A growing number of jurisdictions are passing ambitious clean energy policies. Yet few studies have accounted for natural and agricultural land impacts of low-carbon pathways and how environmental siting constraints affect electricity costs and technology choices. To address this gap, we developed an integrated land-energy planning framework to examine the land use trade-offs of renewable energy development required to achieve ambitious clean energy goals, using the state of California as a case study. Using high-resolution ecological and agricultural datasets for 11 Western U.S. states, we modeled environmentally-constrained onshore wind, solar photovoltaic, and geothermal potential and used an electricity capacity expansion model to build generation portfolios for 2050. Here we show that California can meet its targets, but the technology mix, spatial build-out, and system costs are sensitive to land protections and availability of out-of-state renewable resources. Results suggest that failure to consider land availability in energy planning could increase uncertainties, environmental impacts, and risks in meeting subnational climate targets.

The scale and pace of energy infrastructure development required to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are unprecedented, yet our understanding of how to minimize its potential impacts on land and ocean use and natural resources is inadequate. Using high-resolution energy and land-use modeling, we developed spatially explicit scenarios for reaching an economy-wide net-zero GHG target in the western United States by 2050. We found that among net-zero policy cases that vary the rate of transportation and building electrification and use of fossil fuels, nuclear generation, and biomass, the “High Electrification” case, which utilizes electricity generation the most efficiently, had the lowest total land and ocean area requirements (84,000 to 105,000 km 2 vs. 88,100 to 158,000 km 2 across all other cases). Different levels of land and ocean use protections were applied to determine their effect on siting, environmental and social impacts, and energy costs. Meeting the net-zero target with stronger land and ocean use protections did not significantly alter the share of different energy generation technologies and only increased system costs by 3%, but decreased additional interstate transmission capacity by 20%. Yet, failure to avoid development in areas with high conservation value is likely to result in substantial habitat loss.

No abstract