California Assembly advances pipe dream 100% clean electricity bill

Guest essay by Larry Hamlin

The L. A. Times reported that the California Assembly voted out a bill requiring that the states electricity will be 100% clean energy by the year 2045.

Additionally SB 100 would also require that renewable energy targets for California be raised from 50% to 60% by year 2030.


“California would set some of the nation’s strongest clean energy goals under legislation that cleared a key vote in the Assembly on Tuesday, bringing the state a step closer to ending its reliance on fossil fuels by phasing out their use to generate electricity.

The bill, which would require California to obtain 100% of its power from clean sources by 2045, has been debated by lawmakers for nearly two years as it faced cost and feasibility concerns. This week, high-profile state and national politicians gave the cause a push by arguing the plan would strengthen California’s leadership on the environment.”

The Times article notes that the lawmakers provided the following rational for supporting this absurd scheme:

“Lawmakers supporting the bill said it was important that the state continue its pioneering efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. A new state report released this week warned that California will face higher temperatures, more wildfires and sea- level rise in the coming decades due to climate change.”

“The damage will continue to be done as long as we refuse to act,” Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) said. “There are no more tomorrows left.”

These rational are completely erroneous since California emissions reductions are totally irrelevant compared to global emissions increases and since the new state “study” is based on inadequate climate model projections which are based on nothing but conjecture and speculation derived from these models.

From the global emissions perspective reductions in California emissions are overwhelmed by huge emissions growth in the developing nations particularly in Asia as demonstrated here:

“In the period 1990 to 2016 China’s growth of 7.7 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions per year compares to California’s AB 32 reduction of about 0.052 billion tons of CO2 per year (CO2 emissions represent about 80% of Ca. greenhouse gas emissions).”

Thus any action California takes to reduce emissions is clearly meaningless compared to global emissions growth.

Not all legislators were singing the praises of the climate alarmist propaganda banter being thrown around the Assembly as noted here:

“Some Democrats cast their votes against the policy. Assemblyman Adam Gray of Merced opposed the proposal, saying that supporters were motivated to impress national progressives rather than poor residents in rural communities who would face higher electric bills as a result of the legislation.

“This is yet another in a laundry list of bills that are discriminatory to the people I represent,” Gray said.”

These negative impacts on the poor addressed by Gray are reflected in a recent article by Bjorn Lomborg who noted how the war on climate change slams the worlds poor.


In Lomborg’s article he notes that:

“Activist organizations like Worldwatch argue that higher temperatures will make more people hungry, so drastic carbon cuts are needed. But a comprehensive new study published in Nature Climate Change led by researchers from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis has found that strong global climate action would cause far more hunger and food insecurity than climate change itself.

The scientists used eight global-agricultural models to analyze various scenarios between now and 2050. These models suggest, on average, that climate change could put an extra 24 million people at risk of hunger. But a global carbon tax would increase food prices and push 78 million more people into risk of hunger. The areas expected to be most vulnerable are sub-Saharan Africa and India.

Trying to help 24 million people by imperiling 78 million people’s lives is a very poor policy.”

Further Lomborg criticizes the high cost and negative impacts foisted upon on the poorest people yet the climate benefits claimed through such actions are nothing but minuscule.

“The EU’s climate policy under the Paris agreement, meanwhile, will realistically cost the bloc about $600 billion each year for the rest of the century, yet at best it delivers a trifling temperature reduction of just 0.09°F by the end of the century.”

The Assembly in its deliberations completely ignored and never addressed the renewable energy and emissions target failures now occurring in Germany which is the most outspoken leader of the EU efforts to reduce emissions levels yet the country has had to acknowledge its efforts will not be able to meet anything close to its highly touted year 2020 emissions reductions and renewable energy growth goals. Worse yet the even more aggressive goals for 2030 are now in shatters and the critics are howling.

“Merkel’s government has already faced criticism for abandoning emissions targets it had set itself for 2020 after concluding they were unachievable, while sticking to a target it had set itself for a decade later.”

A recent report addressing the German governments progress paints a grim picture.


“Germany is on course to miss its target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by a wide margin, according to new government estimates.

“It is to be expected that greenhouse gas emissions will decrease by around 32 percent by 2020 compared to 1990 with the measures implemented to date. This will lead to a gap of about 8 [percentage points],” says the Climate Protection Report approved by the cabinet on 13 June and previously seen by the Clean Energy Wire.”

“The report even warns that its emission forecasts “must be considered rather optimistic in light of the current climate protection trends.”

“Despite the drop in emissions in the power sector, coal-fired power generation remains the country’s single largest source of carbon emissions. The world’s fourth largest economy has been successful in rolling out renewables, which already cover more than a third of its electricity needs.”

The graph below depicts quite clearly the magnitude of Germany’s failure to be anywhere close to meeting its promised results in 2020 and 2030 which is enormously embarrassing for Merkel’s government.


An article in Bloomberg notes the combination of missed targets, electric grid reliability problems and economic damage worries now present in Merkel’s initiative.

“Germany’s states are upping pressure on Chancellor Angela Merkel to keep coal-fired power for as long as 30 years as the nation approaches a deadline for setting an exit date from the fossil fuel.

Merkel’s administration is committed to shuttering about 120 lignite and hard-coal plants to cut emissions and plans to set a final exit point in October. As the deadline nears, six states where coal power is concentrated have banded together to keep an extended lifeline for the stations.

“A 25- to 30-year time frame to close the chapter on coal power is realistic,” said Saxony’s Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer in an interview in Leipzig on Tuesday. “We need time to reset regional economies now dependent on coal.”

Merkel faces tough choices. Coal states run by the same parties that make up her federal coalition fret that a rapid reduction of fossil-fuel plants will leave a huge economic hole in their regions and threaten the security of power supplies. But hard coal and lignite push out about a third of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions, which Merkel is committed to cutting.”

Another Bloomberg article vividly displays the reality of high economic costs and political damage which has occurred because of Germany’s renewable energy and emissions reductions targets failures.


The results are so bad that Merkel had to reject new emissions reductions targets recently proposed by the EU which would have increased the year 2020 goal to 45% reduction instead of 40% reduction.

“In 2014, the leaders of the 28 countries of the European Union came to a difficult compromise on combating climate change – agreeing to make greenhouse gas emissions 40% lower than 1990 levels by 2030.

Now, some of those countries say new data and Europe’s alarming heat wave this summer mean that target should be raised to 45%.”


The emissions reduction targets promised and proven completely unachievable by Germany were 40% reduction in 2020 and 55% reduction in 2030 at an estimated cost of more than 580 billion dollars and yet this entire effort is crumbling in defeat with Merkel hanging on and trying to survive this ever growing climate alarmist “Energiewende” political debacle.


Other countries are rapidly abandoning the climate alarmist propagandist pipe dreams of completely unrealistic emissions reductions and renewable energy growth targets which increase energy costs significantly while decreasing energy reliability. A few examples of these changes in emissions and energy policy are provided below.




California would be well advised to actually take a realistic look at what the climate alarmist propagandists in the legislature are really proposing for our state before committing to a costly, economically damaging and technically unachievable debacle replicating what is now occurring in Germany.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 30, 2018 6:55 pm

The Lefties used to say “you can’t legislate morality.” Stupidity is a different matter…

Reply to  Gary
August 30, 2018 7:04 pm

You are correct Gary, however, the electorate of the USA put the stupidest candidate into the office of POTUS in 2016.

Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
August 30, 2018 7:26 pm

We did not elect Gary Johnson! So your claim is bogus.

Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
August 30, 2018 7:28 pm

Well, as they say, when you argue with a fool, two fools are arguing. Hence, I will end this reply now

Tom O
Reply to  Paul
August 31, 2018 12:00 pm

I am going to risk that since you obviously fit the bill. Then again, I won’t argue that you don’t.

Joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
August 30, 2018 7:28 pm

that happened in 2000.

Joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
August 30, 2018 7:32 pm

the worst president in the 20th century

Trump certainly lacks the requisite decorum, but his results have been good so far.

can you name an actual accomplishment during the obama administration
ie a positive accomplishment

Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
August 31, 2018 7:59 am

LBJ deserves honorable mention.

Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2018 10:04 am

Nixon deserves mention as well, just for the EPA

Tom O
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 31, 2018 11:59 am

The EPA was not a mistake. The abuse it has been allowed to generate has nothing to do whether it was an essential proponent at the time. I think the it did a great job until it completed its work and tried to find justification for its existence.

Reply to  Tom O
August 31, 2018 12:11 pm

Making the EPA an independent agency was the mistake, rather than giving the job of enforcement to Interior or Justice, or some combination. As it was a separate operation, it suffered from what one could call the “special prosecutor” syndrome–it is going to find something to do, whether it is there, or important, or not.

Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
August 31, 2018 8:58 am

Joe, I’d put Wilson and FD Roosevelt ahead of Carter. Carter was only in 4 yrs, fortunately.

Martin Mayer
Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
August 31, 2018 11:11 am

Obama wasn’t president in the 20th century. Worst president in the 21th century, I’ll accept.

Mike MacKenzie
Reply to  Joe - the non climate scientist
August 31, 2018 9:13 pm

Obama was not the worst president of the 20th century. He was president in the 21st.

Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
August 30, 2018 7:34 pm

Only people like YOU make such stupid statements, because you are ignoring what is going good in his Presidency.

NAFTA gone
Economic growth
America/Mexico trade agreement
Terrorism down
Forged an alliance in the Middle East to stop terrorism and put Iran on the spot
Jobless claims lowest since 1969
Corporate earnings up 25%
Consumer confidence highest in 18 years
And so on…..

Don’t let Partisanship anger/hate cloud your mind.

Meanwhile nothing to say about the Post itself?

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 31, 2018 5:57 am

Sunsetttomy: you forgot to add tax break for the wealthy while driving up the deficit, embroilment in countless scandals and demeaning the status of the presidency by lying, insulting a national hero and generally behaving like a clown, separating children from their mothers, etc.

Reply to  Trebla
August 31, 2018 6:21 am

You forgot to add how utterly brainwashed the Democrats in this country are, believing the lies told to them by the MSM. Their collective IQ drops by the minute.

Reply to  Sheri
August 31, 2018 7:17 am

Collective IQ? Oxymoron for Democrats

George Daddis
Reply to  Trebla
August 31, 2018 7:33 am

Wow, this is easy!
1. If you lower taxes for EVERYBODY, then the wealthy will of course get a tax break. (Even those not owing ANY federal tax ended up better off.) Did you complain when the deficit went up under BHO?

2. The “national hero” went on a vindictive rampage before he passed; voting AGAINST legislation he promised his constituents to vote for (the Wall, rescinding ObamaCare ) and insulting people of his own party (Sarah Palin and DJT) including explicitly DIS-inviting them to his own funeral.

3. Separation of children from criminals (including ILLEGAL aliens) was existing law and the photos of children in “cages” were from the Obama administration.

If our President can accomplish the list started by Sunsettommy, he can act like a clown, or even worse, like Uncle Joe Biden, for all I care.

Reply to  Trebla
August 31, 2018 8:02 am

Since the only people who pay income taxes any more are the wealthy, you can’t cut taxes without cutting them mostly for the wealthy.

Obama doubled the deficit in his 8 years. That is, he created as much debt as every president in history up till 2000. And you on the left cheered.

Of course, people like you get all bent out of shape because that means less free stuff.

I love it when the left does everything in it’s power to invent scandals, and then uses the invented scandals as an excuse for further attacks.

Obama separated more families than Trump has. But to the myrmidons of the left, it wasn’t a problem before.

(This sub comment thread has gone well off track from the topic, lets stop talking about Trump/Obama are good or bad arguments) MOD

Tom O
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2018 12:16 pm

MarkW, I make $45000 a year and I pay taxes. The last time I saw personal income tax posted on the IRS was something like 2011. That year, 31% of all collected personal income tax came from those making $35,000 and under. Those that fit the IRS’s profile of middle class, from $35,000 to $240,000 paid 36% of the income tax. Those that made over $240,000 paid the rest, or 34%. Don’t give me the crap about the wealthy hauling the mail, they don’t. They DO, however, haul in by far the larger percentage of total income. And this has nothing to do with Obama or Trump, just a simple piece of misinformation that has been put out by the MSM for years that disgusts me.

mark s
Reply to  Tom O
August 31, 2018 3:54 pm

Tom: Your numbers are quite a bit off. For tax year 2015, the percentage of income taxes collected from those earning < $39,275 was 2.83%.

For year 2015:
Top 1% Income ($480,930/Yr) Paid 39.04% of all federal income taxes
Top 5% Income ($195,778/Yr) Paid 59.58% of all federal income taxes
Top 10% Income ($138,031/Yr) Paid 70.59% of all federal income taxes
Top 25% Income ($79,665/Yr) Paid 86.62% of all federal income taxes
Top 50% Income ($39,275/Yr) Paid 97.17% of all federal income taxes
Bottom 50% Income (<$39275/Yr) Paid 2.83% of all federal income taxes

Check the link for more info:

Tom O
Reply to  Trebla
August 31, 2018 12:06 pm

I do hope you are not referring to the recent passing of the worst senator that ever walked the face of the Earth as being a war hero, and as an Arizonan, I have a right to say that. Any drone that causes the deaths of 125 or so sailors by hot dogging isn’t a war hero.

As for the comment of separating children from their mothers, I agree, all of them should have been sent back to wherever they came from.

Jane Doe
Reply to  Trebla
September 1, 2018 6:18 am

Oh, you mean like those ILLEGAL mothers who should not be in this country to BEGIN with?! Aww, I see. BUILD THE WALL!!!!!

Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 31, 2018 9:06 am

Sunsettommy, you forgot perhaps the most important contribution — the outing/exposure of the deep evil and corruption present in the government, especially the appointed bureaucracy (the newly identified 4th, unelected but most powerful branch of government) that Obummer weaponized over 8 yrs. And the media/entertainment, academia, dimocraps, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
August 30, 2018 9:49 pm

It’s a predictable response by Democrats these many years that all republican presidents are stupid. Well this stupid president is running rings around the Democratic Party. They fall for the same stuff over and over again.
Like any politician look at what they do, not what they say.

John Endicott
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
August 31, 2018 6:43 am

You are correct Gary, however, the electorate of the USA put the stupidest candidate into the office of POTUS in 2016 2008

Fixed that for you.

Tom O
Reply to  John Endicott
August 31, 2018 12:25 pm

I think you’re off. I am not going to pass up 2000. Most crooked was 1992. We could take turns insulting all the presidents, all the way back to probably Jefferson if we try, but the truth is Jefferson warned against an uninformed citizenry, and we have worked at making sure that citizenry was uninformed for a century or more.

“One man, one vote” gave the country to be run by the city bosses, and there has traditionally been no greater cesspool then city government. Is it any wonder we are where we are at now? They control the cities, the states, and through control of the parties, they control who runs for office. Trump may be the only candidate for the presidency that wasn’t selected by those that control the cities in 30 or more years. Then again, maybe he was, but I don’t think so.

Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
August 31, 2018 7:34 am


Reply to  Jett
August 31, 2018 9:28 am

TDS is just a symptom of a more serious disease which can only be described as partisan brain rot by the political party that lost. Unless it can be cured, it’s will be fatal to the country.

The disease has always been present. The symptoms ramped up with the Democrats obstruction of Bush because they didn’t like him, CIA background and all. The Republicans responded during the Obama administration, where it was his push for socialist policies, not his personality, that drove the opposition. When the Democrats lost to Trump, which they still can’t accept, the disease metastasized because they objected to his politically incorrect personality, where it this that got him elected in the first place.

If the left didn’t have the press on its side, it would be toast given what we now know what went on at the top levels of the Obama administration. If the Democrats ever wins the Whitehouse again, I have no doubt that the Republicans will not hold back and take retaliatory obstructionism to the next level, and so on and so forth until the country self destructs.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
September 1, 2018 8:52 am

I note a striking parallel between Trump Derangement Syndrome and Climate Derangement Syndrome (the loudly obsessive belief, or at least activity which looks like belief, that human emissions will wreck the world).

And here you thought this thread was off-topic. 🙂

Reply to  Reziac
September 3, 2018 8:27 am

The similarities are astounding. Both are based on unfounded fears, both are bolstered with false truths, both are supported by an irresponsible press, supporters of both denigrate those who don’t agree with them and spin disconnected facts into ‘undeniable’ confirmation.

Both are politically polarized and the political left is on the wrong side. Since political truth is subjective, the real truth doesn’t matter which unambiguously explains the similarities.

Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
August 31, 2018 7:58 am

Another leftist bot that actually believes that intelligence is measured by how well people agree with him.

Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
August 31, 2018 8:12 am

Don’t bring HuffPo crap to this website. Go away, hijacker.

Reply to  Gary
August 30, 2018 7:17 pm

Well you certainly cannot legislate intelligence.
Sadly it doesn’t seem you can elect it either.

Reply to  rocketscientist
August 30, 2018 8:14 pm

One cannot elect it because voters want stupid, not intelligent. They prove this by sending the same losers back over and over. Only reason they don’t make a fool king instead of president is term limits brought about by trying to make a fool king until his demise ended the effort.

Reply to  Sheri
August 31, 2018 9:52 am

What the people want is a government that will protect them from everything disagreeable and give them lots of free stuff.

Bryan A
Reply to  rocketscientist
August 30, 2018 11:09 pm

Nor can you post it

Reply to  Bryan A
August 31, 2018 6:23 am

Apparently some people cannot.

Reply to  Gary
August 31, 2018 7:58 am

All laws are legislated morality, and by all, I do mean ALL

When leftists say that you can’t legislate morality, what they mean is that you can’t legislate your morality. Theirs on the other hand …

August 30, 2018 7:14 pm

Never happen without nuclear.

Reply to  markl
August 30, 2018 8:08 pm

How about adding extensive hydro-electric?

Reply to  John
August 30, 2018 11:06 pm

How about adding extensive hydro-electric?

yes, it’s a nice idea.
Where are you going to locate the dams and lakes? The good spots have been dammed up since the 1920’s; they put more in the 1930’s-40’s-50’s-60’s and 70’s. Enviro’s prohibited more in the 80’s and 90’s, and have started tearing out the old small ones since they hurt the fishies.
And, even if you can find an unused spot, where will you get the water to fill it? Can’t look upstream, can’t pump it from downstream. Can’t come from Nevada, from Arizona, from Colorado, Montana, Oregon.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  RACookPE1978
August 31, 2018 4:36 am

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t

Reply to  RACookPE1978
August 31, 2018 9:13 am

You’re correct, RACook, unfortunately. The US, at least, is “hydroed-out” — has been for a time. Canada prb’ly still has some more opportunities.

Reply to  John
August 31, 2018 9:53 am

According to the greens, hydro doesn’t count. It’s not pure enough.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  markl
August 30, 2018 10:12 pm

They are planning on shutting down Diablo Canyon within 8 years.
Shit will get real when that happens if they stay on the current trajectory.

August 30, 2018 7:23 pm

California must be the leader==>in doubling down on green stupidity! While a number of other off-topic policies of the Calizuela legislature are even more meatheaded, they are trying to impress their donor class as to how they are such green SJWs.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 30, 2018 8:03 pm

When a inept State government stomps on the freedoms of its citizens with policy and legislation based on fake facts, fudged data and a widely falsified hypothesis supported with nothing but fraud, here say and hyperbolic spin, isn’t it the responsibility of the Federal government to step in and save those citizens from the harm imposed on them by their State?

Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 30, 2018 8:11 pm

Nope. If Californians have not learned after electing Moonbeam for a second time, they are hopeless and natural selection should be allowed to take its course.

Reply to  Sheri
August 30, 2018 9:00 pm

What about us innocent bystander?. Some of us knew better and didn’t vote for Moonbeam.

Mark S
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 31, 2018 3:21 am

In a couple of years we are probably going to be looking back at how “good” things were under gov “moonbeam”.

Bob boder
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 31, 2018 4:22 am


Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bob boder
August 31, 2018 4:47 am

Vote with your feet.

Jon Salmi
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 31, 2018 8:47 am

Nothing would do California more good than a mass exodus, especially of the rich. Most of my extended family has left, I only regret that I didn’t join them many years ago. At 75, it is too late for me, as for the rest of you Californians, get out while you still can.

Reply to  Jon Salmi
August 31, 2018 9:18 am

Nothing would do California more good than a mass exodus, especially of the rich.

Problem, at least in regard to exoding socialists, is that they take their corrupt culture, politics & even violence to wherever they go.

Reply to  beng135
August 31, 2018 12:21 pm


Texas need to establish a 20 year waiting period for residency.

Reply to  Jon Salmi
September 1, 2018 8:59 am

Did you see where a proposal almost made the CA ballot, which would have imposed a one-time “wealth tax” plus an “exit tax” equivalent to half the value of all assets??!

I’m reminded that it was perfectly legal to leave the Soviet Union — provided you could afford the exit tax (which ~1960 was equivalent to $1M, far beyond the reach of all but those in such good favor that they didn’t want to leave anyway.)

Reply to  Bob boder
August 31, 2018 10:07 am

I did.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 31, 2018 6:19 am

Sorry, but you live in a state with a majority that are fools. You choose to live among the insane.

John Endicott
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 31, 2018 6:47 am

You need to educated your fellow califoolians or else (when that proves to be a futile, impossible task) leave the state for a more sane one.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 31, 2018 9:55 am

That’s the big problem with democracy. Everyone has to live with whatever nonsense the majority supported.

Reply to  Sheri
August 31, 2018 10:07 am

Sheri, it was for the fourth time, not second.

Reply to  Sheri
September 1, 2018 8:56 am

When I lived in CA and paid attention to how the vote went… I think this was in 2008 or 2010, but anyway: at the time the State Legiscritters had an approval rating of just 13%, yet ALL the incumbents were re-elected. Every single one, for every office statewide. (I checked on the Sec’y of State site, where they’re all tabulated.)

I can only attribute this to rampant name-recognition as the sole voting criterion.

August 30, 2018 7:30 pm

Larry, it’s virtue signalling all the way down. Most of our CA politicians (they’re D’s), have never produced anything and are of, what I call, the parasite class of people. Maybe they believe this stuff. Dunno. Probably just trying to move up the political ladder. After all, it’s lucrative!

Reply to  eck
August 30, 2018 8:18 pm


Maybe you are right, but to me it seems like peak desperation more than anything else.

CA economy is collapsing.
It very much needs a lot of cash injection, a lot of capital investment from outside
to keep standing.
So badly it needs it, that no much care of the toxicity or the long term consequences considered or cared even slightly.

It must be in a free fall already, when at the same time this latest attempt seems just like the most desperate one, in trying to grab at any straws possible.
Even when it may mean “selling” the State of California….to whom ever that pays the loans
for the investment in such renewable projects, which according to the bill will be, or will have to be massive projects…in the near future.

These guys seem very desperate indeed.
Too bad for californians, as they may have to consider them self as renting,
not owning their State anymore.


August 30, 2018 7:33 pm

I think it is terrific that California has agreed to show the world what it is like to commit energy and economic suicide. It will be interesting to watch.

Reply to  TDBraun
August 30, 2018 8:10 pm

Except they foist their energy production on other states so they can keep their scenic tourist areas.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TDBraun
August 31, 2018 4:57 am

Yes, California is going to be another energy-generation crash-test dummy, just like Germany and South Australia.

Look what those Climategate chart manipulators have caused! They have driven some people insane with fear which is causing them to do self-destructive things.

It really is amazing to see how hard some people hang onto their delusions, climatewise and politically.

The Republican candidate for California governor is raising the issue of higher consumer electricity prices being caused by building more windmills. Maybe he can awaken some Californians to what their current Democrat leadership has in store for them and their economy in the future.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 31, 2018 6:51 am

Unfortunately, for California to truly suffer from it’s folly, the surrounding states need to stop Cali from having access to the energy those other states produce.

Reply to  John Endicott
August 31, 2018 10:00 am

Reminds me of Germany. Proudly telling everyone how good wind and solar are, while in the background relying on power from all of it’s neighbors to keep it’s grid stable.

August 30, 2018 7:35 pm

I think its important that California shows leadership also. In this case its the first lemming type of leadership. Maybe second lemming if you count the State of South Australia, who had to admit defeat and buy in diesel/gas generators to back up their intermittents, and are still battling today with untinely production and stability issues.

Reply to  yarpos
August 30, 2018 11:59 pm

Don’t insult lemmings!

August 30, 2018 7:36 pm

From the above story:

The bill, which would require California to obtain 100% of its power from clean sources by 2045, has been debated by lawmakers for nearly two years as it faced cost and feasibility concerns.

That may qualify as the understatement of the century.

Rick C PE
Reply to  commieBob
August 30, 2018 9:45 pm

Simple solution – the CA legislature just needs to pass another law requiring the wind to blow at a constant 25 mph and the sun to shine 24 hours per day. Easy-peasy.

Reply to  Rick C PE
August 31, 2018 12:17 am

A very long time ago, as a rebuke to fawning courtiers, someone demonstrated that such an ordinance was stupid. Canute was called the most effective king in Anglo-Saxon history. link It makes me wonder how history will treat California’s current politicians. (I’m not giving bonus marks for anyone who guesses the correct answer.)

Bob boder
Reply to  Rick C PE
August 31, 2018 4:26 am

This has been my argument for ever about government, people seem to think passing a law solves a problem. Like gun control, i hear over and over we need a law banning this or banning that to solve the problem I always answer why not just have a law that bans killing people that will solve the problem!

August 30, 2018 7:50 pm

“Clean electricity” as in out-of-sight and out-of-mind, obfuscation, or a “living” ideology.

michael hart
August 30, 2018 7:50 pm

Setting ever more ridiculous and unachievable targets does have at least one genuine merit: Missing targets by a huge margin is actually a good way of educating the people who have been deceived about what they realistically can and cannot have. It is also very entertaining in the popcorn sense of the word.

While I don’t wish such hardships on the unlucky citizenry benefiting from green-think, the sudden jolt of grid collapse or large price gouges is perhaps also preferable to the inexorable ratchet of slowly increasing energy costs which impoverish everybody over a long period but can disguise the real cause.
The bulk population is oft unaware of the accrued benefits of incremental economic growth. This is also true in reverse. An electorate can wake up one day and find themselves ‘suddenly poor’ and angry, yet unable to pin the blame on the culprits, who did not cause it accidentally. Culprits who did it by design in order to save the planet or something.

Reply to  michael hart
August 30, 2018 8:03 pm

Unfortunately this is not King Canute setting his throne at the low tide mark. These are Knuckleheads who are chaining the masses at the low tide mark while standing on a bluff shouting “Of course electricity bills will skyrocket, but we command the tides! Just watch they will go down if you all suffer enough!”
This is one lesson we should not be forced to learn the hard way.
Perhaps a counter campaign with the slogan “Make CA like SA…misery loves company”

Reply to  michael hart
August 31, 2018 10:02 am

The problem is that the left has become very adept at shifting blame every time one of their schemes fail.
Invariably to solution is more government so they can make it work this time.

Reply to  michael hart
September 1, 2018 8:38 am

Just like Socialism, missing green targets will be blamed in insufficient funding and not being fully committed. They will never accept that the concept is flawed, only that the implementation was.

Paul Milenkovic
Reply to  michael hart
September 4, 2018 2:49 pm

Whatever become of the California high-speed train?

Reply to  Paul Milenkovic
September 4, 2018 3:51 pm

Most if its 3+ billion in construction costs, and all of its profits, for the one section that doesn’t connect even two cities are going into the California democrat’s family construction business …

August 30, 2018 8:05 pm

I can not see how 100% clean energy is possible. At a minimum, there will be dust (particulates) produced in preparing installation sites. There will be pollution from obtaining raw materials, shipping, even if we use clipper ships, mule drawn barges and horse drawn wagons. There is petroleum used in resins for windmill blades and some of the plasticizers will leach out over time causing brittleness and requiring replacement blades. How will high tech metallurgy be possible without lots of consistent energy and quality glass for solar panels and mirrors and windows requires the same. We will also have to go back to incandescent light bulbs to reduce hazardous substances. If all we’re allowed to have are solar and wind generation, how can there be a guarantee of absolutely constant frequency and voltage, as well as the availability of amperage, regardless of time of day and weather ? I remember reading of a large area in Australia experiencing a collapse of the power grid because of very erratic winds at the wind farms.

Reply to  John
September 1, 2018 9:07 am

Having lived a few miles downwind of a big new solar project in the desert, I can attest that the blowing dust and heat footprint were significant. We’d never had blowing dust there before they put in this scorched-earth facility, and our formerly-pleasant afternoon cooling disappeared (presumably because the heat columns blocked the onshore breeze).

Wait, was that AGW??

F. Ross
August 30, 2018 8:20 pm

To quote that great philosopher F. Gump: “Stupid is as stupid does!”
…and California government does stupid more than almost any government in existence.

Todd Hamor
August 30, 2018 8:25 pm

I live in CA and just when I thought the state government couldn’t get any crazier, this happens. I read this at Engadget and found this link in the article. Not sure where the numbers came from:

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Todd Hamor
August 30, 2018 10:19 pm

Koolaid. Pure koolaid.
Junk science if anyone actually thinks wind and solar are up to the task beyond 25% base load.
Even at 25%, gas turbines are on a 60 second standby to keep the grid stable if wind power drops. Keep pushing up beyond 25% and you have Germany, 3x electricity prices and actually increased CO2 emissions as the unicorn of renewables is simply a fairy tale told to the ignorant masses.
So your Electricity prices will double as the operators duplicate renewable power with dispatchable power. Then triple… then quadruple.

Reply to  Todd Hamor
September 1, 2018 9:09 am

They forgot the most critical stats:
Official Bullshit levels are projected to increase by six feet
Budget for Official Bullshit is projected to quadruple

Lil Fella of Aus
August 30, 2018 8:25 pm

I would like to see that. That is what we call a ‘pipe dream!’

Steven Fraser
August 30, 2018 8:36 pm

What one Assembly can approve, another can cancel.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Steven Fraser
August 30, 2018 10:26 pm

But the grid operators have a 20 year lead time from concept to first electron for a base load power plant. Less, maybe 8 years, for a nat gas CCGT dispatchable.

The Republicans can fix things, then the Dems can come along a screw the pooch and blame the Republicans. Repeat.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 30, 2018 11:13 pm

But the grid operators have a 20 year lead time from concept to first electron for a base load power plant. Less, maybe 8 years, for a nat gas CCGT dispatchable.

No. From first truck on a bare dirt field to closed breakers, full 750 Megawatt power plant is less than 2 years. Much longer for a nuke – which is one of their prolems.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
August 31, 2018 6:14 am

Does that include permitting, finding an alternative site when a town refuses to allow the plant, etc?

Michael Combs
August 30, 2018 9:52 pm

Germany got to make some easy reductions after tyne Berlin Wall fell November 9, 1989. No wonder this chart begins in 1990 and the alarmists like to show early progress in cutting CO2. But after the low hanging fruit was plucked, physical realities struck. Wind and solar have to be built with multiples of required capacity to meet demand and still there’s no efficient way to store excess generation, so conventional generation must be maintained at the demand level. If not, high tech activities pay a terrible price.Fossil fuels are bridges to nuclear; wind and solar are bridges to nowhere.

Mike L.
August 30, 2018 9:55 pm

I fully support this proposal to destroy California. Maybe that would be a lesson they would believe.

Reply to  Mike L.
August 31, 2018 10:12 am

The scary thing is that Calizuela would probably get a federal bailout.

Jay Braun
August 30, 2018 10:00 pm

Since Solar is not 24/7 and there is not enough hydroelectric power available, are the proponents of SB 100 planning on using nuclear power to make up the shortfall?

Reply to  Jay Braun
August 30, 2018 11:09 pm

“Large scale Hydro’ does not count toward ‘renewables’ in the world of Cali-crazy. New Dams are prohibited. Propellers on every head,… “…California Dream’n’,…

Joel O’Bryan
August 30, 2018 10:10 pm

Let them do it.

Democracy actually needs examples of utter foolishness like this.
To show the consequences of accepting horribly bad political leaders. Of thinking Socialism is a workable political structure in the long run.

Venezuela and the blackouts Now in Carracus is facing doesn’t seem to register with the socialists in Cali. Let them experience it first hand.

Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
August 30, 2018 11:59 pm

I agree with Joel.
Too bad, but they made their bed. The ones who voted for these fools are as culpable as the fools.
Anyone smart will be making plans to leave the state.
Without nuclear or hydro, there is zero chance of doing what this legislation requires.
There are no magic batteries, no way to store a tiny fraction of what is required for when the Sun and wind are absent or inadequate.
Their state has a high population density.
And vast power requirements.
Have they even figured out how many panels and turbines are needed, if theoretically they could build enough?

Without Federal subsidies, it is my understanding that no one is building any large renewable generation installations.
The engineers at Google have declared it impossible, so no one needs to believe a skeptic about any of this.
The citizenry who blithely and blissfully hear about this and nod sagely at the wisdom and virtue they have wrought, are in for a very rude surprise that will be not just expensive, uncomfortable, inconvenient and painful…it will be deadly and likely epically disatrous, when they lose power in the middle of a heat wave or blizzard, riots break out, and there is nothing to be done because they simply lack the infrastructure that makes survival of millions of urban dwellers possible.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Menicholas
August 31, 2018 8:14 am

They may have an escape-loop that allows them to import non-green electricity from other states in an emergency. Or they may have set up a (costly) spinning reserve of natural gas turbines.

Reply to  Roger Knights
September 1, 2018 8:43 am

We need a federal law banning states from importing electricity produced in a manner not legal in that state.

August 30, 2018 10:25 pm

Perhaps someone will provide lawyers so that the low income and poor citizens of California can file suit against the individual legislators for the harm that this bill will cause. They can give these fools a taste of their own medicine.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Robert
August 30, 2018 10:56 pm

Unfortunately they have sovereign immunity when they vote on suicide bills.

Reply to  Robert
August 31, 2018 6:09 am

California will just increase taxes and give more money to the poor to cover the electricity costs.

Reply to  Sheri
August 31, 2018 10:05 am

The problem with socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.

Lady Thatcher

Steve Lohr
August 30, 2018 10:43 pm

Oh, yeah. California is going to try the greatest stunt of all time ’cause they are the richest, baddest, bravest, oh and stupidest of all time. Sure, go for it! I’ll hold the beer and watch. Hey, anyone have a camera, this is going to be good!!

August 30, 2018 10:52 pm

South Africa had it’s own version of Governor Brown.
Her name was Nongqawuse. She persuaded her people to kill all their cattle and destroy their crops for the greater good of the people.

Reply to  KAT
August 31, 2018 12:19 am

Oh, hell, that is nothin’.
Check this out:

Patrick MJD
Reply to  KAT
August 31, 2018 4:01 am

A child that had some sort of “vision”?

Alan Tomalty
August 31, 2018 12:14 am

The Germans like to think of themselves as leading the world in green energy production. Perhaps they are because renewables (not counting nuclear which isnt classed as clean energy anyway) or clean energy; now accounts for more than 36% of the electricity production. The Germans are looking to increase this to 50% in the near future. However when you look at the graph

for the actual total energy consumption by type, you will see that fossil fuels are still 80% in Germany. The graph gives mineral oil of 34.6% but what they mean by mineral oil is crude oil. So what 2 decades of green energy has done in Germany is to replace 5% of the fossil fuel usage of 85% and knocked it down to 80% and replaced it with solar and wind. And to accomplish this they had to push their electricity prices to the highest in the world. Remember that electricity consumption accounts for only 20% of energy consumption. How high are electricity prices going to be if and when they hit the target of 50% of electrictity production by solar and wind? And how far will the consumption % of fossil fuel fall? It seems to me that even with 100% electric cars, and 50% of the electricity provided by solar and wind; the total % of fossil fuel as a % of total energy use wont go below 60%.

If that is the case then forget about any CO2 targets. They will be impossible to meet. The targets are irrelevant anyway because of major countries like China and India having free rein to carry on business as usual.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
September 1, 2018 2:02 pm

“Energy” isn’t a thing. Only a silly “economic” macro statistic.

August 31, 2018 3:28 am

As soon as they announce 100%, the neighbouring states should disconnect the umbilical cords that keep California supplied with electricity. Make them just a one way operation.

George Daddis
Reply to  Fred250
August 31, 2018 7:44 am

If you take their proposal literally, California must disconnect:

“The bill, which would require California to obtain 100% of its power from clean sources….”

None of their neighbors are producing 100% “clean” energy.

August 31, 2018 3:48 am

California could start by removing all inter-connectors that allow it to import power from other states. This will allow them to experience reality as they move towards further renewables and the utter unaffordability and unrealiability. This will also allow those states with more commonsense to use California as an experiment and see if they can make it work before even the Hollywoodistas decide to leave. It will also certainly lower emissions as people rapidly leave the state until only the loonies are left. I realise there are many great people in California but they are probably packing right now.

Reply to  Quilter52
August 31, 2018 6:06 am

Agreed. Then they can cover their beaches with wind turbines and lead the world by example.

Patrick MJD
August 31, 2018 4:08 am

Australia is right behind CA in climate doom;

Hope it stays there. Read the comments. This has been the longest running “climate” article allowing comments for a long time. Look at the sheer volume of information posted by “ConcernedVoter” (CV). The posts are repetitive across many acrticles, just cut-n-paste. BUT CV seems to get priority.

Tom in Florida
August 31, 2018 4:42 am

If they are really serious then they would require all aircraft going to and from LAX and LAS to be zeppelin aircraft. Then they can truly say the led the way.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 31, 2018 11:28 am

And the Police helicopters (news helicopters), Fire trucks, Ambulances, Fire boats ….

Does the bay area still have a significant system of Ferries … will they use the tried and true hamster (wheel) power or will they switch over to batteries?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  DonM
August 31, 2018 12:00 pm

You may have missed the pun. But that’s OK, it’s not a Heartbreaker, you will still get a Whole Lotta Love but just remember When the Levee Breaks I don’t want to be Dazed and Confused so I’ll be going Over the Hills and Far Away and I will not ever again be Going to California. Thank You.

August 31, 2018 4:49 am

A future carbon free Calfornia will no doubt do what Souith Australioa uised to do. While claiming to be 40 % green it was via a connector gettikng “:”Dirty”electricity from the then Brown Coal plant. Since then the Brown Coal plant has under political pressure from, the Victorian State Govt. has been closed down.

Today we are using poetable diesal plants to make up the difference.


Reply to  Michael
August 31, 2018 6:04 am

Somehow, portable diesal plants don’t seem any better than the coal plant, but I guess they somehow are. Or maybe they are just easier to hide?

August 31, 2018 6:49 am

“There are no more tomorrows left” for sane and rational people in California.

August 31, 2018 6:55 am

I’d like to some billionaires step froward with a disruption campaign that works to redirect out of state power away from California instead of to it. That includes fossil fuel, hydro, and nuclear. The same could be done with pipelines and marine terminals.

Coach Springer
August 31, 2018 7:36 am

“There are no more tomorrows left.” Intentional, knowing, willing fraud. And people got mad at Ponzi.

August 31, 2018 7:56 am

Everyone of these “models” that predict decrease agricultural production, start with the assumption that farmers aren’t smart enough to adapt to changing conditions and will keep doing whatever they did in the past.
Plant the same crops, till in the same manner, etc.

August 31, 2018 8:09 am

Next will be the tax credit available for “the poor”. Income under 25,000 will receive a tax credit equal to their K/h’s paid. Open to all RESIDENTS of California. And the beat goes on…

Andy Pattullo
August 31, 2018 8:15 am

Go for it California. I fully support your proposal to go carbon free. Whether successful or not it would be a great boon to entertainment and common social concience when Hollywood steps aside and allows truely creative people to fill the void that is presently occupied by the formulaic, lame-assed, liberal-soaked pablum being churned out every day.

Bruce Cobb
August 31, 2018 8:46 am

That’s why they’re called “Kookifornia”.

August 31, 2018 8:49 am

Un-assisted suicide.

August 31, 2018 8:54 am

bill requiring that the states electricity will be 100% clean energy by the year 2045.

Stupid. Exactly how is the equipment generating the “100% clean energy” produced?

August 31, 2018 9:11 am

Yes, if we just close our eyes tight, tight, tight and clench our tiny fists while stamping our little feet and wishing with all our might, we can make the impossible happen!

I wonder if these idiots will ever progress beyond kindergarten level.

August 31, 2018 9:15 am

Buy the electricity from Manitoba, lots of hydro electric available.

Joe Crawford
August 31, 2018 9:33 am

Guess it’s time for California to start building a few nuclear plants if they require any reliability as they implement their plan. That’s going to be the only way for them to meet target. The adjacent states should also plan on shutting down the interconnects to the California grid by around 2030 to protect their own power systems from crashes.

August 31, 2018 9:38 am

There may be method in California’s madness… they are driving people out of the State who though fed up with the effects of radical policies (not limited to environment), nonetheless fail to discern the cause and will take their liberal / leftist votes to neighboring states, thus spreading the disease.

August 31, 2018 10:54 am

Illegal immigration delivered California to the Democrats, who promptly turned it into a nation-State and is in the process of delivering the 5th largest economy in the world to the Enviros. Not one mention of kilowatt hour rates. I know, I know, Musk will save us all with the mythical gigabatteries

August 31, 2018 10:58 am

The California Assembly has no authority over future assemblies.

2018 has no say over 2045, any more than we are directed by those in 1991.

It’s silliness on a grand scale. ‘The bill . . . has been debated by lawmakers for nearly two years.’ What an august body the assembly is.

August 31, 2018 11:18 am

So long as the political Left runs California they will continue down their ill chosen road. One might think, being supposedly the innovative technology center to the universe, they would believe that letting advancements in technology to ultimately solve the problems as they see them is a better path; one would be wrong. Instead it is extreme government interference in the people’s and business’s lives and livelihoods.

Johnny Cuyana
August 31, 2018 11:26 am

I can’t remember the movie — something of a satire — when some good advice was given: Never go FULL retard!

To paraphrase in the context of this developing situation in CA: Never go FULL fascist!

In my younger years, for the life of me, I could not wrap my arms around the notion of a Western nation [culture], of originally freeborn citizens, descending into Naziism; yet, here I/we are: watching on our daily news that very thing very possibly taking place.

No longer do I wonder how it can happen; yet, I still wonder whether it actually will happen.

August 31, 2018 1:53 pm

This should be interesting.

I predict that all electricity companies will pull out of California, leaving the market wide open for candle makers and a new lucrative segment for hamster-wheel generators.


August 31, 2018 2:59 pm

When the California Assembly tries to legislate that California’s electricity will be 60% clean energy (however ‘clean’ energy is defined) by the year 2030 and 100% by the year 2045, one has to wonder whether the inmates are running the asylum.

The following graph is an estimate of the global temperature trend over the near term. The rate of change (first derivative) of the global mean temperature trend-line equation (6th degree polynomial fitted to HadCRUT4 monthly database) has been constant or steadily decreasing since October 2000. The HadCRUT4 monthly temperature anomaly has decreased by 53 percent from March 2016, the El Nino peak, to June 2018. During the year since this graph was constructed, the HadCRUT4 monthly temperature anomaly has decreased by nearly 12 percent. The rate of change of the trend-line will likely become negative within the next 20 years, reaching the lowest global mean trend-line temperature in almost 40 years.

comment image

Since October 2000, the rate of change of HadCRUT4 temperature anomaly has decreased from 0.20 degrees C per decade to 0.12 degrees per decade. Based on these near-term estimates, global warming over the next 100 years could very likely average less than 2.0 degrees C.

How much effect will a reduction of emissions of so-called global warming gases in California have world-wide on average global temperatures? Does anyone really believe that unilateral actions to decrease global warming gas emissions by California will matter a whit on the price of rice in China or the air temperature over the Zuiderzee? The chance of successfully carrying out a sustained, coordinated world-wide effort to do anything, even if logical and feasible, is zero. I would guess that the makeup of the California legislature is more than 50 percent scientifically illiterate or pursuing self-interests and not the peoples’ interests.

The premature shut-down of hydrocarbon-based energy sources will deprive the poor in energy limited countries the chance to lift themselves out of a life of poverty. LNG is available now to increase the quality of life of the poor in underdeveloped countries all over the world in the shortest possible time-frame, if developed countries decide to do so. Paradoxically, labeling CO2 a pollutant is the worst action the EPA could take to improve the quality of life on earth. That action would significantly delay development of the new technology that could increase the quality of lives and reduce the death rate of poor people all over the world. Think about it for a nanosecond or two and tell your friends.

(draft ref: An-Analysis-of-the-Mean-Global-Temperature-in-2031 at

Walter Sobchak
August 31, 2018 8:36 pm

I hope that California enacts this new law. I hope that the Federal Government, and the other states help California comply with the new law by embargoing shipments of both electricity and fossil fuels to California.

“Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other.”
Edmund Burke

September 1, 2018 8:44 am

So, California, already closing on the highest-priced electricity in the nation, plans to go the way of Ontario…. where “100% green” made the price of household power shoot up by as much as 700% between one year and the next. (Yes, seven hundred percent.)

johann wundersamer
September 3, 2018 3:40 am

California and it’s lawmakers: fools and (not only) their money.

September 4, 2018 12:11 pm

All European Automakers and Importes issued a statement today that EU Comission should not raise the targets for CO2 Emissions. They cannot even reach the present ones.

September 7, 2018 1:20 am

What a joke.
These MORONS still don’t get it – there is NO free lunch with ENERGY !!!!

1.) There is NO SUCH THING as renewable energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed OR RENEWED – it can only be converted – simple physics law….

2.) Sustainable energy DOES NOT EXIST – its just a buz word to hide the truth.
The fact is most of the so called sustainable energy tech’s uses rare earth materials – this is THE most UNSUSTAINABLE method of producing energy. It will all be gone in a few very short years.

3.) All the above are ONLY possible with the use of fossil fuels – period !!!
It is impossible to have 100% so called clean energy because all of it is produced using fossil fuels – PERIOD.

The ignorance and stupidity of some people on this subject just amazes me….

%d bloggers like this: