California Dreamin’: Newsom’s Energy Fiasco

A recent Wall Street Journal article titled “Climate Action’ Has California’s Energy Economy on Its Knees” lays bare the grim reality of Governor Gavin Newsom’s energy and climate policies, which are undermining California’s economy while delivering negligible environmental benefits. For those enamored with high costs, unreliable power, and empty promises, Newsom’s policies provide a masterclass in dysfunction.

A State in Crisis

California, once the envy of the nation for its innovation and economic might, is now making headlines for rolling blackouts and skyrocketing energy costs. Under Governor Newsom’s leadership, the state has committed to achieving carbon neutrality through aggressive climate policies. But as the WSJ article aptly highlights, these policies are undermining the very foundation of the state’s energy infrastructure.

The consequences are painfully evident. California’s energy grid has become a house of cards, with the state’s dependence on renewable sources like solar and wind creating significant vulnerabilities. These energy sources are inherently intermittent—solar doesn’t generate power at night, and wind energy is unreliable. The result? A grid plagued by instability, leading to frequent blackouts. When the lights go out in California, residents are left wondering why their exorbitant energy bills don’t seem to buy reliability.

The High Cost of Virtue Signaling

One of the most damning critiques from the WSJ article is California’s astronomical energy costs. The average retail price for electricity in the state hovers around 26 cents per kilowatt-hour—nearly twice the national average. For low-income households, this is not just a financial burden but a crisis. Families struggling to make ends meet are forced to allocate a disproportionate share of their income to cover energy bills. For all the talk of “climate justice,” California’s policies are regressive, hitting the most vulnerable the hardest.

As a result, California’s households and businesses pay for the most expensive electricity and gasoline in the lower 48 states. It’s all for nothing. California still relies on oil and gas for 80% of its energy, a reliance on fossil fuel that is the same as the national average.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/climate-action-has-californias-energy-economy-on-its-knees-green-lawfare-oil-e11518a2?

These costs stem from the state’s forced transition to renewables, which are far from self-sufficient. Wind and solar require significant backup from fossil fuels or prohibitively expensive battery storage to ensure a stable power supply. Ironically, these backups often increase emissions because natural gas plants must ramp up production quickly during gaps in renewable output—a practice that is both inefficient and environmentally damaging. So, while Newsom and his administration champion their climate goals, the results tell a very different story: higher costs, higher emissions, and no meaningful impact on global climate trends.

The Death of the Oil and Gas Industry

California’s war on fossil fuels has had devastating consequences for its energy workers. Once a powerhouse of oil and gas production, the state has steadily eroded this industry through restrictive drilling regulations, refinery closures, and an overarching hostility to traditional energy. Thousands of high-paying jobs have disappeared, leaving workers with few alternatives.

This is pure hypocrisy. Instead of safely extracting oil in a state with the world’s most rigorous environmental and labor protections, California is forced to refine oil imported from such paragons of human rights and environmental stewardship as Ecuador, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Meantime, California’s refineries are shutting down, one by one, without the option to import gasoline thanks to the special formulation the state requires to lower the “carbon content” of transportation fuel.

The state’s push for electric vehicles (EVs) further illustrates its disdain for practical considerations. Newsom’s mandate that all new cars sold in California must be electric by 2035 sounds visionary but ignores glaring realities. California’s energy grid, already on life support, is ill-equipped to handle the surge in demand that millions of EV chargers will create. The WSJ article notes that the infrastructure for such a transition simply does not exist, making the mandate more fantasy than policy.

Moreover, the reliance on imported raw materials for EV batteries raises serious questions about sustainability and ethics. Mining for lithium, cobalt, and other key components of batteries often occurs in countries with poor labor and environmental standards. California’s policies may shift emissions elsewhere, but they fail to address the global impact of these supply chains.

Net Zero: A Hollow Promise

Governor Newsom’s ultimate goal of achieving Net Zero emissions epitomizes the flaws in California’s approach to climate policy. Even under the rosiest assumptions, the state’s emissions reductions will have a negligible impact on global temperatures. Estimates cited in the WSJ article suggest that California’s efforts might reduce global temperatures by a fraction of a degree—hardly enough to justify the economic and social upheaval these policies are causing.

The push for Net Zero has become a mantra among climate activists, but it is worth asking: At what cost? California’s policies prioritize symbolic gestures over practical solutions. The state’s closure of its last nuclear power plant, Diablo Canyon, is a prime example. Nuclear energy is one of the most reliable and low-carbon power sources available, yet it has been sidelined in favor of less dependable renewables. This decision reflects a broader trend in California’s climate policies: ideology taking precedence over effectiveness.

The False Promise of Green Jobs

Proponents of California’s climate policies often tout the potential for “green jobs” to replace those lost in traditional energy sectors. However, this narrative falls apart under scrutiny. Jobs in renewable energy tend to be less stable and lower-paying than those in the oil and gas industry. Moreover, many so-called green jobs are temporary positions tied to the construction phase of renewable energy projects. Once the solar panels are installed or the wind turbines are erected, the jobs disappear.

The WSJ article highlights another inconvenient truth: California’s green energy sector is heavily reliant on foreign manufacturers, particularly from China. By outsourcing production, California is not only undermining its own workforce but also supporting industries in countries with questionable environmental and labor practices. This is hardly the green utopia that policymakers promised.

Perhaps the worst of Mr. Newsom’s schemes is offshore wind, for which the California Air Resources Board has planned 25 gigawatts of capacity. They clearly haven’t thought this through. Just offshore, California’s continental shelf rapidly descends to a depth of 4,000 feet. This requires floating wind turbines, which must be imported from Europe or China. The plan calls for developers to haul 2,500 of these 10 megawatt turbines, each about 1,000 feet tall from the waterline to the tip of the blade, to points 20 miles offshore. There they’ll be connected to the sea floor with cables nearly a mile long. High-voltage underwater cables will transmit electricity to onshore substations. This is an environmental and financial catastrophe in waiting, but Mr. Newsom says only a climate denier would oppose it.

These are the consequences of a state run by rent-seeking renewable-energy firms and the environmentalist fanatics that offer them political cover. Mr. Newsom’s climate action is hitting every industry and every household.

Unintended Consequences

Beyond the economic and environmental failures, California’s policies are creating a cascade of unintended consequences. The state’s high energy costs and regulatory burdens are driving businesses and residents to flee in record numbers. Companies that once considered California their home are relocating to more business-friendly states like Texas and Florida. This exodus is eroding the state’s tax base, further compounding its financial woes.

Meanwhile, the state’s reliance on renewables has made it vulnerable to geopolitical risks. As the WSJ article points out, China dominates the global supply chain for solar panels and batteries. By tethering its energy future to these technologies, California is effectively ceding control over its energy independence to a foreign power—a strategic blunder of epic proportions.

A Blueprint for Failure

California’s energy policies serve as a cautionary tale for other states and nations. They highlight the dangers of prioritizing ideology over practicality, and of implementing sweeping mandates without considering their feasibility or consequences. Governor Newsom may enjoy basking in the glow of international accolades, but his policies are leaving ordinary Californians in the dark—both literally and figuratively.

The WSJ article underscores the need for a balanced approach to energy policy—one that recognizes the importance of reliable baseload power, the economic realities facing working families, and the limitations of current renewable technologies. Unfortunately, California’s leadership seems more interested in scoring political points than in addressing these pressing challenges.

Conclusion: A Model to Avoid

If California truly wants to lead, it must offer a model that balances environmental stewardship with economic vitality. Instead, it has become a laboratory for extreme policies that deliver little more than hardship for its citizens. As the WSJ article makes clear, the state’s “climate action” policies are a warning, not a blueprint.

For those who value reliable energy, affordable living, and economic opportunity, California’s trajectory under Governor Newsom is a sobering reminder of what happens when politics takes precedence over pragmatism. Other states and nations would do well to learn from California’s mistakes rather than emulate them. The Golden State may be green, but its energy policies are leaving its citizens in the red.