Physical Address
23,24,25 & 26, 2nd Floor, Software Technology Park India, Opp: Garware Stadium,MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad, Maharashtra – 431001 India
A recent post on X makes a series of claims about California’s solar-heavy grid, arguing that solar creates massive daytime surpluses, forces the state to rely on gas in the evening, and is ultimately more expensive than a 24/7 gas-based system.
California has become a useful test case for the opportunities and challenges of a solar-heavy electricity system. The state has rapidly expanded solar generation while also adding large amounts of battery storage. At the same time, natural gas remains an important source of electricity, particularly when solar output declines in the evening.
That makes some elements of the viral post factually grounded. However, the post goes too far when it portrays California as being dependent on gas to compensate for solar and claims that an all-gas grid would automatically be cheaper. The reality is more complicated.
Claim 1: “California then scrambles to fire up gas plants to keep the lights on, with billions more spent on this backup generation.”
Fact: Misleading.
California does rely on natural-gas generation during periods when solar production falls rapidly, particularly in the late afternoon and evening. The decline in renewable output around sunset creates a sharp need for replacement electricity, and natural-gas generation and electricity imports remain important resources for meeting this demand.
But describing this as California “scrambling” to fire up gas plants ignores the growing range of resources available to the grid. Batteries have become particularly important. They can charge during periods of abundant midday solar and discharge during the evening when solar generation declines. Demand response, hydropower, electricity imports and other flexible resources can also help meet evening electricity requirements.
Recent data show that battery storage is already reducing the amount of gas needed during evening hours. Battery generation during the 5–9 p.m. period increased substantially between 2022 and 2025, helping displace some natural-gas generation.
The “billions more spent” portion is also unsupported without specifying what costs are being discussed. California’s electricity system has costs associated with generation, transmission, distribution, storage and grid upgrades regardless of the technology mix. Simply attributing billions of dollars of expenditure to “backup generation” does not establish that solar caused those costs.
In fact, the longer-term trend does not show California becoming increasingly dependent on gas as solar expands. Solar generation has grown substantially in recent years, while natural-gas generation has declined over the same period.
Claim 2: “Solar floods the grid during the height of the day, far more than California can use, so operators are forced to dump gigawatts of green power.”
Fact: Partly true, but overstated.
There is a genuine issue behind this claim. On sunny days, California can produce more solar electricity than the system can economically absorb at certain times. When generation exceeds what can be accommodated by demand, transmission capacity and available flexibility, grid operators curtail some renewable generation.
Solar accounts for a substantial share of California’s renewable curtailment during high-solar periods. This is a well-documented consequence of the rapid growth of variable renewable generation.
However, the phrase “far more than California can use” creates the misleading impression that California routinely has no way to use this electricity. Curtailment is only one possible response to excess generation.
Electricity can also be exported to neighboring systems, while flexible demand can be shifted toward periods of high solar output. Most importantly, batteries can absorb surplus midday electricity and release it later in the day.
This is increasingly significant in California. Between April 2024 and April 2026, utility-scale solar capacity in the California Independent System Operator region increased by about 19%, reaching 25 GW, while net battery-storage capacity increased by about 79%, reaching 16 GW.
The existence of curtailment therefore demonstrates a need for greater flexibility, not that solar electricity is inherently unusable. As storage, transmission, interconnection capacity and flexible demand expand, some of the electricity that might otherwise be curtailed can instead be shifted to periods when it is more valuable.
Claim 3: “A 24-7 gas grid would cost far less to construct and maintain than solar, and it would actually work 24-7.”
Fact: Unsupported and misleading.
This is the weakest claim in the post because it makes a major economic comparison without providing any evidence or defining what “cost” means.
Gas generation does have an important advantage: it can generally be dispatched when electricity is needed, unlike solar, whose output varies with sunlight. But that does not automatically make a gas-dominated electricity system cheaper.
A meaningful comparison would need to include power-plant construction, fuel expenditure, maintenance, transmission, grid infrastructure, reserve capacity, environmental compliance and the costs associated with fuel-price volatility.
The economics of new generation also do not support the blanket statement that gas is always cheaper than solar. Renewable generation can have relatively low operating costs once built because it does not require continuous fuel purchases. Gas plants, by contrast, remain exposed to the cost and availability of fuel throughout their operating lives.
There is also a crucial distinction between existing gas plants and building an entirely new gas-dependent grid. Existing gas plants may provide relatively inexpensive dispatchable electricity because their construction costs have already been incurred. That does not mean constructing enough new gas capacity to replace an increasingly large solar fleet would necessarily be the cheapest option.
Nor does “24-7 gas” automatically guarantee an uninterrupted electricity supply. A gas-dependent system still requires adequate generating capacity, fuel infrastructure, transmission networks, maintenance and operational reserves. Reliability is therefore a property of the entire electricity system, rather than simply whether an individual generator can operate around the clock.
The post identifies a real phenomenon: California’s high solar penetration creates periods of midday oversupply, renewable curtailment and steep evening ramps. Natural gas still plays an important role in meeting some of those ramps.
But it leaves out the rapid growth of batteries, electricity imports, demand response and other flexible resources. Most importantly, California is increasingly using batteries to shift solar electricity into the evening rather than simply replacing solar with gas.
The evidence therefore supports a more nuanced conclusion: California’s solar-heavy grid has created a flexibility challenge, but the duck curve and renewable curtailment do not demonstrate that solar has failed, nor do they establish that an all-gas grid would be cheaper or more reliable.
References:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=66704
https://www.epa.gov/power-sector/power-sector-evolution
https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/CEC-500-2020-062.pdf
Banner Image: AI-generated
Sections of this article may have been developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools to support research, drafting, and language refinement. All information has been reviewed, edited, and verified by the author/editor to ensure accuracy, context, and editorial integrity. The responsibility for the final content, interpretations, and conclusions rests solely with the publisher.
