California Takes Drastic Step Towards Reducing Emissions


By Irina Slav – Nov 18, 2019, 11:30 AM CST California

California state agencies will stop buying gas-powered vehicles from a number of carmakers after the latter joined the White House in their opposition to the state’s new, stricter emissions rules.

UPI reports that the ban will be effective immediately and it will affect the local sales of makes including Toyota, GM, and Fiat Chrysler to state agencies. However, the ban is not complete: it will make an exception for public safety vehicles.

“The state is finally making the smart move away from internal combustion engine sedans,” California Governor Gavin Newsom told CalMatters in a statement. “Carmakers that have chosen to be on the wrong side of history will be on the losing end of California’s buying power.”

California is the single largest car market in the United States, but it is also the most environmentally conscious. Newsom has led a true crusade against the fossil fuel industry and emissions, which in September culminated in an executive order to advance the state’s environmental agenda, which includes generating 100-percent clean energy by 2045 and adding five million emission-free vehicles on California roads by 2030.

But the state also wanted to set its own emission limits as part of its efforts to become the greenest of them all, and this put it at even greater odds than it was already with the White House. Following the executive order by Newsom, Trump revoked California’s right to set its own emission limits, which led to the expected outcry, which was joined by another 22 states as well, which together filed a lawsuit against the U.S. president.

Full article here.

HT/Juan S

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul S
November 26, 2019 10:07 am

California just might make good on 100% renewables by 2045 when all manufacturing and commerce has left the state and the remaining populace on welfare can’t afford a car because their utility bills exceed their income.

Reply to  Paul S
November 26, 2019 10:39 am

Require state workers to bike and take public transportation to work. And if they have any overseas trips they can Skype or sail, Greta style.

EVs might make sense for some vehicles in CA, plus why not spend twice the price given that it’s public debt anyway. And guess who gets to pay for the disposal fees on the toxic wastes these batteries become?

Charles Higley
Reply to  Paul S
November 26, 2019 10:55 am

Yes, it is clear that they have no integrity regarding their goals when they work at destroying their energy supply and stability while forcing people to go electric at home and in the car. The people need to demand to know how their leaders expect this to work in the short and long term. Shooting yourself in the foot does not mean your shoes will fit later on.

Reply to  Charles Higley
November 26, 2019 11:32 am

I love the arrogance of the “wrong side of history ” argument, which assumes that he who is saying already knows what the furture is and is in a position, today, to state who is on the right or wrong side of it.

Calling the future “history” requires a special kind of clairvoyance.

Andrew Burnette
Reply to  Greg
November 26, 2019 12:29 pm

Greg… Well, we ARE talking about people who call model projections “settled science.”

Reply to  Greg
November 26, 2019 12:40 pm

For socialists, the future is fixed, unchanging. The past is mutable.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  SMC
November 26, 2019 1:29 pm

All evidence to the contrary… Oh, that’s right, they altered the photos to change the evidence. Would they do that?

You’ve pointed at a major problem with historical evidence. They change it to hide their complicity (and stupidity).

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  Greg
November 26, 2019 2:58 pm

It’s one of the primary concepts of Marxism: history is what happens to people, not what people do that leaves a record in time. Anyone who didn’t see that Obama was a Marxist simply never studied…well…history.

John in NZ
Reply to  Greg
November 26, 2019 6:11 pm

The phrase “wrong side of history ” was used a few times recently in the New Zealand parliament when they were passing the Zero Carbon Bill.

Only one Member of Parliament, David Seymour, voted against it.

The irony was extreme.

Reply to  John in NZ
November 27, 2019 12:38 am

Strictly speaking, he didn’t vote against it, although he did speak against it.

He didn’t actually vote, I’m not sure why, that is why the legislation is described as passing unanimously. A lot of National voters (think a more centrist version of the US Republicans, for those not familiar with NZ politics) are filthy about this, and some will switch to David Seymour’s Party, ACT at the next election, late 2020.

Reply to  Greg
November 27, 2019 1:41 pm

I believe Robert Heinlein used to write ‘Future History’, maybe the governor should read some.

Reply to  Charles Higley
November 27, 2019 1:51 am

Integrity? Isn’t this the definition of “quid pro quo”? Either back my political position or I will not spend gov’t money on your product. This is wrong on so many levels not the least of which is it is punishing for exercising first amendment.

Reply to  Paul S
November 26, 2019 12:06 pm

“adding five million emission-free vehicles on California roads “…in 10 years

…can’t be done

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Latitude
November 26, 2019 1:16 pm

What is needed is a ban on calling EVs “emission-free”. That’s utter hogwash, unless the charging source is also emission-free.
These gems will emit REAL poisons after their usefulness has expired, until somebody (the public) pays to mitigate and recover the battery materials.
Each new “green” tech has introduced or added to one toxic waste stream or another in the name of reducing a benign trace gas, beneficial but still rare in the atmosphere while recovering from dangerously low levels for carbon based life forms.

Michel Lemaire
Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 26, 2019 8:30 pm

Not just the charging, the manufacturing too! Wind mill powered car factories…

Reply to  Latitude
November 26, 2019 2:23 pm

If people can’t get fuel, or afford to keep their vehicles, maybe they will just dispose in the easiest location … He might get more than 5,000,000 non-running (emission free) vehicles on his highways.

Reply to  Latitude
November 26, 2019 5:10 pm

..and five million charging stations….all working off a grid that’s only reliable one way
…when it’s shut down

Reply to  Latitude
November 26, 2019 6:24 pm

There are about 500,000 EVs there already. Tesla can make around 100,000 new EVs a quarter. That is 400,000 cars per year. Assuming they are all sold in California…that’s 4 million electric cars in 10 years. Throw in a few other car makers like Audi, Jaguar, Nisson, Hyundai, Rivian, Ford and VW…. it likely can be done. Actually it’s not much of a problem – 2 million new cars are sold in California each year, so you are talking about just a 25% market penetration. It’s at about 6% now. So a big jump, but not crazy. It has been growing rapidly anyway.

The dirty secret is it will probably happen no matter what the politicians decide to do. Some people want electric cars. More power to them, as long as the rest of us don’t have to subsidize it. This is politicians jumping ahead and pretending they are responsible for something that is likely to happen anyway.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Geo
November 26, 2019 8:01 pm

How will California power those ’emission free’ cars? They can’t keep the power to normal household loads in much of the state.

Patrick B
Reply to  Geo
November 27, 2019 8:38 am

So you think penetration of a market from 6% to 25% is easy? I think it will be impossible without various government subsidies.

Electric vehicles have been available in quantity for a number of years. But you don’t see huge growth on the buying side. I suspect we will rapidly approach maximum sales to the first adopters and true believers. And now we are seeing the maximum “forced” sales (i.e. government controlled sales). To get to 25% you are going to have to get a significant number of market buyers, basing purchases on economics, to buy EVs. I only see that happening with government support.

Reply to  Patrick B
November 27, 2019 9:49 am

Au contraire.

EV sales were 1.6% in 2016. 2% in 2017. 3.6% in 2018, and 6% in 2019. So it has been growing rapidly for a while now. Projections are 11% next year. 14% in 2021, and 25% by 2024. Government subsidies are exhausted for Tesla and likely GM. So the growth is absent subsidy. There has been a huge growth on the buying side.

As sales increase, prices should decrease. EVs are inherently simpler to build and maintain than ICE cars. Lithium-ion batteries in 2018 was about $175 per kWh—down from nearly $1,200 per kWh in 2010. Prediction is they will fall below $100/kwh very soon – probably in the next 5 years. VW claims to already be there. Tesla says they will be very close next year. In 2019 it fell to $139/kwh. So we are already very close.

As to how California will power those cars – bests me. California is bunch of dumb asses and their power policies make little sense. They will probably relies to some extent on the duck curve issue – power plants are always cycled down at night due to low demand, so there is certainly slack in the line after midnight to charge cars. Maybe they will fire up diablo canyon again.

Reply to  Patrick B
November 27, 2019 4:36 pm

Every product has a growth curve, usually just as you described, slow at first, then accelerating at a more or less brisk rate, and then the growth rate tapers off to what the market needs/affords. Demand for current electric vehicles, without the government subsidy, is in the low 2-5% of the population, depending on price. With current subsidies it is higher, but still low by automotive standards.
The high growth assumes that raw material will be available at increasingly lower costs without limit(very unlikely). Cobalt is the most restricted ingredient. It assumes that battery technology will continue to improve at a high rate, that the electric grid will be improved to handle huge increases in electric demand, and that taxpayers will be willing to pay the price.(gtw,thanks for your subsidy of my solar panels. They’re working good!)


Reply to  Patrick B
November 29, 2019 2:05 pm


There is a term in economics – testing the market. We don’t really know what the actual market for EVs is. You say 2-5%. Well, we shall see. You could be right. I certainly don’t think the EV market is 100%. Norway is at 31% EV penetration. 25% certainly seems…possible.

Regarding lithium and cobalt, again, sometime demand causes prices to increase, but also, it sometimes causes supplies to surge as well.

Reply to  Paul S
November 26, 2019 12:51 pm

California should shut in its airports. People who need to can fly by solar powered dirigibles.

Reply to  Paul S
November 26, 2019 1:01 pm

Who’s going to be left to pay the taxes?

Windy Wilson
Reply to  commieBob
November 26, 2019 1:23 pm

The sufficiency of taxes to pay for government programs is the Leftist version of the story of the Loaves and Fishes.

Clay Sanborn
November 26, 2019 10:12 am

It is always risky to bet against free market economic forces.

Reply to  Clay Sanborn
November 26, 2019 12:43 pm

Getting into a pissing contest with Trump probably isn’t a good idea, either.

Reply to  Clay Sanborn
November 26, 2019 1:12 pm

That’s why we are heading towards communism with al these climate policies. Otherwise it can’t be done. The misery will be green though. What’s not to like.

Dan Sudlik
November 26, 2019 10:13 am

Why would any sentient, thinking person want to live under these “rulers”. It just goes further and further downhill as far as I can tell.

Reply to  Dan Sudlik
November 26, 2019 10:28 am

So far, for most residents, the rules are just an annoyance. Their main focus is still getting kids to practice, going to work, buying new ‘stuff’. Until their power goes out, or they get stranded by their EV, it is just background noise and helps them feel virtuous.

Ron Long
Reply to  Dan Sudlik
November 26, 2019 11:54 am

But Dan, a million homeless persons have flocked to Kalifornia and are happy, and….wait a minute “sentient, thinking”? Ok, never mind.

Bryan A
November 26, 2019 10:14 am

All other major manufacturers should stand behind their brethren and give CA Gov’t No option in the State Vehicle purchase options other than EV only. Even for Emergency Vehicles. Leave it in the ground means NO EXCLUSIONS. Once the state has to start spending 4X$ on its fleet, it may wake up.
no plastics (wire insulation), no Rubber Tires, etc. no auto parts/accessories requiring petrochemicals to manufacture.
Leave it in the ground means no products reliant on it’s use to manufacture.
Also no Steel Auto Bodies, Steel requires Coal in its manufacture

Reply to  Bryan A
November 26, 2019 12:36 pm

Also no asphalt for the roads since that is from oil, or cement for the roads since you have to produce that with fossil fuels. Only renewable corduroy roads made of trees.

Bryan A
Reply to  shrnfr
November 26, 2019 2:09 pm

Long ago they used to Cobble road surfaces together using smooth flat stones.

Rhoda R
Reply to  Bryan A
November 26, 2019 8:03 pm

That could solve their unemployment problem right there.

Curious George
November 26, 2019 10:14 am

Nice to know that Gov. Gavin Newsom is not just above the law, but also on the right side of history. I love the guy’s modesty.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Curious George
November 26, 2019 12:28 pm

He’s quite the Gabbin’ Nuisance from what I’ve seen.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Curious George
November 26, 2019 12:34 pm

Let’s hope he has to get chauffeured around in a Nissan Leaf.

Windy Wilson
Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 26, 2019 1:21 pm

A Nissan Leaf? With his self-esteem as noted by Curious George, above, he’ll hire someone to haul him around in a rickshaw.

Reply to  Curious George
November 26, 2019 12:37 pm

And the sooner he is history the better off we will all be.

Robert W Turner
November 26, 2019 10:15 am

I’ve got a model on what California’s policies will do to their economy.

Gilbert K. Arnold
November 26, 2019 10:22 am

The auto makers should refuse to sell replacement parts for any state-owned/leased vehicle.

Reply to  Gilbert K. Arnold
November 26, 2019 12:27 pm


Pop Piasa
Reply to  Gilbert K. Arnold
November 26, 2019 12:41 pm

Perhaps closing their CA manufacturing facilities would send a more fiscally-oriented message. Many states would be more cost effective plant sites where labor and taxes are more reasonable.

Reply to  Gilbert K. Arnold
November 27, 2019 2:01 am

if it is legal to punish auto makers for excercising free speech in an obvious quid pro quo, then I say stop selling all gas and oil also.

November 26, 2019 10:24 am

So the productivity of a state worker will now drop by half or more because their vehicles will be stuck on a charger all the time that it is not in motion. The state workers will also have to have BATTERY anxiety as part of their future contracts because they will constantly be looking at their charge left or the next charging station. I suppose that the State will have to buy a large fleet of diesel flat deck tow trucks to go out and recover all of the vehicles that failed to make it to a charger and their batteries are dead. I can see a new form of state worker sloth involving these vehicles where the workers purposely run the batteries down then get the rest of the day off because they can not move around.

So with the continued shutdowns of the PG&E system where are these magical electric cars and trucks supposed to get the electricity to recharge the batteries. Another wonderful idea by the loonies in the California State capital.

Reply to  Boris
November 26, 2019 10:34 am

I believe EVs will be just a niche market until standardized quick swappable batteries are utilized. Waiting hours in some small town while your car recharges is a non-starter for most people.

Can you imagine how many charging stations these small towns would need to avoid hours long lines? And the increased electrical delivery? With my idea (quick swappable), pre-charged batteries could be trucked in direct from a power plant.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 26, 2019 11:48 am

Pretty sure a Tesla battery weighs over 1000 lbs. Doubt quick swap is a viable idea.

James Allen
Reply to  Pittzer
November 26, 2019 12:40 pm

Ever seen an electric forklift? They’ve had quick swappable thousand pound batteries for decades. It’s not a difficult concept to grasp, it’s already being done.

Reply to  James Allen
November 26, 2019 1:53 pm

I’ve seen LOTS of electric fork lifts, (and power jacks, walkie/stackies, scissors lifts, ect) and in most cases the Battery has been half the body. I’ve never seen one were removing it didn’t involve at least 20 minutes of disassembly.
Mostly they have really been SEVERAL batteries, each in the 25 to 100 pounds range depending on unit, so that they were at least theoretically removable by a single mechanic.

Frankly, I would think that rather then having multiple batteries and some kind of contraption to switch them out, it would be simpler and more economical to just have another fork lift.


Reply to  James Allen
November 26, 2019 3:59 pm

Just because fork lifts can lift heavy weights from A to B is not evidence that quick swap batteries are possible.
First off these things have to be automated, so the fork lift is going to have to find the battery where ever the driver happens to stop.
Second you have to properly align the battery so that it will slip into the tray, even if the driver didn’t bother to park the car straight.
Thirdly you are going to need storage and charging capacity for all the batteries that have been swapped out.
Fourthly you are going to have to figure out some means by which owners will be willing to trade brand new batteries for ones that are at the end of their life cycle.

Just because you want something to be simple, isn’t enough to make it simple.

Reply to  James Allen
November 26, 2019 5:33 pm

If it’s so easy to quick swap, then why don’t Formula E cars use that option? Instead, the driver swaps the entire car. They don’t finish the race in the car they started with (unless they crash or run out of juice). How weird is that?

Reply to  James Allen
November 27, 2019 7:18 am

You need a piece of equipment to remove a fork lift battery. Either a crane or another fork lift to pick the battery out of the compartment, or you need a roller tray to push the old battery onto, remove from the roller tray and then put the new battery on the tray and roll it back in.

Forklift batteries can weigh in excess of 4000 lbs.

I work in a forklift dealership here in MD. And these are lead acid batteries.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  James Allen
November 27, 2019 9:33 am

Next time you see one of those electric forklifts driving down the freeway at 70 mph and going around the curves, check out the vehicle dynamics and the stopping distance. If you think just swapping out a large part of a vehicle is a simple process than you probably have never been an engineer.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 26, 2019 12:00 pm

“quick swappable batteries are utilized”

That wouldn’t be faster than an oil change, which usually takes a minimum of 20-30 minutes. That would be hell to have to go through every 200-300 miles.

Lee L
Reply to  icisil
November 26, 2019 2:00 pm

Think cartridges. Fully charged off the shelf swappable cartridges.
It doesn’t take 30 minutes to swap in 2 new, fully charged exchange propane tanks on my RV.
Battery cardridge swapout .. not a 30 minute process if well designed and standardized.and not one that needs a hook up to the grid.

The grid, on the other hand ….

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Lee L
November 26, 2019 2:53 pm

I seriously doubt even both your propane tanks together come anywhere close to weighing as much as a typical high-capacity EV battery pack does. And cartridges they are not – because of their size and the necessity for liquid cooling, they are built into the frame of the vehicle. Maybe with some future battery technology that has not yet been invented, your idea of quick swappable battery cartridges might be possible, but not today.

Reply to  Lee L
November 26, 2019 3:37 pm

Yeah cartridges… cartridges that weigh half a ton. Propane tanks weigh 20-30 lbs and in no way compare. Do you realize the equipment, indoor space and battery storage requirements that would be required to make EV battery swap out feasible? It’s going to take as long as an oil change and significantly increase the cost.

Reply to  Lee L
November 26, 2019 4:01 pm

Batteries will weigh about 10 to 20 times what that propane tank weighs.

Reply to  Lee L
November 26, 2019 5:37 pm

Better Idea, Use Propane for fuel……

Bryan A
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 26, 2019 12:19 pm

there would almost literally need to be a charging station available at EVERY parking spot.
At least one for every privately owned car in every garage.

Reply to  Bryan A
November 26, 2019 1:26 pm

In a world were all cars are garaged and not on the street

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  yarpos
November 26, 2019 4:25 pm

What about the visitor from out of town who has to park down the road to visit?

Many people in cities drive for an hour plus just to go to work. I’m pretty sure the battery needs a recharge before you drive home.

Unit complexes, crowded estates, family vehicles when the kids start buying their cars etc.

Too many questions, zero answers.

Bryan A
Reply to  yarpos
November 26, 2019 5:22 pm

Too many problems, zero emissions

Lee L
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 26, 2019 1:43 pm

My idea too Jeff.

Nobody is going to swap out a Tesla battery on a regular basis but…

They could swap out as many small fully charged cartridge type batteries as the car will take, kind of like a refuelling a flashlight. Of course, the car will also have it’s own permanently installed battery which can be recharged in situ in addition to the cartridge ones you swap. Think bbq propane tanks. So.. when you run out of the one you charged at home, you pull in and buy a couple of cartridges.
These ‘gas’ stations will either be serviced by ‘tanker trucks’ that frequently bring an inventory of charged, tested cartridge batts or they might also have their own recharging bays to rejuvinate the swapped out batts. Come to think of it, you might just go to the supermarket and exchange a couple of cartridges while shopping for food. It’s what I do for propane. I don’t go back to my own propane connection at home.

The car’s electronics will be clever and ‘drain’ one battery at a time while seamlessly switching over to the next available battery bay when the active one is sensed to be drained.

Not rocket science. Well, ok maybe it actually is rocket science but not NEW rocket science.

In any case, car battery charging time isn’t the show stopper some people are making it out to be. Providing the needed electricity might be though.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Lee L
November 26, 2019 3:26 pm

Swapping a propane tank costs 1.7 times what refilling one costs. I imagine swapping batteries over charging them might have the same extra cost ratio.
So, what does that extra expense do to the cost comparison between ICE and EV?


Reply to  Steve Reddish
November 26, 2019 3:41 pm

These guys haven’t thought this through at all.

Reply to  Steve Reddish
November 26, 2019 4:03 pm

Propane tanks don’t degrade over time the way batteries do.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Steve Reddish
November 26, 2019 6:36 pm

icisil: They don’t have to think it through if they force it through.

Any problems that arise are because it wasn’t implemented correctly. (just like communism).

Reply to  Lee L
November 26, 2019 8:38 pm

Have you carried a battery recently, Lee? They’re not light. The more of them you have the more weight (and space) goes into robust enclosures and heavy duty terminals and more heavy cable and connectors in the car (more vital parts to give trouble).

Plus where do we find enough feminists to carry such batteries out to the car?

Craig from Oz
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 26, 2019 4:59 pm

Just thinking outside the box, what if we could store the energy required to drive the car in some sort of liquid form.

Then rather than plugging in and waiting, or trying to handle the logistics of 500kg battery packs, we could store the liquid energy in tanks and pump out the required amount into individual vehicles as and when they need it.

It would need a catchy name, so I propose Pumped Energy Transferred in Realtime On Location, or PETROL.

Think it would catch on?

Reply to  Craig from Oz
November 27, 2019 4:23 am

Brilliant, simply brilliant. That’s the kind of thinking that could revolutionize the world.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 26, 2019 7:35 pm

So you buy a new Tesla with a $30k battery. Then drive out of town and stop at Bob’s Battery Swap, where you swap it for a fully-charged ten-year-old battery that’s burned through a lot of its charging cycles. Then you drive away and run out of power in Deliverance country…

Or you get one that’s been damaged and, five miles down the road, it catches fire and burns you alive.

There is no world in which battery swaps make sense. At a minimum, batteries would have to be standardized and leased, which no manufacturer is likely to want. Otherwise Bob will have to keep $20,000,000 worth of batteries in his warehouse so he’ll have whichever one you need when you arrive, and he won’t want to take than ten-year-old battery you’re currently using.

Oh, and there was a company doing this a few years ago, so it’s hardly a new idea.

They went bust.

Bryan A
Reply to  Boris
November 26, 2019 12:25 pm

Won’t be diesel flat bed tow trucks, will be diesel flat bed generator trucks to supply mobile recharging

Reply to  Boris
November 26, 2019 1:19 pm

They will need to have a trailer attached to the cars that has a diesel generator and sufficient diesel fuel to keep the car charged.

John the Econ
Reply to  Boris
November 26, 2019 1:58 pm

“So the productivity of a state worker will now drop by half or more because their vehicles will be stuck on a charger all the time that it is not in motion.”

That’s not a bug, but a feature. It will be the perfect excuse for reducing productivity even more than the dismal level that it’s already at, and they’ll have to double the size of their unionized workforce.

Reply to  Boris
November 26, 2019 5:59 pm

Can someone tell me how many HOURS of driving a Tesla will get on a full charge?

November 26, 2019 10:26 am

A lawsuit because the President withdrew an exemption that allowed these 23 states to not follow the law (that congress passed?)? That is a little strange.

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 26, 2019 11:43 am

When dealing with health/safety/environment regulations, Congress usually passes “minimum standard” type legislation, leaving it open for states/localities to pass stricter laws to accommodate local conditions. The eco-fascists in California and elsewhere have taken advantage of this to enact impossible regulations. Trump’s only ploy is to get the courts to identify impermissible restraint of “interstate commerce”, or to get Congress to pass overriding legislation. Good luck with either of those.

rhoda klapp
Reply to  hiskorr
November 26, 2019 1:26 pm

Will you be allowed to drive into CA with a fossil fuel powered car or truck? If not, it’s interstate commerce under threat and a federal issue. And if trucks can’t go to CA, will they need to offload at the border?

Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
November 26, 2019 12:24 pm

I am never failed to be amazed that a presidential whim by one president is considered sacrosanct and can’t be undone by another. The Supreme Court already ruled that it wasn’t possible for one Congress to hamstring a future Congress… that the latter has just as much authority and can undo anything the first did. That doesn’t apply to presidents apparently.

Reply to  kcrucible
November 26, 2019 4:05 pm

That’s only true if the first president is a left wing democrat.

Mariano Marini
November 26, 2019 10:33 am

And when they will close the airports?

Reply to  Mariano Marini
November 26, 2019 11:08 am

Mariano marini

And the ports, which has 50 billions dollars worth of trade going through them monthly (I read it on the 6 part post of on California) Also how will the movie trade function? All motor trade will be dead. I’ve never know a vehicle to run without tires, so have they reinvented the wheel?

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Sunny
November 26, 2019 11:51 am

Once stuff stops coming into California ports, the mobs and gangs who depend on cargo heists for their livelihood will get Gov. Newsom’s attention real quick.

David Chappell
Reply to  Sunny
November 26, 2019 12:25 pm

Sustainable and renewable (every 100 miles) wooden wheels, simple.

Reply to  David Chappell
November 26, 2019 1:22 pm

TBT that might work to get the excess fuels out of the forests. //sarc

Reply to  Sunny
November 26, 2019 4:16 pm

There was an article last week where the GREENIES were complaining about large ships using bunker fuels for Their propulsion engines. These loonies were demanding this practice STOP immediately and these offending ships switch to a cleaner fuel like diesel. Good luck with that is what I say.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Sunny
December 3, 2019 5:49 am

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 November 26, 2019 at 11:51 am

Once stuff stops coming into California ports, the mobs and gangs
who depend on cargo heists for their livelihood

will get Gov. Newsom’s attention real quick.


Smuggling drugs in legitimate containers is known as Gancho Ciego or “Rip-on/Rip-off.” The method is widely used by drug gangs around the world, but most particularly out of Brazil. The UNODC describes Rip-on/Rip-off as “a concealment methodology whereby a legitimate shipment, usually containerized, is exploited to smuggle contraband (particularly cocaine) from the country of origin or the transhipment port to the country of destination. In “rip-off” cases, neither the shipper nor the consignee is aware that their shipment is being used to smuggle illicit cargo. For this method to be successful there will always be local conspiracy both in the country of origin or the transhipment port as well as in the destination country.”


David S
November 26, 2019 10:35 am

Headline should read: California Uses Public Funds to Drive People Out of California.

Calvin Rubisco
November 26, 2019 10:37 am

Maybe this question is post-ironic, but how are they going to charge their electric vehicles when the CA electric power grid is kaput?

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Calvin Rubisco
November 26, 2019 12:55 pm

I figure the state will own and operate the power grid soon. Priorities for officials are easier that way.

Reply to  Pop Piasa
November 26, 2019 2:04 pm

That would make it more likely that there will be longer blackouts. The answer to Calvin’s question is EVs will go uncharged for long periods.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Jtom
November 26, 2019 6:44 pm

Most likely outcome /agree.

From Wiki:
Nationwide recurring electrical blackouts in Venezuela began in March 2019. Experts and state-run Corpoelec sources attribute the electricity shortages to lack of maintenance and to a lack of technical expertise in the country resulting from a brain drain; (skipped) Since March, various nationwide blackouts have occurred in the country.

November 26, 2019 10:37 am

La la land really is insane.

Michael Jankowski
November 26, 2019 10:43 am

Is CA the only state where gov’t equipment purchase decisions can be made based on politics?

Neil Jordan
November 26, 2019 10:50 am

“However, the ban is not complete: it will make an exception for public safety vehicles.” If the Governor was really, REALLY serious about saving the world, he would have included California Highway Patrol. And fire departments. And ambulances.

Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 26, 2019 11:06 am

Even better. Start with all public safety vehicles before any general roll-out.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for an electric fire fighting helicopter.

Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 26, 2019 2:09 pm

I think it was in Nevada where a police chase with the police in an EV came to a halt because the battery needed charging. In all fairness, an ICE vehicle could have run out of gas. What was not mentioned was that the car was out of action for hours, having to be towed to a charge point and recharged.

John Endicott
Reply to  Jtom
November 27, 2019 7:08 am

I don’t know about Nevada. You might be thinking of the one in Fremont California

The police car in question was a Tesla Model S that the department purchased 6 months prior for a EV pilot program. During a chase the 6-miles of battery charge left warning light came on. Apparently the Tesla was not fully charged at the beginning of the officer’s shift at 2 p.m. and that the pursuit didn’t begin until around 11 p.m (IE 9 hours after the officer’s shift started). The department did have other (gasoline powered) police vehicles behind the Tesla ready to take over the chase.

the official police comment on the matter agrees with your “in all fairness” comment:
“At no time did the battery of the Tesla become a factor in our ability to pursue the suspect or perform our duties,” police said in Thursday’s statement. “This situation, while embarrassing, is no different from cases where a patrol car runs low (or even dry) of fuel.”

Bottom line is that, yes it could happen with a gasoline powered car. However, as EVs tend to have smaller range limits than ICE vehicles, one can expect the low charge situation to occurs more frequently than the low gas situation. the downtime for the EV will be greater than that of the ICE when it does occur, as filling the tank of an ICE is much, much quicker than fully charging an EV (a fact which also exacerbates the frequency difference between the two situations occurring – IE an EV with a half-charge will end up starting a shift due to lack of time to charge whereas an ICE can have it’s tank filled when needed before the shift even when time between shifts is tight, or mid-shift if needed ).

Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 26, 2019 3:11 pm

I agree, if they were serious, there would be no exclusions; I can see it now, a Tesla fire truck, the batteries are carried in a trailer behind the fire truck, and in a trailer attached to the battery trailer would be a diesel generator to charge the batteries.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Neil Jordan
November 26, 2019 3:15 pm

Implicit in the exemption for public safety vehicles is that battery-powered vehicles aren’t as good as the old, tried and true, ICE vehicles. So, the public is being saddled with second-best in support of an ideology. It is like an inverse subsidy — forcing people to buy something they wouldn’t buy in a free market.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
November 26, 2019 8:03 pm

O, like health insurance that covers pregnancy for a man? Obamacare.

My understanding is that STATES can do just about anything. Massachusetts had mandatory healthcare created under Romney well before Obamacare. The US congress has LIMITED authority if the constitution is to be believed. If Trump gets enough “ORIGINALIST” justices onto the Supreme Court, that may be the case in the near future.

Tim williams
November 26, 2019 10:51 am

This is only one item on a long list of items why I left CA fours ago. After living in the state for over 50 years You just get fed up with the nonsense-the roads are crappy and crowded, not enough water or electricity but, lots of needles on the beaches and parks, gangs and homeless everywhere.

Reply to  Tim williams
November 26, 2019 12:50 pm

I have only been to San Francisco once and that was forty Years ago. As a European I was astounded by the number of homeless mooching round posh neighbourhoods and the disparity of the rich and poor living within yards of each other.

It sounds as of the situation has got worse. Is there a reason for that? An article in our papers said how the hi tech giants had drawn in tens of thousands of workers from outside who were very well paid and had caused a housing crisis as house values and rentals spiralled. Is that a partial cause or would the homeless prefer to exist in sunny California rather than a colder state so move there?


Reply to  Tonyb
November 27, 2019 1:38 pm

“Frisco, (natives tend to hate that term, they call it “The City”,) ignores vagrancy, drug use, drug sales, littering, loitering, petty theft, assault, minor battery, disturbing the peace, etc. and provides free food, shelter, clothing, transport. Much of the rest of the urban areas around the state are trying to catch up. Somehow a state with 1/10th the country’s people has 1/2 the homeless. Yes, the nuts, bums, and addicts among the homeless are attracted to the benefits of California, not least of which is not freezing to death overnight. CA & FL used to give undesirables one-way bus tickets to each other , but they didn’t bother trying to ship them out to middle of the country (where the most entry-level jobs go empty.)

November 26, 2019 10:52 am

Sorry but this made me laugh LOL. Will they all drive tesla’s and are they sending 40+ thousand of their own children to the colbart mines in the republic of Congo for all of the batteries they will need (unisef 2019 report, in slave children working in the colbart mines)

California has lost the plot, clearly its citizens voted for the wrong people or they like being slaves?

Reply to  Sunny
November 26, 2019 1:39 pm

Dangerous stuff that colbart

Reply to  yarpos
November 26, 2019 4:08 pm

Wasn’t he some guy who pretended to be funny?

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
November 27, 2019 6:43 am

That’s Colbert you’re thinking of. “Funny” and “Colbert” really don’t belong in the same sentence.

Reply to  Sunny
November 26, 2019 2:16 pm

Dyslexics untie.

Joel Snider
November 26, 2019 10:53 am

Control freaks acting out.

Tim williams
November 26, 2019 10:54 am

What’s he doing about crapping and pissing on the sidewalks?

Reply to  Tim williams
November 26, 2019 12:16 pm

walking around it 😉

Reply to  Derg
November 26, 2019 4:09 pm

Driving around it. Important people like the gubiner would never walk.

November 26, 2019 10:56 am

The last person to leave won’t have to turn the light off.

Bryan A
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
November 26, 2019 12:16 pm

The next PSPS will take care of that

Reply to  Bryan A
November 26, 2019 5:13 pm

For those readers who live in a shrinking free democratic region of the US; PSPS stands for public safety power suppression. They turned off our power three times last month. Once for 30+ hours. Why? Because our 1960 underground electric grid might start a fire under high winds.

November 26, 2019 10:59 am

What will be interesting is when the power companies cut off power. At least with gasoline you can pump the fuel with portable generators; not so much with pumping electricity.

Pale Rider
November 26, 2019 11:04 am

Sounds like Detroit doesn’t need to worry about California emissions laws anymore.

November 26, 2019 11:11 am

Fun question – when the power goes out how will they recharge their cars?

November 26, 2019 11:24 am

I think we need to build a wall on the California border in addition to the Mexican one…

Reply to  Don
November 26, 2019 2:20 pm

If the climate grows colder, Mexico will be building the wall to keep CA’s homeless population out.

November 26, 2019 11:26 am

If CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere is 410ppm and California –Poof__ disappears, what would the new ppm be for Earth’s atmosphere? PS I support EV’s for air quality purposes and my son has a Tesla 3 which is reliable and does what it is supposed to do.

Reply to  Wharfplank
November 26, 2019 12:03 pm

There’s only one poof in California?

Reply to  Mr.
November 26, 2019 1:46 pm

Zat eez “pouffe,” monsieur.

High Treason
November 26, 2019 11:46 am

California will rapidly become like North Korea- a backward state getting nowhere while the rest of the world progresses. Industries will leave, so the economy will collapse- it will be back to the caves. If we go eco-lunacy worldwide and revert to 100% renewable, the planet will support as many humans as it did 10,000 years ago.

Small problem, the planet supported around 7 million humans, not 7 billion back in the Neolithic. This will mean that 99.9% of humans will perish. Those with a skillset behind a computer will NOT be one of the lucky 1 in a thousand that will survive. In absolutely delicious irony, the ONLY humans that have any hope of survival are those very few that live a totally tribal stone age life without any inputs from industrialised society. This means no guns or metal knives. The trappings of modern life will disappear rapidly- cars, computers, hospitals, surgery, reliable food and water- all gone.

In all likelihood, EVERY single idiot that calls for such 100% renewable economy WILL die. It is quite likely that almost all human technology over the last 10,000 will just be abandoned. The ultimate irony will be that those who could have written the history of the total absurdity (that created total atrocity) will have died. Those last scraggy humans will have no idea of what abominations occurred until they eventually evolve archaeology and uncover some remnants of our society. They might even laugh at what utter morons we were to have just thrown it all away without some existential threat like severe drought , supervolcano or asteroid strike. They will scratch their heads if they can time date that coal fired power plants were destroyed to be replaced with unreliable and expensive windmills. If they can establish this time line, they will be truly perplexed- why on earth did they go backwards voluntarily? If they can decipher old surviving texts, they will be even more aghast that the justification for destroying themselves came without any actual debate.

Then, if they find that any debate that could have saved them was crushed, with the People of the day still selecting those that allowed the crushing of open debate to be their overlords, they will be truly horrified. What will be the conclusions they make of our long extinct society? What derogatory remarks will they make about us? We denigrate Neanderthals, so how will we we be denigrated?

Reply to  High Treason
November 26, 2019 1:49 pm

Ironically, California has a warmer climate, which enables them to indulge in liberal license.

Pat Frank
Reply to  High Treason
November 26, 2019 2:22 pm

That all assumes that next large asteroid strike doesn’t happen during the impending neo-neolithic.

I’ve always wondered about Enrico Fermi’s comment that if there were space aliens, they’d have been here by now.

I’ve now figured it out. No matter what planet, any sentient species will have arisen by evolutionary process. They will be cultural obligates. In an environment of predators and con-specific competitors, their survival will have required tribalism.

Tribalism, as a survival trait, and genetics co-evolved to produce species that has an innately collectivist psyche (most human cultures still exhibit that trait). But any genetically determined psychology has its 3-sigma wings. In this case, ideological tyrants on one wing, and free-thinkers on the other.

When the culture reaches some state of material advancement, the free-thinkers emerge as the first true scholars, scientists, and engineers. Their culture necessarily splits away from the collectivist base.

This is a cultural speciation event. People with individualistic psyches emerge and form a new society of negotiated ethics (i.e., free-thinking) rather than one of collective morality (i.e., ideological).

And there we have it. All our material progress has come from individualistic culture. One that allows the independent thinking abhorred by collectivists.

The battle is between two cultural species occupying one landscape: one collectivist and one individualist. The latter tolerates the former, but the former cannot permit the latter. Where individuals thrive, collectivism fails.

I suspect the collectivist-individualist conflict occurs wherever a sentient species arises and develops as culturally obligate. If collectivists win out, the physical species goes culturally moribund (collectivist bliss), the bolide finally arrives, and they go extinct.

So far, as no space aliens have appeared, any such scenario has played out as a collectivist win.

Here on Earth, individualist culture first appeared as an obvious historical phenomenon during the Greek Enlightenment. Call it our cultural speciation event. Individual thinkers abounded. But they were eventually obliterated in the collectivist counter-attack which operated within the ideological and collectivist construct of Christianity.

In our time, individualist culture arose again during the 16th and 17th centuries, producing the Enlightenment in the 18th. Our second observable cultural speciation event.

The Romantic reaction is the collectivist counter-attack. Every ideology serves as its vehicle. Communism is the obvious example. Modern progressives have allied themselves with every single socialist mass-murderer. Whatever the delusional excuse, the result is invariably the obliteration of free-thinking.

One can only see the destruction of free-thought as the intended outcome, even if the intent is a visceral drive rather than conscious.

So, the on-going culture war is the answer to the space alien mystery. The same battle between cultural species is inevitable. If the collectivists win, human culture goes moribund, and the inevitable bolide will finish the job.

It doesn’t matter if human civilization arises again. The identical conflict will emerge.

So the culture war is an existential battle. If the next big bolide arrives with an extinction event, then the collectivists will have won (again). Humans will be just one more space alien species to have not made the free-thinking grade.

If the bolide is a happy catch of raw materials, then individualists will have won, humans have an optimistic future, and ad astra will be their outlook.

The Dark Lord
November 26, 2019 11:49 am

anytime someone invokes the “wrong side of history” troupe you can be sure they are actually selling snake oil …

November 26, 2019 12:03 pm

California would make much better use of its resources doing something about the “emissions” left behind by homeless people on the streets and sidewalks in LA & San Francisco.

Reply to  Kamikazedave
November 26, 2019 12:08 pm


People in power do not care about the poor or even the middle class, imagine if the money spent on useless wind farms and solar panels was spent on homes or paying of student debt, even bringing back jobs from other countries, would help, But co2 is the enemy 😐

Bryan A
Reply to  Kamikazedave
November 26, 2019 12:23 pm

Ah Yes, Ca(ca) the land of the effluent

Pat Frank
Reply to  Kamikazedave
November 26, 2019 2:25 pm

Those particular emissions are going down the storm sewers, untreated. One can expect fecal bacteria to appear along the beaches.

If so, it will be a large public health crisis. One hopes for a class action suit or prosecution for criminal negligence levied against the various government officials and bodies that will have made that disaster possible.

November 26, 2019 12:05 pm

Great idea. While they’re at it:
1) Prohibit government-paid travel on fossil fuel powered aircraft
2) Prohibit government-owned airports from supplying fossil fuels to airlines
3) Prohibit payment or reimbursement of gasoline or diesel costs for government vehicles
4) Prohibit use of fossil fuel-fired boilers for heating or hot water in government buildings
5) Prohibit State-paid travel to any other state that produces or refines fossil fuels

Bruce Cobb
November 26, 2019 12:13 pm

Ah, so Calizuela, in a fit of anger towards carmakers, who dared join the White House’s opposition to their new, stricter emissions rules has decided in their supreme wisdom to cut their nose off to spite their face. If Calizuela wants to just leave the US there’s the door, don’t let it hit you. Bye.

November 26, 2019 12:14 pm

California–the beach bum state

Steven Curtis Lohr
November 26, 2019 12:19 pm

Emperor Newsom has hubris unbecoming of such a high office. California has not solved any of their problems and if anything, they are devolving into chaos with no apparent awareness of their mistakes. Some have stopped joking about dismantling the state. If there is a benefit from their current form of politics it isn’t apparent to a lot of people. What will emerge is anyone’s guess but it makes me sad to hear just one crazy proclamation after another from people who should know better.

November 26, 2019 12:41 pm

California, the cFORD state.

Cal. Found on Road Dead

November 26, 2019 12:43 pm

It’s hard to imagine that support of their politics as a prerequisite to doing business with the state is constitutional…but that of course never stopped CA from doing anything.

November 26, 2019 12:53 pm

I don’t believe this is a lawful boycott perpetrated by a state entity.

November 26, 2019 12:56 pm

When the last sane people leave California, they won’t have to turn out the lights – they’ll already be out.

Linda Goodman
November 26, 2019 1:27 pm

“California Takes Drastic Step Towards Reducing Emissions” ‘Emissions’ suggests pollution and repeating any fraudulent alarmist language supports the fraud, however subtly; many articles posted at WUWT will change the headline of the original source for that very reason – not this time.

November 26, 2019 1:34 pm

Keep in mind that all they have done is to think differently to a State government and support the Federal government, and nothing real has actually happened.

Newsome has lashed out and banned purchases immediately apparently for correct speak crimes. He comes across as a insecure, neurotic , despot dictator.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  yarpos
November 27, 2019 4:54 am

And when the state is in control of the electricity that powers everything, I suppose it is unthinkable that it would ever use that position to punish those areas that are not voting “correctly”.

Joel O’Bryan
November 26, 2019 2:04 pm

So when the Big One hits, the grid is down. There goes their fleet.
Killing your people with virtue signaling.
Real Smart.
Takes a real Dumbocrat to do that.

November 26, 2019 2:10 pm

“it will make an exception for public safety vehicles”

Meaning in intent, of course; ambulances, fire engines and police cruisers.

What that exemption means to every intelligent government official is that all their vehicles will be rebranded “public safety vehicles”.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  ATheoK
December 3, 2019 6:03 am

ambulances, fire engines and police cruisers –> police chargers

“Since power is one of the most important things in a police pursuit vehicle, the 2018 Dodge Charger Police Pursuit is equipped with a 3.6-liter Pentastar® DOHC 24-valve V6 engine. …

Also available is a 5.7-liter HEMI® V8 that generates up to a whopping 370 horsepower and 395 lb” › …
2018 Dodge Charger Police Pursuit | John Jones Police Pursuit | Salem, IN

November 26, 2019 2:15 pm

Newsom has to end what he has started. There are too many parties involved. Too many crazy policies created. Too much money spent. Too much social engineering ongoing. California. That dystopian state for rich and illegals and occasional generator salesman.

November 26, 2019 3:51 pm

I’m pretty sure that a state declaring that it will refuse to buy certain makes of cars violates the interstate commerce clause.

Reply to  MarkW
November 26, 2019 5:52 pm

+1 It will be overturned but the virtue signal bomb was dropped and the media glorified it.

old construction worker
November 26, 2019 4:11 pm

Ok. I get about 250,000 miles out of my truck’s power plant without any major problems. I understand EV power plant has a range equal to about 100,000 miles it needs to be replace. My power plant can be recycled make into other needed metals materials. Can the same be said about the EV”s battery cord? At 100,000 miles is the EV worth spending $3000.00 for a new power plant?

November 26, 2019 5:02 pm

Dear California,

Has anybody out there in government read this:

If not, then please take a moment to do so.

Len Werner
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
November 26, 2019 5:44 pm

Their site claims under 800 signatures; the likes of Mann will double over in laughter at that. If you can find a way for me to add my signature as a scientist to that list please let me know, I couldn’t find it. There should be 15 million on that list and counting, not 779 and stagnant.

If the only way to sign it is to donate, Mann will be rolling on the floor, not just doubled over in laughter; he can claim you have to buy your way on and it’s nothing but a way to get money.

So far, it looks a bit silly and ineffectual, despite saying exactly what I would.

Reply to  Len Werner
November 27, 2019 9:38 am

Yeah, those lists don’t seem to mean very much do they, no matter which side they support.

How do rational people deal with irrational people? I don’t know the answer, other than the rational people have to make a concerted effort to keep irrational people out of government offices.

Rational people have to step up, get involved, make some noise. Right now the squeaky wheels in greatest number seem to be irrational.

michael hart
November 26, 2019 5:20 pm

” However, the ban is not complete: it will make an exception for public safety vehicles.”

Why the exceptions? Could it be that they know something they are not prepared to admit in public?

November 26, 2019 5:22 pm

How about they contract with Mercedes for these?

Len Werner
November 26, 2019 5:24 pm

“Carmakers that have chosen to be on the wrong side of history will be on the losing end of California’s buying power.” Oh really?–“California’s buying power”??

“We estimate that California state and local governments owe $1.3 trillion as of June 30, 2015.”

You’d think that maybe a creditor or two might have some thoughts on how California spends the creditor’s money. To paraphrase Mark Steyn, they have to pay back $1.3 trillion (as of 4 years ago) just to raise their buying power to having none. What kind of an unrealistic arrogant buffoon does it take to make blustering claims of ‘buying power’ with that dismal a financial record?

November 26, 2019 7:02 pm

Yes, instead California state agencies will buy gas-powered vehicles from OTHER manufacturers.

William Haas
November 26, 2019 7:57 pm

All of California’s problems will be solved as soon as the high speed rail line between Fresno and Bakersfield has been completed. If California really believes that the use of fossil fuels is bad then they should immediately ban the us of all goods and services that involve the use of fossil fuels. Everyone in California will then have to immediately leave the state before the ban takes place in order to survive.

November 26, 2019 8:26 pm

Are batteries easy to remove? They need to be in water tight compartments, I thought.
And, the idea of getting any old battery at charging stations is ridiculous.
I drive a plugin hybrid. That sort of car is actually practical.

November 26, 2019 11:56 pm

California Governor Gavin Newsom wants EVs, but seems unaware of the pollution inherent in current battery technology. Here is a solution to that problem, using the most widely available metal in the planet’s crust.

It’s also apparent that the Governor prefers tradition, “Due to limited resources, responses to inquires via mail may take longer than those submitted using the email form below.
Please note that we are unable to accept e-mail attachments because of the risk of Internet viruses; please send your attachments via traditional mail.”

November 27, 2019 12:18 am

“Carmakers that have chosen to be on the wrong side of history will be on the losing end of California’s buying power.”

Governor Gavin Newsom: (Commanding) “Slave in the magic mirror, come from the farthest space, through wind and darkness I summon thee. Speak! Let me see thy face.”

Magic Mirror: “What wouldst thou know, my Green?”

Governor Gavin Newsom: (Preening) “Magic Mirror on the wall, who is the greenest one of all?”

Magic Mirror: “Famed is thy eco-activism, Your Greeness. But hold, a young maid I see. Rags cannot hide her scowly face. Alas, she is more green than thee.”

Governor Gavin Newsom: (Angry) “Alas for her. Reveal her name.”

Magic Mirror: “Expunges travel by air. Sails the ocean blue. Pig tails adorn her hair.

Governor Gavin Newsom: (Screams) “HOW DARE SHE!”

November 27, 2019 3:17 am

I thought the definition of an ’emission free’ vehicle in California was an electric car for which the power is generated in Nevada……

Bryan A
Reply to  David
November 27, 2019 12:35 pm

Ca does have a few reliable dispatchable Zero Emission generating sources…
Geysers geothermal
Helms Pumped storage
Lake Folsom
Lake Oroville
Lake Shasta
Diablo Canyon

Too bad the state government is so stupid

Reply to  Bryan A
November 27, 2019 1:59 pm

Except we’re closing Diablo Canyon early, Lake Shasta runs low most decades at some point, Oroville Dam has shut down a couple times in recent years because the emrgency overflow clogged the power plant outlet, and pumped storage is not a source.

November 27, 2019 8:50 am

It’s the high speed rail of electric state vehicles to nowhere.

CalEPA employees need to be assigned bicycles instead.

Chris White
November 27, 2019 2:02 pm

To accomplish this the entire Mojave Desert will be covered with windmills and solar panels.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights