The feasibility of putting solar panels over the state's network of canals is the topic of a big new research project, co-led by the University of Southern California.

The California Solar Canal Initiative builds on a study from the University of California-Merced, which found solar arrays over the canals could generate clean energy, conserve water, reduce air pollution and save land.

Monica Dean, director of climate and sustainability practice at the University of Southern California-Dornsife, said the research will answer practical questions.

"How would we do it? Which canals make the most sense? How much energy could they actually produce? What would the economic implications of doing this be?" Dean outlined. "We're taking a hypothetical scenario and making it real."

The research phase will last about two years and is expected to provide a roadmap for policymakers, utilities and communities. The original Merced study estimated covering the Golden State's canals with solar panels could generate enough electricity to power about 2 million homes each year.

Covered canals also prevent evaporation and could save enough water to meet the residential needs of up to 2 million people per year and they could lower maintenance costs, since fewer weeds grow in shade.

Dean estimated the arrays could save about 50,000 acres of land.

"Rather than needing to put a solar panel on land that could be used for housing or farming or some other purpose, now you're just repurposing existing infrastructure and making it work a little bit harder," Dean emphasized.

The initiative is cosponsored by the independent advisory firm Solar AquaGrid. It will also include faculty from the University of California-Berkeley, the University of California-Irvine, the University of California-Merced and the University of California College of the Law-San Francisco, plus San Jose State University and the University of Kansas.

Lawmakers and climate change activists are speaking out against a rumored executive action by President Donald Trump to revoke tax-exempt statuses from climate nonprofits. One rumored change includes the removal of climate change from qualifying topics for the exemption.

Last Thursday in the Oval Office, Trump hinted environmental nonprofits could have their tax-exempt statuses scrutinized by the administration. Federal law currently bars a president from directly or indirectly ordering the Internal Revenue Service to investigate specific tax-exempt organizations.

Ruth Ann Norton, president and CEO of the nonpartisan Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, said she found the rumored executive actions troubling.

"We should not be talking about removing tax-exempt status from the civic good that comes from the work of nonprofits to prevent environmental issues that impair and impact and are harmful on people's lives," Norton contended.

Climate nonprofits are not the only organizations in Trump's crosshairs. He has suggested Harvard University should lose its tax-exempt status over defying demands from the administration dealing with diversity, admissions processes and antisemitism.

Tax-exempt status allows organizations to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions and not pay federal income tax.

Joelle Novey, director of the nonprofit Interfaith Power and Light in Maryland, the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia, said the actions may target climate nonprofits first but all nonprofits are at risk.

"There is no attack on civil society groups in the United States that isn't an attack on every one of us who expresses who we are by forming, supporting, volunteering and taking action through nonprofit organizations," Novey argued.

A federal judge last week ordered the Trump administration to unfreeze billions of dollars in climate and infrastructure funds previously targeted in an executive order on Trump's first day in office.


get more stories like this via email

As of today, Earth Day, more than 50 elected officials have signed a letter urging lawmakers to make oil and gas companies bear the cost of climate change.

The California Polluters Pay Superfund, which goes before the state Senate Judiciary Committee today, would assess a fee on large oil and gas companies to pay for programs that mitigate damage from climate change.

Ahmad Zahra, a council member in Fullerton, signed onto the letter sponsored by the group Elected Officials to Protect America.

"Throughout the years, these large oil companies were really not necessarily telling the truth about air pollution," Zahra pointed out. "Just like we've seen in oil spills and ground pollution, the responsible party has to pay for it."

The Western States Petroleum Association opposes the bill, saying it would lead to higher gas prices. The bill directs the California Environmental Protection Agency to determine how much climate change has cost the state from 1990 to 2024. Federal data show California has suffered 46 natural disasters linked to climate change since 1980, each resulting in more than $1 billion in losses, with $250 billion from the Los Angeles firestorm alone.

Marisol Rubio, a council member in San Ramon, said 40% of the funds would be directed to low-income communities most affected by fossil fuel pollution.

"Those funds can then be used to better manage and correct and abate the pollution that not only already exists but that will come inevitably in the future, until we are able to be independent of fossil fuels," Rubio explained.

Advocates said right now, everyday Californians foot the bill for climate change in the form of higher taxes, insurance rates and utility bills, as well as via medical expenses for pollution-related illness.

The "Make Polluters Pay Superfund" bill goes before the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee Monday.

The bill would direct the California Environmental Protection Agency to study how much climate change has cost the state between 1990 and 2024, and assess a one-time fee on oil and gas companies emitting more than 1 billion metric tons of emissions.

Maya Golden-Krasner, deputy director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity in Los Angeles, explained the goal of the bill.

"These are companies that make billions of dollars in profits per day," Golden-Krasner pointed out. "This bill would take some of the burden off of taxpayers, and put it onto the people who caused the crisis."

Right now, taxpayers end up footing much of the bill to clean up after natural disasters like mega-fires and floods, made worse by climate change. The money would go into a fund for climate-related programs, including projects to promote energy efficiency, make infrastructure more resilient, create urban green spaces and restore wetlands. The Western States Petroleum Association is among opponents of the bill, saying it will raise fuel costs for consumers and businesses.

The State Building and Construction Trades Council also opposes the bill, saying it will cost jobs.

Asm. Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay, a sponsor of the bill, argued the climate projects will create jobs and a one-time fee should not affect gas prices.

"These companies lied to the public for decades," Addis contended. "They knew that the pollution they were causing was creating climate damage, was leading to global warming. They hid that information, and it's time for them to be part of the solution."

The bill has already passed the Senate Environmental Quality Committee in March and goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday.


get more stories like this via email