Back in early September, Governor Jerry Brown signed one of the most ambitious clean energy bills in the country. The bill, entitled SB 100, plans to move California to 100% clean electricity by 2045.

Currently, the state generates about 33 percent of its energy from renewables.

The plan is to hit 50 percent by 2025 (five years earlier than targets set by previous bills), then 60 percent by 2030. Eventually, it should hit 100 percent “zero carbon” by 2045. This would include nuclear power, which is not renewable.

SB100 is not a mandate, but a target goal that would require state agencies, like the Air Resources Board and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), to use the 100 percent target as a measurement for long-term planning. It would also further expand existing clean energy technologies.

One major project that’s been underway involves the electrification of transportation, which is the largest contributor to emissions. According to a press release by the CPUC back in May, $738 million have been allocated on furthering already-existing transportation electrification projects and other incentives. Some of these include funds to install 870 infrastructure sites to support the electrification of medium and heavy-duty vehicles.

But the task is still extraordinary. Can the world’s fifth largest economy de-carbonize its entire electric grid in less than 30 years? And what will be the cost?

For instance, renewable energy tends to be extremely intermittent. Solar power can only generate energy when it’s, well, sunny. This is particularly challenging since energy use is greatest at dark. Hence, natural gas is still used to compensate during those intermediary periods.

The use of battery storage units that would capture solar energy for later use is one way to get around this. But, as some critics note, this could be expensive and inefficient compared to the use of natural gas.

In addition, the closure of gas-emitting industries and diesel-fueled transportation could destroy many jobs.

For example, back in 2017, Garcetti offered to bring zero-emission trucks to the port of Los Angeles. The costs of these cleaner trucks were much greater than their diesel-fueled counterparts. The financial burdens subsequently fell on the truck drivers, whom had already been facing cost burdens since the passage of the Clean Trucks Program a decade ago.

As the LA Times editorial noted, clean air goals should be implemented whilst taking into account those it leaves behind.

And the cost of not pursuing more aggressive climate policies is simply all too clear. After all, it is our planet that is at stake.

Fortunately, plenty of studies have shown that the switch to full renewables doesn’t just have to be an emergency measure to save the planet, but an extraordinary progressive model that could be a boon to economies, both locally and globally.

In certain regions in California, the results have proven, thus far, to be quite positive.

A comprehensive study commissioned by the non-profit group Next 10 showed that between 2010 and 2016, Riverside and San Bernardino counties experienced a net benefit of $9.1 billion in direct economic activity and gained 41,000 jobs through the construction of renewable power plants.

When taking into account spillover effects, climate policies resulted in $14.2 billion in economic activity as well as the creation of more than 73,000 jobs in the region over the seven years.

Lead researcher Betony Jones stated in the report that even if we were to take into account construction for a “business-as-usual scenario”, the construction of renewable power plants still created the largest number of jobs in the Inland area.

In addition, the more we continue to invest in clean air technologies, the more costs will go down. Solar panel prices, for instance, have dropped precipitously over the decades.

Furthermore, as the world market moves to cleaner technologies, the more economies will be incentivized to pour their resources into it.

Colleen Kredell, director of research at Next10, said that the issue isn’t only about climate change but about global competitiveness.

“You have companies in China, UK, Germany, and India fazing out internal combustion vehicles,” she said. “You got some of the world’s most populous nations, most developed economies, saying ‘we are no longer using gas powered vehicles’. That means there will no longer be a market for those cars.”