on the assessment and policy recommendations we're putting tools together for decision makers across the US and we're now moving to this to do this tool globally that provide the best the most cost-effective path for fleet turnover and changes and decisions. What you see over here is an abatement supply curve. We're going site by site and looking at current fleet and their operations and they define for those nearby locations whether the most cost-effective strategy is to replace an existing coal power plant with new natural gas or wind or solar while accounting for the explicit resource availability for renewables in that same location and while assuming that we need to pair up renewables with storage to have the ability to have firm power and we're putting this tool out there so that decision makers in different regions across the US can use informed decisions on how potential replacements would play out. I'll stop here to see if there are any questions. I think we have a lot of work still to be pursued ahead but that we're already moving forward and charging ahead with helping with this sustainable energy transition and flipping things a little bit around by having explicit consideration of equity issues and with that I'll open up for questions and we'll go ahead unless Olms do you want to take over for anything or? I see Maxim has a person who's got it right next year right hand. That's right exactly. Say your name please. My name is Sumitra. I am from KAUST Saudi Arab and I can relate to this topic very well because we have major major challenges with socks knocks in particular matter due to oil burning. My question is have you considered or plan to consider the climate penalty quantified that when you reduce socks knocks how much of that would impact your CO2 targets reduction targets and that zero targets overall? So if I understand your question I think we've tackled that indeed so that for every single strategy that we look at we consider the different alternatives which are okay what happens if your decision process is just minimizing private costs plus reducing CO2 emissions versus just air quality versus both and showing the trade-offs in costs across all of those so what we do is really using the emissions of SO2 knocks and primary PM feed them in three different reduced form air quality models to understand what the impact of such will be and monetize those damages include that explicitly in the decision-making process and just to while I focused on the electricity sector we're doing exactly these sorts of strategies also when considering electrification of transportation including heavy duty vehicles. I see one hand over here do you have examples where your models have been implemented and what are some case studies where those trade-offs have been made as something I was asking the technology panel yesterday about how do you account for the social and environmental costs of pollution and it sounds like you're doing that but I'm wondering do you have examples of success. So in terms of applications to different types of choices we have plenty in peer reviewed papers looking at decisions of electrification of transportation in terms of use and real-world decisions earlier on Boston University when thinking about the procurement of renewables that they would decide to do used our information on such decisions to understand where to procure wind and that was directly used in their decision-making process so that will be one key example we'll love to do more right but at the same time as we pursue and have these tools available now it's a little bit up to who is interested in these sorts of applications and using this this work that would be put together for their own decision-making purposes so excellent question and looking forward doing more in that regard. To follow up on that question do you guys have a plan or roadmap on how you want to engage nonprofits and other decision-makers to use your tools? Are there seminars, sessions, things like that that you're actively planning at the moment? Is that David Chen from Marata Energy? Yes. Thank you. A global manufacturer interested in innovation investments seven years out thinking about a collegial relationship with the university that's a wonderful open invitation. That's right so so the short answer is that I'll defer that to Olm's and others also in the pre-court leadership on what's going on in that on that front. That seems spot on and so if there is no plan in place I'll probably reach out to you for help on going about that yeah. In fact in addition I would say we need to thank you so much Arpita. We need to move on to make sure we have equal and adequate time for our remaining speakers but I want to invite all of you to heed David's interest and open invitation for further engagement at one o'clock today during the lunch break there will be a gathering in the family room which is behind the lounge here in the alumni center where there will be folks who are interested in decarbonization from the demand side of our markets creating more rewards for people who are bringing solutions like the kind that Dave's company has in mind. Professor Acevedo thank you for making time for us today. Let's see okay hi everyone Adam Brandt here from Energy Science and Engineering. I'm going to give you a kind of a preview today of some work we've been doing on modeling energy system transitions in California. High level of overview California is just one possible application. I'll talk about that towards the end I'll talk about kind of future things that we're going to try to do with the model. There's a lot of questions about the future of the California energy system and we've been zooming in on this you know lots of questions off to the right you know that you might throw out there. I think you know to make good decisions about the future of energy in California we need to do a number of things simultaneously. When is we need to model energy supply and demand at a regional level. California is you know fairly large and has a lot of different geographies with different climates you know sort of economic willingness to pay density all sorts of factors that vary you know quite a bit over a pretty large region. We really need to account for hourly supply and demand interactions as we integrate more renewables that have this sort of hourly characteristic and this non-dispatchable characteristic we need to include those. And importantly we need to coordinate between the gas and electric system. So to date historically many of the capacity expansion or sort of future grid simulation models that have been used haven't sort of integrated between the gas and electric networks and so what we've been doing is trying to build models that do that and so we're basically building a region-specific integrated gas-electric coordinated transition model. Sometimes you sort of straight gold or catch the tiger by the tail. We came up with this acronym or models called bridges building resilient integrated decarbonized gas-electric systems. If nothing else I'm happy with the acronym. What this does is basically takes the traditional electric simulation approach also couples underlaying at the same time a natural gas system and then has all these points of coupling like gas to power and power to gas where for example if we have excess renewables in a future energy system we can turn them into hydrogen or turn them into synthetic methane store them use them in the winter right and so this flexibility allows us to do this and we have to do that we have to solve the admittedly simplified but solve the physics of the gas and electric systems simultaneously. Right now we're working on California we're modeling it reasonably simply we have 16 physical nodes for import nodes and two offshore nodes for modeling offshore wind we have data on electricity and gas demand by our and by sector for each node and these are generated based on a California Energy Commission building climate zones where we can get really this pretty amazing what data is available now. Time an important thing about these kinds of models and something to kind of emphasize is that time is really challenging to model and the time skills are very divergent if we're talking about transitioning to a clean energy economy this really is a cleanliness sort of an investment target that's unfolds over years to decades but at the same time stability of the grid unfolds at sub second kind of time scales right so we're really trying to build a system that's stable operational and provides a meets demand meets energy services at a secondly time scale at the same time that we've got our eye on the ball or sorry our eye on this target for decadal you know sort of goals we have a variety of temporal reduction techniques I won't I just you know I put those up here I don't really have time to talk about them but we try to do this in a computationally efficient way but still represent the actual behavior of each of these nodes in the system one important thing that we were able to do here oops sorry one important thing that we're able to do here on the bottom right this model has a really detailed accounting of the capital stock so basically for each of these regions we can say okay how many multifamily homes are there how many of those have electric heat how many of those have gassy right so we have a very disaggregated view of the ages and appliance sort of vintages the populations of appliances in these models and my student mo has been digging into that and getting very detailed data on that so we do have our network topology we have you know by no things like hourly variable renewable energy profiles we also have some really detailed appliance data from federal res stock and com stock databases they're called so we're basically we can get hourly demands for each of these regions you know we plug these into our model these are some of the simplified results we can get this is days 323 to 329 so late November in year one you can see here we've got sort of a daily generation peak that happens it depends on the day of course with a lot of this dark gray is natural gas combined cycle we do have the solar dome California is already in 2020 in our initial year already has a lot of solar but a lot of gas and then you see here as we get to the bottom this is year 2025 a huge amount of solar and that line below below the x-axis that's actually dumping electrons into synthetic fuels right so what it's actually doing is replacing the gas side of the system the industrial side of the system by taking the sex of solar and generating in this case electro methane and electrolytic hydrogen so we can model that and we can couple the two and we can model the flow okay so you know one last site since we're talking about you know policy relevant questions we're talking about equity we're talking about all these social aspects we can actually model these kinds of things and we can model policies with this tool in my postdoc or a postdoc I co-advised morale the process is in the audience she's starting to work on this you know we can look at things like what if there's a new build limitation on gas infrastructure no new gas hookups what if we say well instead we're going to limit supplies or sales of gas appliances or we're going to subsidize or unsubsidize so say we subsidize electric appliances what if instead we target early retirement with subsidies we said well if you have an old piece of equipment the state or the utility will write you a check if you replace it with a new new appliance with more efficiency or a new appliance that's electric we can model all these options and then see how this spins out over the simulation over the whole state we also are planning on zooming in on a more granular level and look at things like which we think we can do with this model if we do a high resolution approach one concern I have with the transition is this fairly haphazard so I recently completed a three-year complete electrification project for my home I'm a Stanford professor they pay me too much I can do this kind of thing so I've gone all electric but this is a very haphazard approach right this isn't it doesn't seem like a very structured efficient approach where we say well let's target regions where we can most efficiently electrify so can we for example pre-prane pre-plan pre-plan retirement and say okay this region of the gas grid is old let's electrify that region you know target that then we can shut it down reduce our our cost of maintenance of the system we can look at how valuable you know our scale gas infrastructure might be so even in a system where we're going to prune a lot of the end uses of gas we may need these trunk liner transmission scale systems if we're for example going to electrify heating we may have huge surges of heat demand in the winter where we're still going to need this gas gas infrastructure with hopefully carbon capture and storage and that's something that Morales interested in you know what happens if we disaggregate these nodes into different income tranches so each of these nodes you can model different income tranches with hatch with have different income different willingness to pay right different rates of home ownership versus a renting right and so as you promulgate these policies or these electrification policies how do those sort of affect these different regions differently and the different kinds of people that live in the different regions these are all interesting policy relevant questions we've really been focusing on model building and now we're starting to get our model working so we can start to tackle interesting questions we're starting to work on offshore wind and long-term storage case studies in California we're starting discussions on a northeast regional case study looking at you know sort of Boston to your New York City urban region you know we're mostly to echo Holmes's call for engagement we're mostly limited by not imagination maybe time to implement and explore the framework is really capable we're looking for projects to work on and we you know I think we can do a lot with it so we're excited to hear from you if you if you think there's interesting questions we can answer I don't know how I did on time their homes thank you I tried I tried to I tried to be quick so it's great to follow in a synodum with with this really exceptional presentations I want to talk about a specific aspect of this transition that I'm very interested in and it's kind of the work we do in our group which has to do with electrification so when you think about electrification and how you know this is position in the energy transition we all are aware that the one of the kind of key ideas behind decarbonization is the so-called electrify and decarbonize we're going to decarbonize the electricity grid which is about 30 percent of emissions and we're going to electrify a lot of end users and count on the fact that the grid has been decarbonized to get about 65 percent of emissions off the table and if you look at the picture I have put up here you know what's happening right now is we are seeing on the generation side of the grid extremely fast changes and we are starting to see the decarbonization or the electrification efforts trying to pick up pace but there is questions about how much can we do and how fast can we change and the main limitation in my opinion is that the end users are connected to the generation through the grid itself and there has been very little change and the expectations are the changes are going to be very slow on that pipe connecting these two sides so there are questions about how are we going to be able to get the speed the scale and the reach and we can go over these very quickly let's start with speed here we did a study where we actually took all of the DOE projections over all of the different end users and placed it in various you know distribution networks around the country rural urban commercial in different weather zones and so on so forth and I'm just showing like you know how much electrification is expected to increase the energy use and you can see you know 35% on commercial by 2050 10% or a little bit more on residential and one question is as we are speeding up this adoption of electrification what's happening to the grid and here's the question what's happening if you look at one measure which is how many transformers will be overloaded on all of these different example networks that we have very quickly transformers are overloaded and you know by 2050 90% of them will be overloaded so that you see this is an actual real problem today if you have to do an electrification project and you require a transformer upgrade here in northern California there's many regions where you have to wait for a year or more in San Francisco high speed EV chargers will only be allowed to be installed starting on 2026 to 2028 because of the lack of grid capacity but there is hope to solve the speed one of the things that we need to do better is coordination and coordination means coordinating end uses across consumers allows you to actually avert a lot of these overloaded transformers as you can see out here instead of replacing 90% of the transformers if we can coordinate our end use and the intelligence that's embedded in there with the fact that these transformers are one part of the pipe and there's a very other various other elements that constitute our reliability we can actually avoid a lot of that needed upgrades and bring down instead of 90% in this case to 30% this coordination has to go beyond that though because even for deploying projects you know the designing permitting building and installing them we don't have the skill today even in California for what we need to do so coordination also has to happen on that level and I think this will be a very important task and part of this is driven by standards both on the codes but also standards in communication and controls that we have been advocating for establishing as well the next question is about scale I'm just showing there in 2013 in blue you can see what's called a net load for the whole of California that's just all of the loads added up minus all of the renewables and that includes all of the rooftop solar and so on if you think about a particular area like Palo Alto and the local grid here there's something similar happening and sometimes actually more extreme well in 2013 that's where we were on 2019 you can see what's called the duck curve very clearly because of solar and the expectation if you look at all of the future model studies is that we will have in our net load moments where the grid potentially will go below zero in the net load which means we have to curtail that power and now that poses one question right now when we think about end users we are always thinking about efficiency and costs and be attributed to if you use less electricity you're more efficient than you cost less well in this picture here in fact if you use a lot as long as it's you're using in the daytime actually it's great you're cheaper than something more efficient so in that little picture I have there the blue bar uses double the amount of energy than the orange bar but the blue bar has a big advantage it is very flexible because it's using a lot of power because then I can schedule it in the time when the grid is actually producing a lot of renewables so extracting that flexibility from the loads is going to require a lot of automation and intelligence but also we need to start rethinking everything on this frame last year in the end of the year we publish the paper showing that the current policy that's promoted in California about charging your EVs at home actually can result in us requiring 25 percent more storage than what's planned for our state but if you just ask people to charge during the daytime then you don't have any addition of storage and so again it's very important to think holistically and about the whole system and the constraints of the grid the last piece that I wanted to touch upon which is very important is I called it reach and this is all about the equity it's very clear that right now as we look at the end use electrification it is quite non-equitable so let's just start with the picture on the right we actually used AI and mapped all of the solar deployments in the United States from satellite imagery available in Google Maps and what we found was really interesting first of all if you compare non-disadvantage communities and disadvantaged communities and you look at the residential which is like the second panel there the middle panel the letter e there is a 61% gap on solar equity that means there's 61 percent more solar panels normalized by population or buildings our area and the rooftop and all measures that you want is going to be very similar numbers if you are in a non-disadvantage community as defined by the justice for the effort from from the federal government but the one interesting thing is that well we also actually studied what is causing that and what we found is a lot of the incentive policies that we have enacted actually tend to accelerate the inequity so for example if you want to increase residential disadvantaged community adoption of solar you need performance-based incentives which depend just on the number of kilowatt hours that you produce versus the other type of incentives that you have but one another interesting aspect is if you look at commercial that gap is much smaller and finally I just wanted to show you this picture on the left is the undergrounding rates of our distribution grid across California and if you look at the curve in red that is for the high fire risk regions and what is very striking is that a lot more undergrounding is happening where your income is higher and actually even if your fire risk is very low you have a lot more undergrounding than when you have you're in the region with low income and one of the things that we are advocating is now using these AI tools you can actually track all of these issues and start to consider them in your investment decisions on that pipe so it's very important to think about the pipe and the constraints that it puts on what we're doing. Thank you. Thank you Ron. I appreciate that contribution. While John Wyance slides are being put cute up there I want to point out that there are many people in the audience who are aware of the federal policies that produce these effects they're not discoveries made like nobody knew that for 30 years a tax credit policy that was patently discriminatory against people who didn't have tax liability would create these types of golfs but they do take a toll on the demographic and geographic support for the policies that shape the market conditions that many of the affiliates of the Institute are interested in manifesting in order to accelerate investment you've drawn those connections very eloquently and nicely this morning I know that John Wyance is going to finish us off with his contributions of scholarship before we turn back to our audience for exchange. Great thanks a lot Holmes I'll try to go quickly because we're running out of time here so I'm going to report on behalf of the big team of us who have been working on a project on California's route to carbon neutrality I'll describe that in a little bit more detail in the next slide so this is a fairly big projects been going on a little bit over two years the PI is Lenore the project manager Sarah Salzer a couple of our colleagues on the panel are on the team that put the project together and first and foremost the two people at the top Andrew person and Josh Nutell did most all of the modeling work with a little bit of input from us I do feel obliged listening to the previous session in this one to kind of locate this work in a bigger space as Holmes mentioned in the introductions I've worked a lot on national and global and state and even some regional models I think if you look at the talks that were given in the last session in this session there does seem to be a commonality in a way in that we're kind of trying to decide whether to do policy and modeling from the top down or the bottom up across all those scales and this it turns out is very hard and I do think in order to get bigger better information for higher levels you have to drill down and do more disaggregation all the time I thought I was going to be talking about this study being the most disaggregated but I think our colleagues have kind of slipped down into that thing on the other hand as Bob Litterman said if you're going to actually to juxtaposition with Mark Rostin was interesting if you're going to start from the bottom up you've got to look at how that's going to affect the top down and be aware of where you're going to connect up with other things that are going on and looking at each kind of highly disaggregated in space time or complexity analysis. So the other dimension that this study hits is by the way we conceptualize we can conceptualize as much as we want but in many jurisdictions the trains are running and running fairly aggressively so this study was actually based on the fact that in California we have very specific emissions greenhouse gas emissions targets to reduce emissions by 2030 and completely by 2045 40 40 percent sorry by 2030 and 100 percent by 2045 so the train is running so therefore it becomes interesting to look at what the policymakers are actually thinking of doing and what the analysis behind their discussions of what policies to pursue are so essentially what we've done is taking this picture and looking at what the California Air Resources Board who is the requisite body in California for figuring out what to do to achieve the objectives the legislature and others governor has put have put forward so this is actually the the scoping plan preferred or proposed scenario that carb put out and it basically says in order to get there as shown on this trajectory we have to triple the amount of installed solar build 20 gigawatts of offshore wind electrify 20 million cars and reduce fossil fuel combustion to less than one tenth of what we use today and also install a hundred megatons of carbon capture and storage both point source and direct air capture so what the team did our modeling team did was essentially build another model that similar in structure but not exactly the same as the model carb use it is a application of a pre-existing platform called the low emissions analysis platform or leap and basically do our own reconstruction of both the carb baseline and the carb proposed scenario and the reason to do that was to get an idea of what was involved in is it easy or hard to get there and what might some alternatives be we focus mostly on emissions cost and resource constraints not as much on equity yet although we're down at the level of individual plants and facilities where it would be easy and located in specific locations it would be easy to add on to that some of the excellent work that you've heard described before on the equity and diversity dimensions so we reconstructed their their baseline and proposed scenario and then did a mammoth mound of sensitivity testing to see what was important and what was consequential we did this every which way you could think of and came up with a kind of set of things we wondered about how feasible they were and whether or not there might be a better way to get there so rather than do a counter modeling to carve we said maybe we can constructively kind of decompose with what they've done and shed a little bit more light on what some of the trade-offs equity included might be involved in trying to achieve those objectives and so we came up with our own kind of summaries a partner excuse my French spelling of summary there and you can get much more detail on what we actually did from Josh and Andrew during the poster sessions at 1150 and four today but the summary conclusions so far are the top line probably no surprise this group electrify everything and decarbonize the grid actually did a paper on exactly that subject with exactly that so conclusion in 2006 by the way and secondly all technologies and resources in our opinion will be needed to get to net zero by 24 2045 I'd like to end with three kind of interesting conclusions that we've come up with so far that it was and is driving our development of new scenarios that go deeper in that direction and try to identify alternatives we looked at the poster a couple of days ago and it looks like the posters at the end will actually go in some of those directions one is electrification in California at the rate that's desired will require major expanses to the existing grad Ram covered that of course and others and going from 97.5 to 100% renewables gets very expensive this was actually a big surprise to us we expected that knee and the curve to be more like 80 between 80 and 90% so we're up at 95 to 100 electrification of transportation is key a lot of the results have solar with battery on that end of it and then EVs no surprise to this group as a big part of the solution but surprisingly even with the aggressive goals announced by the governor and others we don't think the current policies may move that you know fast enough to actually get there where you're kind of mandating only electrical new vehicles in 2035 but what do you do about all the old vehicles still around in 2045 finally and perhaps most interestingly CDR is important for getting to that zero but will the technology at 100 100 million tons be available and 74 of that 100 we think is direct air capture so the question is by 2045 will things be there so that stimulating new thinking about if not that what else thanks John go ahead and join us one chair over we'll make this a comfortable living room dialogue I've been given the license to extend into your break time by four minutes so stay with us in part I know you are interested and I don't want to deprive you of that opportunity but that means we have 15 minutes right now for you in this open session to express your own interest from the context where I know you all have rich exposure to direct challenges that test the speed of transition against the barriers to participation that you've seen analyzed and presented here today I would like to ask Maxim and Michael is that true yes great please be alert to people who are in the middle and I'm asking you now to raise your hand so that Maxim and Michael can come to you and I'll be asking for you to announce yourself and your background before you speak Michael I see someone right down here at front hi my name is Larry Huff I'm from Salve so I have a more of a global question so as industry and municipalities go more towards carbon neutralization how do we take steps to offset emerging economies and other places in South America India that might kind of offset what what we're trying to do or what industry is trying to do a wonderful question and one that actually has a direct linkage to the questions that were raised by Robert in the first panel on leakage meaning around the global economy and for multinational corporations that are here that's of course really salient question to your management strategies I know that though we did feature in this panel three four academics that were all a part of the program led by principal investigator Lynn Orr from our Undersecretary of Energy and Science here with us today the California context rich as it is is not explanatory for those of you that are working in global context but we do have extensive global engagement experience here Professor Wyatt would you like to begin with the Sure that's a great question again it's probably as Bob indicated all about the accounting there are a lot of studies out there now several the energy modeling forum has done on trade and climate looking at explicitly things like leakage I would say the advanced version of some of the maybe not advanced a different take on that is we now have the CBAM the carbon border adjustment proposal in the European Union actually partly based on one of our studies that was run through Germany of all things but we also have now not much discussing yet homes of IRA explicitly I think because it's relatively new and hard to do so I think a big part of the negotiation there will be is IRA consistent or inconsistent with the CBAM things now the way I do think maybe I'm a diehard optimization guide you can shadow price some of these things out so if we're going to have restrictions on the source of the equipment we used for solar EVs or batteries in California that's going to cost something but on the equity side this is the White House credo right now you've heard you've all heard it people we've got to help people voters places and projects so I think we probably need to go in both directions to do the global accounting again and modeling but also the bottom up very difficult but very important bottom up work to see who's being affected on the ground in real life in real time to unpack some of Professor Wein's acronyms there IRA the inflation reduction act potentially coming into attention space with the border adjustment mechanisms that are being considered as solutions for transition around the world I think that we do see a veritable army of Stanford graduates and faculty members participating in the Biden administration trying to address these questions head on I see Maxim in the back speak up excuse me say that again can you hear me now yeah you can yeah I have a question about carbon sequestration challenges the legal challenges of whatever the number is tens of thousands maybe more individual property owners who have mineral rights for whatever goes into the ground under their property and how to get around that these are not likely to be people who are interested in this stuff want to hand that to our CCS wow Holmes I don't know that I'm a CCS expert it's very hard is a short version I've been watching the CCS but other way I've written many papers in it recently but I've been watching the CCS space for 15 17 18 years I guess there's a variety of challenges it's not clear to me at all that the issues are really technical right so it's not clear to me at all that we can't do the kind of monitoring and verification and and you know so you know integrity of the seals and these kinds of things we can do this kind of stuff right the oil industry has done this kind of subsurface work for a century now I think what you raise is more around like are people going to want this to happen and in particular the people with the property rights and I think that's probably where this is all going to stick I mean one of the interesting things of the pathway study that John presented and I'm involved with as well is how important carbon dioxide removal is to the state's plan and so it's bigger than anything else by a wide margin and so we have a decarbonization plan but that decarbonization plan has 70 million tons a year of removal from the air by 2045 and so this is a big deal I don't I wish I had an answer for you if you're asking questions looking for answers I guess you're looking in the wrong place I'm kind of I guess I have serious questions maybe like you whether that's actually going to materialize or whether we're setting ourselves up for a massive fight which is one of the reasons why an alternative strategy might say look okay state 70 million tons a year is it realistic can we do that or should we push harder on these other aspects maybe we need more batteries maybe we need more other things because it's just it's just yeah I guess I would say I don't want to say it won't happen I guess I'm just inferring in your tone that you're skeptical and I'm skeptical too I guess so yeah I don't have an answer other than that. Thank you Professor right yeah stay tuned stay tuned yeah Greg Hart from Calgary Canada Future Fit Cities when I was looking at one of the charts I could see the COVID impact showing that you know the declines in emissions and that tells us something about re-organizing the way that we live and so when I look at these models and we talk about carbon capture and we talk about technologies being brought to bear electrification is there any modeling going into this or is anybody working on any modeling that says if we start to reorganize the growth of society what kind of impacts that's going to have on these goals because I am equally skeptical about you know using carbon capture at scale to somehow hit these 2045 kinds of targets so I'm just curious if anybody's modeling that especially with the example the natural experiment of COVID changing some of that stuff thanks yeah we've been doing a little bit of that with a I co-advised a EIPERC graduate student Ranjitha with a civil engineering professor Rishi Jain and she also works somewhat with the NAS she's been doing some very very high resolution modeling of this and her question is well A looking at COVID as a natural experiment as you said but then also trying to project forward what happened to or what can we what can we expect happened to overall demand for energy with the work from home shock and so she's extremely high resolution data she's focusing on the Bay Area for now but data down to census tract she has a transportation model where people basically work and where they live she also has a home energy model and then a commercial energy model for the commercial buildings very high resolution building scale datasets from the U.S. federal government essentially they have these datasets of essentially every building on record and it's basic characteristics so you can do a model so she's doing this very granular work I would say one of the more interesting she's out on maternity leave she's got a little baby which is great but otherwise she would probably be here in the audience but one of the interesting things that's come out of that is a couple things one is that the the impact of COVID was kind of smaller than you would think and I think this is many studies have found this in some ways because I think we're a bit bubbled in the kinds of work that we do and there's a lot of people who couldn't work remotely and were continuing to drive right and so I think there was maybe less of an impact than like in my sort of mental headspace how big of a deal was COVID well it was a very big deal and for a lot of people in software and finance and management you know that was it was the very could be a very big shock but I think overall it actually was a little bit less than we expected and there was a lot more commuting that stayed on and then the other thing was interesting is she's trying to couple the transport and the building energy use and so the building energy use actually claws back some of the work from home benefit because you end up partly running some commercial sites and some and some home energy use right and so what ends up happening is you have some of the efficiency associated with reducing driving is kind of clawed back and taken back by by the fact that now there's multiple locations some people are working from home somewhere from the office right and so those are the we're not done with it yet but some kind of some interesting initial results we haven't incorporated much of that in our modeling we could right we could zoom in on that I don't know around do you want to yeah we publish two major papers and studies on this one more at you know the county level state level across the United States and across the world and one of the things that was quite striking is that covid dip was quite significant in that very first year of covid and after that we basically rebounded even before all of the shelter in place was over then in a follow-up study working with pg and e we were able to actually go through data for a lot of the commercial buildings and residential buildings here in california and we know the two of the points that adam just made one a compensation between what happens in residential and commercial the second was the commercial dip was much smaller than expected and my colleague who's here Jacques Chalander has been doing a lot of experiments on like building cooling and so on on the campus and and he can provide more light into this but one of the aspect seems to be a lot of the buildings their energy consumption is not that much tied to the occupants so unless a company consciously decides to shut down a site you know those savings are going to be smaller and manufacturing and industrial are huge sectors in terms of energy and i don't think that is necessarily going away where behavior will help i think is in what we discussed earlier aligning your consumption more with where the production of clean energy is cheaper that's going to be a huge issue and i'm sure i think in adam's model we could verify the benefits of that very clearly so i've seen a lot of these studies as much as i didn't want to see the results they are probably good valid extremely important results on the other hand a generalization of what rav just said i think there is some hope that everybody high-level policymakers low-level policymakers all of us are now more aware of the vulnerabilities we have this is kind of sustainability writ large so relative to pre-covid we may be more concerned about chip supply chain shortages and shortages of everything else and that also has a strong equity component the one thing we learned in our study that i wasn't anticipating as much is a lot of these disadvantaged communities don't only suffer from high levels of pollution of any sort but they're also what we now call because of covet front-line workers so they're and actually our sponsors are boiler makers truck drivers farmers and whatnot so i think particularly in a place like california this may not catch on as fast but it may around the world this is a dominant thing i think it's been said by many people in california without engaging the disadvantaged people through environmental justice or social justice more generally we're probably not going to make very much progress towards our climate goals here so i think that is something i'm fairly optimistic about or at least more optimistic now sadly than before a covet because i think we've kind of not to use a much maligned word we're a little bit more woke to what the stakes are if we do too much you know highly optimized just in time inventory supply chains what the consequences of that the risk of that might be and who bears those risks matters right and who bears those risks are often not stanford professor on a stage right to although i think mark rostin probably could actually do that i'll be the only person i know yeah we can be fairly insulated and i try not to be but it's that's the reality right friends i think i want to draw some connections not just between our speakers here but between the sessions and even between the days between today and yesterday to point out that about six months ago i was on this stage hosting stanford energy innovation days with two ceo's one from the bits and watts program that rom has helped start and amit narayan was telling us about autogrid a company with 6000 megawatts of demand under management in 18 countries a level of scale that has been astonishing to develop in just a short amount of time and with the capacity to rival the impacts in the state of california of the covid stay at home policies for example this is just one way of drawing the connection between the energy innovation ecosystem at stanford and the pace at which it can deliver responses that are not even anticipated by modeling teams that haven't abstracted mathematical representations of solutions that we haven't even seen yet this gives us a reason for striking a tone of optimism not techno optimism but one that is actually related to the potential for applying legal theories financial strategies and social sciences to unveil and illuminate pathways forward that are defying the deductive reasoning of technology models that can sometimes lead us to a kind of statement we just heard from professor brant which i think is admirably humble wow our models foretell millions of tons of carbon dioxide removal that might not be there in the span of 20 years but what are the implications for a community of thought leaders that are in partnership with some of the largest organizations on earth awake to the imperative and the reality that when we focus on equity as a central strategy it can actually beat the buzzer and move us farther and faster in a rapid transition that none of us can afford to wait for I want to thank you for your attentive engagement throughout this session I hope you will use the break to the best of your ability to seize on these professors and the other faculty members that are asking similar questions and if you have been provoked by my remarks or what you've heard today please join us at one o'clock in the living room here to discuss the man side decarbonization is a forthcoming area of innovation within the institute's community please join me in thanking the academic council members have joined us today