California’s Energy History
For decades, California has faced a series of existential challenges related to energy. From rolling blackouts and utility bankruptcies to volatile prices and infrastructure strain, the state’s dependence on an increasingly unstable electrical grid has proven unsustainable. To balance the persistent mismatch between supply and demand, California has sought new energy solutions capable of stabilizing the grid while supporting its environmentally progressive agenda. In recent years, the state has pursued ambitious energy and climate targets, many of which are being met through the integration of solar energy and large-scale battery storage systems.
California’s energy challenges have evolved dramatically over time. In the 1970s, the state faced the opposite problem of today: an excess supply of energy coupled with insufficient consumer demand. A combination of oil shortages, government conservation mandates, and overbuilt power plants left utilities burdened with high operating costs and a lack of consumers to absorb them. To address inefficiencies and encourage competition, California lawmakers passed Assembly Bill 1890 in 1996, which deregulated and restructured California’s energy market. This legislation created a competitive marketplace for electricity and established the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), tasked with managing the state’s energy generation, transmission, and grid reliability.
While Assembly Bill 1890 aimed to promote fairness and efficiency, it also laid the groundwork for the California Energy Crisis of 2000–2001 by deregulating California’s energy market, creating a supply-manipulation and price-spike vulnerable system. A key provision of the bill required utilities to purchase power in real time, exposing consumers and suppliers alike to volatile price fluctuations. During periods of peak demand (particularly in the morning and evening) prices spiked dramatically, while midday prices plummeted due to lower consumption. This variation contributed to what later became known as the Duck Curve, a pattern that illustrates the sharp imbalance between solar energy production during daylight hours and electricity demand after sunset.
Breaking Down the Duck Curve
The Duck Curve gets its name from the duck-like shape produced by graphically illustrating consumer demand for energy and solar energy’s contribution to energy usage.
The “tail” of the duck represents the spike in energy needs that occurs during the hours between about 7–9 a.m.. This rise in energy demand comes from the period of the morning before consumers go to work or school, when they need energy for light, appliances, etc. This period’s energy demand can be partially mitigated with solar energy; as the sun comes up and reaches solar energy sources, solar energy can begin to be generated and used between the hours of 7 and 9 a.m., so long as the sun does come out during this time.
The “body” of the duck is created by the divergence of two lines: total demand of energy without solar and total demand of energy with solar. This body represents the difference between total demand and net demand, which is the total demand after accounting for the use of solar energy. The use of solar energy, as exemplified by the duck curve, significantly mitigates the demand for energy during hours of the day which have sunlight.
The “head” of the duck represents the meeting of the total energy demand and the net energy demand lines, occurring at the second and highest peak period of energy demand. This peak in demand occurs between the hours of about 5-7 p.m., when people are generally arriving home after work or school, using energy for light, appliances, etc.
The problem that occurs in the duck curve phenomenon is that solar energy mitigates energy demand during the most inefficient period of the day, the hours with the most sunlight and the lowest relative energy demand. While, as seen in the graph, solar energy does significantly decrease the net energy demand during the day, it is the peak hours of demand in the morning and evening that pose threats of high prices and grid strain.
How can California find a way to utilize solar energy during the peak period of energy demand? The solution lies in Battery Energy Storage Systems, effectively storing solar energy generated during the day to use more efficiently at peak periods of energy demand. In recent years, California has invested heavily in BESS, resulting in a 300 percent increase in BESS infrastructure in California since 2020.
The Landscape of California’s Energy Grid Today
Signed into law in 2018, Senate Bill 100 set the goal of carbon-neutrality in California by 2045. While it lays the framework of transforming California’s energy infrastructure, it lacks specific steps to achieving it. Achieving carbon-neutrality requires reforming not only California’s energy grid, but decarbonizing transportation, agriculture and factories, and electrification of appliances and infrastructure. Senate Bill 100’s Joint Agency Report found that, to achieve SB 100’s goal of 100 percent clean energy by 2045, California will need to see an unprecedented amount of new solar and storage capacity. The question is: What will it take to reach carbon neutrality by 2045, and can it be done, especially while keeping energy prices down for consumers?
In recent years, California has made remarkable progress in expanding its renewable energy portfolio. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that renewable sources accounted for over 60 percent of California’s in-state electricity generation in 2024, a milestone driven largely by the state’s rapid deployment of solar and battery storage systems. California now holds the highest amount of utility-scale solar storage capacity in the nation, with investments totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in new storage projects. CAISO has overseen the addition of over 26,000 megawatts of new capacity, significantly enhancing grid stability. California has not experienced rolling blackouts since 2020, an achievement attributed to this surge in renewable generation and storage.
To reach goals outlined in SB 100, California has put in place a myriad of incentives and policies, increasing the demand and capacity for solar and storage. Rebates, tax credit, and compensation for excess energy generated by solar are offered to residents in California to make personal solar energy generation more affordable. Additionally, the state-wide Solar For All program employs federal grants to provide solar infrastructure to low-income households.
California’s progress has occurred amid shifting federal priorities toward fossil fuel expansion, announcing plans to open 13 million acres of federal land for coal mining and investing $625 million to modernize such operations. At the same time, the state administration has expressed support for domestic battery manufacturing. With roughly 75 percent of global batteries produced in China, proposed tariffs, such as a 100 percent tariff on Chinese batteries, have bolstered some U.S.-based manufacturers, including Sacramento’s Sparkz, whose CEO Sanjiv Malhotra has praised the administration’s push for domestic production of critical energy materials. However, these tariffs also block the most affordable battery options from being used in solar and storage infrastructure, heightening costs for both manufacturers and consumers.
Carbon-neutrality means not only a reliance on clean and renewable energy, but also an alleviation of climate-change related dangers connected to fossil fuels and dated energy infrastructure. Solar and storage infrastructure reduced the amount of non-solar energy demanded at peak periods, mitigating the opportunity of an over-strained grid and the fire danger concurrent with one. Moreover, a decrease of emissions slows rising temperatures and subsequent doubts, decreasing the risk and severity of wildfires. No energy source is 100 percent safe, as solar energy storage systems use lithium-ion batteries that can be flammable and emit dangerous chemicals if ignited. However, these batteries have extremely-low failure rates and are relatively a safe alternative.
California’s energy grid has undergone a transformational shift to renewable energy in recent years, striving towards the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. With $191 billion in renewable energy investments, the problem of grid instability and spiked prices has been largely fixed. Large BESS, coupled with smaller-scale electrification of buildings, appliances, and transportation vehicles, has the capacity to cut 50 percent of non-renewable energy use. Additional research and advancements in technology are needed to continue the reduction of emissions and reach carbon neutrality, such as the decarbonization of planes and ships, low-emission refrigerants, and mass removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
California’s largely successful commitment to a transition to renewable energy, while keeping costs low for consumers, is an exemplary solution to harmful and dated energy infrastructure reliant on non-renewable energy sources. SB 100’s framework of transitioning the grid to solar energy and storage can and possibly should be adopted by other states in tandem with the goal of reliance on 100 percent renewable energy. Climate-forward technologies such as carbon capture, electric vehicles and appliances, and solar storage make this goal more achievable and applicable to other states. California became the first large state to codify a 100 percent clean energy target in 2018, followed by some other states in proceeding years.
Despite tariffs on Chinese batteries, reduced solar incentives, and persistent technological hurdles, California has made significant strides toward carbon neutrality, with BESS serving as the backbone of its clean energy transition. While debate continues over whether the state will achieve its 2045 climate targets, the trajectory is undeniably aligned with its renewable energy ambitions.
For California, and for other states committed to a sustainable future, the direction of progress may ultimately matter more than the pace, reflecting a decisive shift toward long-term resilience and innovation in the energy sector.
Featured Image Source: Conservation Biology Institute
