Slashdot Mirror

I own one of the affected VWs and have been keeping tabs on this in owners forums. The inside scoop came out within just a few months of the scandal breaking. Basically Winterkorn didn't want to pay licensing fees to Mercedes for its DEF technology. So he instructed his engineers to get the TDI engines to meet emissions standards without DEF while maintaining power output, or else. When the engineers determined it was impossible, they did the only thing they could to keep their jobs - they cheated.

The VW engineers actually came remarkably close to succeeding. Here are the NOx emissions for the TDI vehicles before and after the fix. The pre-fix NOx emissions for the 2015 TDI engines are actually compliant with EPA limits (0.2 g/mi), and just barely above CARB's limit (0.04 g/mi). (The pre-2015 TDIs remain above CARB's limit after the fix. CARB covers this in their FAQ.)

I own one of the affected VWs and have been keeping tabs on this in owners forums. The inside scoop came out within just a few months of the scandal breaking. Basically Winterkorn didn't want to pay licensing fees to Mercedes for its DEF technology. So he instructed his engineers to get the TDI engines to meet emissions standards without DEF while maintaining power output, or else. When the engineers determined it was impossible, they did the only thing they could to keep their jobs - they cheated.

The VW engineers actually came remarkably close to succeeding. Here are the NOx emissions for the TDI vehicles before and after the fix. The pre-fix NOx emissions for the 2015 TDI engines are actually compliant with EPA limits (0.2 g/mi), and just barely above CARB's limit (0.04 g/mi). (The pre-2015 TDIs remain above CARB's limit after the fix. CARB covers this in their FAQ.)

They don't have much choice. SB826 says they need to get to 50% by 2021.

Not really 50%, just at least 3 women if the number of board members is 6 or more, 2 if the number is 5, and 1 otherwise.

Other than that, I find two loopholes in the bill large enough to drive a medium-sized planet through:

Regarding violations and penalties:
301.3.(e)(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a female director having held a seat for at least a portion of the year shall not be a violation.
301.3.(f)(1) “Female” means an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.

So for one day a year (I suggest May 1st for maximum Irony), the chairman of the board should come to work in drag.

They don't have much choice. SB826 says they need to get to 50% by 2021.

Actually, SB826 is a little more complicated than that. By the end of 2021, Public Companies must meet the following:

If a Public Company’s number of directors is six or more, the Public Company must have a minimum of three female directors;
If a Public Company’s number of directors is five, the Public Company must have a minimum of two female directors; and
If a Public Company’s number of directors is four or fewer, the Public Company must have a minimum of one female director.

They don't have much choice. SB826 says they need to get to 50% by 2021.

We are the only country in the developed world that doesnâ(TM)t provide pre-filled tax returns, thanks to Grover Norquist, his âoeAmericans for Tax Reformâ, and all of the weak-willed Republican legislators that adhere dogmatically to an extremely broad interpretation of Norquistâ(TM)s "Taxpayer Protection Pledge", which also aims to maintain our painfully-adversarial relationship with the IRS. By the way, California has their version of ReadyReturn buried in their web site: https://www.ftb.ca.gov/readyre...

Unless something has changed, in pretty much all of the US, the husband is the "putative father", and even if paternity is later established to be someone else the court can leave child support orders in place if in the "best interests of the child" (e.g. if the neighborhood hood who was the genetic donor has a lower income )

You can even be held liable if you are a sperm donor. https://montesfamilylaw.com/ca...

And here is the bill they are workin on passing (SB 115) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/...

In Canada, Sperm donors are not allowed anonymity, which means that a sperm donor is easy to find. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada... . And don't for a minute think that the known Sperm donor will not be sued for support. The child and th emother are the Important parties.

And some women are demanding the absolute right to find and know who donated sperm https://www.wbur.org/npr/14047...

tl;dr version - a man would have to be a fool do donate sperm, and not that smart to enter into a marriage contract these days of institutionalized cuckholdery.

Idiot troll AC is idiot. Toast and prune juice are actually listed, Lynnwood was telling the truth.

San Francisco along with the rest of CA is heavily invested in their citizens smoking. Back in 2003 CA used future payments from cigarette sales to issue bonds.

Vaping products are not covered under the MSA, so these bonds are floundering due to drops in smoking rates. SF needs people to keep smoking.

They knew this was a bad idea back in 2000: https://www.sfgate.com/busines...

https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/c...

Unfortunately we, as a society, are too civilized to simply say "no" when they come begging for a cure when they got the disease that the vaccine could have prevented.

Even if we put all the anti-vaxxers in one of the shitty states and built a wall around it, it would still benefit us to reduce illness in that neighboring area because walls don't work, and they would still be able to spread illness into our land.

How about California, with it's endemic typhoid?

Typhus Epidemic Worsens in Los Angeles

Yep - typhus is endemic in California:

In California, flea-borne typhus is considered endemic (always present) in areas of Los Angeles and Orange counties, but cases sometimes are also reported from other parts of California.

What a fucking shitty state.

In 2017, hydro-produced electricity used by California totaled nearly 43,333 gigawatt-hours (GWh)

What about 2015? It was only 15,256 GWh. 2011? 43,623 GWh. The usable hydro power is swinging up and down by a factor of 300% over periods of just 2 years. What is making up such enormous differences in power production during the years of drought I wonder?

https://www.energy.ca.gov/alma...

I believe the Politifact article you are referring to is: here. If this is not your article, please provide a link. This link shows your post to either be confused or full of carefully constructed half truths.

Your list of net givers appears to be taken from the figure from the California Legislative Analyst's Office, January 2017 (original). If so, you are reading that figure wrong. That is the per capita federal spending in the state - what the feds send back, not the net transfer.

Much of the original discussion around this started with a study from The Tax Foundation. Characterizations of this group range from neutral/non-partisan to fiscal conservative/business friendly. That study listed the top ten givers as:

Colorado: $0.81
New York: $0.79
California: $0.78
Delaware: $0.77
Illinois: $0.75
Minnesota: $0.72
New Hampshire: $0.71
Connecticut: $0.69
Nevada: $0.65
New Jersey: $0.61

and takers as

New Mexico: $2.03
Mississippi: $2.02
Alaska: $1.84
Louisiana: $1.78
West Virginia: $1.76
North Dakota: $1.68
Alabama: $1.66
South Dakota: $1.53
Kentucky: $1.51
Virginia: $1.51

But that's from 2005, and the California report I linked to above said they had questions about its methodology around estimating taxes paid by Californians.

WalletHub put out an analysis last year on "2018’s Most & Least Federally Dependent States." That list is largely similar, but with California buried at (gasp!) #39.

I have better things to do on a Saturday than correct people on the Internet, but if you'd actually like to have an informed discussion, we can pull data from the IRS and understand why PolitiFact's conclusion was there isn't a simple answer.

(b) "Broadband Internet access service" means a mass-market retail service by wire or radio provided to customers in California that provides the capability to transmit data to, and receive data from, all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including, but not limited to, any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. "Broadband Internet access service" also encompasses any service provided to customers in California that provides a functional equivalent of that service or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this title.

In other words, if you have a dedicated line to an ISP and have fixed 56.k modems at each end, you have "broadband", according to this bill. Or a fixed T1 service (1.544 Mbps). Anything except dial-up is "broadband". Is that a good definition?

Now, that's not saying that NN in the bill is wrong, it's just a stupid use of the word "broadband" where it does not belong. They could have omitted that word and referred simply to "internet access service", but they chose not to.

But isn't it nice to know, your dial-up service in California is not covered by the NN law, and the ISP is free to diddle with your traffic as they desire. All due to a stupid definition of a simple concept.

California snowpack at 111% of normal, and the reservoirs are all around historical averages. No more drought in California (contrary to what you stated), the Midwest is still gaining in moisture (contrary to what you stated), and the Sahara is getting more moisture (contrary to what you stated). And yet somehow you're still correct? When the facts don't go your way - you really should change your position.

WTF are you smoking? Too low? Installed per regulations. It's OK to have them lower than the tips of the trees, provided the trees are far enough away. Or do you know more than the Bureau of Reclamation as far as power line installation goes? Or that the PG&E towers weren't built to CPUC code?

Because CPUC. The California Public Utilities Commission consists of a bunch of lackeys appointed by the Governor, who get the privilege to set power rates, establish regulations, and provide oversight on spending and maintenance of all utilities in California. Utilities in this State cannot do anything without CPUC oversight and approval - including setting power rates.

It's really a pretty cool example of fascism - the State so heavily regulating an industry that companies are virtually "nationalized"; they are public-in-name-only, as they cannot do anything that (in this case) their Sacramento masters desire, It's a virtual State-owned operation, forced by regulation.

How about PUC do its damn job and watch over the utilities that it regulates, rather than take millions in campaign donations and illegal activities? Oh - it's because even Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown was involved in the scandals... Yeah, let the State regulate everything about the utility, let the utilities buy-off the regulators and Governor - and then when the SHTF, blame the CEO - and not the elected officials. Here's a hint: don't reward the bastards in Sacramento in the first place, by re-electing them (or electing their chosen heir) to their positions.

First off, the drought was a result of natural variation. And anyone that checks reservoir levels today will find were at about the historical average, overall. If we had a drought - it's gone.

The real cause of the fires was the handwringing and NIMBY Gaia worshipers throwing up legal roadblocks to PG&E cutting back trees near power lines.

This was a manufactured (in that environmentalists fought against accepted standards for power line clearance) disaster that is being blamed on a non-event (in that there was no climate-change drive to the drought).

Citation needed

A.B. 1096

Few people move from CA to TX literally "due to high taxes and regulations"

Based on Census data, people moving out of CA are families with kids with only a high school education and lower-income are going to TX. High costs of living including housing are the chief reason people are leaving.

Those costs are, in part, because of government regulation and taxes that limit supply and increase building costs for new housing.

No one votes for "high taxes and regulations", that's just inflammatory rhetoric.

The entire government apparatus that makes people leave CA wasn't put forward by a single vote. People do vote for high taxes and regulations. Some are proud of being "civilized" to have such government services. It's a choice and they are free to make it just as other people are free to leave that state because of those costs.

It is accurate to say that people, particularly poor families, are leaving CA to places like TX because of taxes and regulation that make it too expensive for them to live there. There is evidence and data to support that statement.

What bothers me the most about CA migration is that the people leaving CA bring CA with them. They are increasing housing costs and in many instances (that I have seen personally) bring the politics and culture that created CA that they left.

Few people move from CA to TX literally "due to high taxes and regulations"

Based on Census data, people moving out of CA are families with kids with only a high school education and lower-income are going to TX. High costs of living including housing are the chief reason people are leaving.

Those costs are, in part, because of government regulation and taxes that limit supply and increase building costs for new housing.

No one votes for "high taxes and regulations", that's just inflammatory rhetoric.

The entire government apparatus that makes people leave CA wasn't put forward by a single vote. People do vote for high taxes and regulations. Some are proud of being "civilized" to have such government services. It's a choice and they are free to make it just as other people are free to leave that state because of those costs.

It is accurate to say that people, particularly poor families, are leaving CA to places like TX because of taxes and regulation that make it too expensive for them to live there. There is evidence and data to support that statement.

What bothers me the most about CA migration is that the people leaving CA bring CA with them. They are increasing housing costs and in many instances (that I have seen personally) bring the politics and culture that created CA that they left.

I realize you're being hyperbolic but SB-826 doesn't apply to 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation like the Python Foundation, only to publicly held corporations [See Sec 2, 301.3 (f)(2)]. Never mind the fact that PF is headquartered in Delaware and not California. [See SEC 2, 301.3 (c)]

In many states, employers are required to pay workers overtime after 8 hours in a day. So even if the employer wants to offer 4x10 hours, they're forced to stick to 8 hour days to avoid increasing their payroll costs for the same number of hours worked.

The whole thing only exists because California's right wing made it difficult to raise income taxes but the state needs money to fight the drought. So they come up with insane things to get around the rule that they can't just raise taxes when they need to.

Seriously, their taxes are like a one way ratchet. You can lower them with a simple majority but it takes a super majority to raise them

Um, the Democrats have more than a supermajority in both of California's legislative branches. 72.5% in the state senate (29 D,11 R). 75% in the state assembly (60 D, 20 R). And they hold the governorship Yet somehow in your mind, this proposed legislation is the right wing's fault?

The Republicans in Sacramento have zero political power. The Democrats could pass anything they want any time they want, even if every single Republican votes against it. If something doesn't pass, it's because a substantial number of Democrats also opposed it.

BTW, the drought ended in 2017.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...
You do notice that this is from the U.S. goverment. Unbiased enough for you?

n 2016, the California grid region, which covers most of the state and a small portion of Nevada, imported a net daily average of 201 million kilowatthours (kWh) throughout the year from other western regions, or about 26% of its average daily demand. Those imports were supplied by the other two regions that make up the Western Interconnect (WECC). The Northwest region of WECC, which includes most of Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, Washington, and a small area of northern California, supplied a daily average of 122 million kWh. The bulk of the remaining imports to the California region, 68 million kWh per day on average, came from the Southwest region of WECC, which includes much of Arizona, New Mexico, and small portions of Nevada and Texas.

I'm only posting this link because it is from the California Goverment, and it provides a break down of how the energy they produce is broken down. Good information.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/alma...

Every automaker has to sell this percentage of ZEVs. If they fail, they have to buy credits from an automaker who exceeded their quota. If they fail that, they are banned from selling cars in California

Meanwhile, in the real world, automakers can simply pay $5000 for each missing credit they didn't earn or buy. So for a 2,5% ZEV mandate, that's an average fine of $125 per vehicle. For earning no credits whatsoever. And there are lots of ways to earn credits besides selling BEVs (although a given fraction must be from BEVs or FCVs). Manufacturers can earn credits for good fleet fuel economy. They can earn credits for making advanced tech prototypes. They can get credits for PHEVs, NEVs (think "glorified golf carts"), banked credits from PZEVs, etc. It's an extremely flexible process.

Toxic industrial processes, such as carpentry, require a Prop 65 warning label:
https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov...

Name one california regulation or government over reach? Name one? Waiting?

Prop 65 warnings. Seriously, toast and prune juice are on the Prop 65 list as "dangerous items" for human consumption. If that's not a regulatory overreach - prune juice and toast, for crying out loud - then I don't know what is. And if you don't label something with a Prop 65 warning - you open yourself up to massive litigation.

Let me see, my deep blue state produces far more food than it uses and exports it to the rest of the country. We export 1/3 of the entire country's vegetables and 2/3's of the nation's fruit and nuts are grown here. California leads the nation in farm receipts by far.

https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statis...

California's agricultural value is around double that of Texas.

http://beef2live.com/story-sta...

Oh, and we legalized pot.

According to data from the American Community Survey, from 2007 to 2016, about 5 million people moved to California from other states, while about 6 million left California. On net, the state lost 1 million residents to domestic migrationâ"about 2.5 percent of its total population

Source: https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/...

For one, H was not properly trained on security matters. She somehow missed the class(es). She had a "briefing", but a briefing is not the formal class.

And many legal documents use "(c)" to mean a sequential list (a, b, c, d, etc.). See link below.

I don't know who to blame for her missing the class, but typically I would NOT hold a CEO responsible for mis-managing a security training roster. The head of security should probably be held accountable. They should have a tracking system in place. Jail that guy.

Second, a personal server is not necessarily worse than a hosted service like GMAIL or AOL. I've seen no solid studies saying it is; and H shouldn't be expected to know the tech nitty gritty of that debate anyhow. Her job was diplomacy, not IT. (Quality generally depends on the skill and dedication of the server admins, not the box location.)

Third, usage of an outside email service/server was NOT outright prohibited at the State Department. However, she was technically supposed to get approval for such first. Not getting approval is not a felony since it's a policy manual, not law. I'm sure I violate the letter of our org's policy manual all the time without knowing it.

"(c)" example: https://leginfo.legislature.ca....

Excuse me sir, but your comment really makes you sound like a selfish, raging asshole; was that your intention? At last report 70000 acres have been decimated,

A total of 7,299 fires have burned an area of 1,548,814 acres in CA so far this year, and there's almost two months yet to go. So, the 70,000 acres in Paradise are worth reporting but I guess the other 1,478,814 acres weren't?

an uncounted number of structures (including more or less the entire town of Paradise) and I'm sure there have been human deaths;

None reported in the news.

yet you say this is all 'unimportant' somehow?

One fire among many. It's important, but no more important than the Mendocino Complex fire in July (459,123 acres), or the Carr fire, which burned from mid July through August 30th.

It's not where *I* live therefore it's unimportant That's what you sound like; again: was that your intention? Perhaps you'd like to consider walking back your comment

Nope.

before someone gets the wrong idea about you, friend.

Lots of people have many silly ideas.

You are so wrong it hurts. Any handgun sold in CA must be on the approved handgun list. https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearm... Which is just an arbitrary list manufacturers have to pay to be on every year. My 9mm single stack pistol with a 9 round capacity designed in the 30s having not been made by a huge handgun manufacturer is not on that list, therefore would be a felony there. Perfect for self-defense, reliable, wont jam and cheap. But a illegal in CA because of their backwards ass laws. Please educate yourself on what you are talking about because its obvious you have 0 clue as to wtf you are saying.

its still broadband as long as you get 25Mbps

So you think. But the bill text defines "broadband internet access service" as:

(b) "Broadband Internet access service" means a mass-market retail service by wire or radio provided to customers in California that provides the capability to transmit data to, and receive data from, all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including, but not limited to, any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. "Broadband Internet access service" also encompasses any service provided to customers in California that provides a functional equivalent of that service or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this title.

Dialup is excluded, and there is no mention of speed at all. In their zeal to look like network heros they failed at a basic definition. That T1 line you have been renting from the telco to get your internet over? Broadband! (For those who don't know, T1 is 1.44 "megs".) 1Meg/150k DSL? Broadband!

You're so fucking wrong that it's not funny. Before you kill somebody here is the relevant line from the CA DMV handbook:
"Freeway traffic has the right-of-way."
From: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...

Every state that I have lived in has been the same, some going so far as to post "YIELD" signs on the on-ramp.

You know right-of-way doesn't in any way absolve you of your need to prevent accidents, as if you no longer need to look for and avoid traffic entering the roadway.
There are signs specifically telling you to watch for traffic entering the roadway, despite you always having right-of-way.

You can't just put cruise on in the right lane like "fuck it, my road".

You're so fucking wrong that it's not funny. Before you kill somebody here is the relevant line from the CA DMV handbook: "Freeway traffic has the right-of-way." From: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/... Every state that I have lived in has been the same, some going so far as to post "YIELD" signs on the on-ramp.

Electric cars are REALLY powered by coal. Especially in California. California just imports the electricity made from coal in many plants in UTAH.

Even accounting for imports, California electrical power is only 4% from coal. In fact, California electricity is mostly natural gas. Figures are here
https://www.energy.ca.gov/.

Then they just smuggly think they are green. Those solar plants don't REALLY make that much energy.

About 10% solar, and another 9.4% wind generation. Actually, now that I look up the numbers, I'm impressed-- that's more than I'd expected. Graph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California#/media/File:California_Electricity_Generation_Sources_Pie_Chart.svg/a?

You're an idiot. ALL vehicles on the road must conform to all FMVSS regulations

No, dumbshit. As long as you're not making them to sell, you do not need to conform to all FMVSS regulations to get a car licensed and use it on the roads, and you don't need to conform to NHTSA regulations either (in case that was going to be your next bogus claim).

Here in California, where dune buggies and crazy home-brew cars rule, the process is easy and does not require anything from the federal government. Yes, you have to have brakes. Yes, you have to have a horn. Yes, you have to have lights. All of the regs are local. None have anything to do with the federal government.

Now will you please just take the "L" on this and move on? Try to hang on to some shred of dignity, man.

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/...

https://autoweek.com/article/c...

I'm talking about the ULEV and SULEV and ZEV designations

Those aren't the first car exhaust standards that "California invented". The first standards were in 1972

"Smog Check", the first time CA required car exhaust to be measured as part of registration, started in 1982.

Every time I pull an old router out of the closet, I do a reset to factory defaults, then look up the factory default password on the internet.

The text of the law is publicly available and easily readable. The text relavent to your concern is "The device contains a security feature that requires a user to generate a new means of authentication before access is granted to the device for the first time." This does not necessarily preclude factory default passwords.

They still have a list. Not just for Google, but all self-driving vehicle incidents are reported to the government (at least, in California).

https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing

Yeeehawww!

I wonder if I could get the same ruling in California too, as long as I don't shoot some film studio's drone. The courts are overly protective of Hollywood.

PS - yes, you can own firearms in California. it's not a big deal if you're away from the big coastal cities. You used to be able to open carry here in unincorporated areas until recently

As you travel away from the coast the rest of California might as well be a different state entirely.

The examples you are giving are people flying in public areas....ie, open to use BY the public.

technically it's not permissible to fly drones in a public space without permission from the entity that controls that space (city, county, or state)

That should cause you no harm since it isn't over your private land, but you seem to be arguing that it is...?

The other example is flying over private land, see the part where I talk about people flying 10+ miles out. That's all hills and meadows, some of it part of the county's Open Spaces preserve, some of it private land. Many of the open spaces are under fire advisory so drones are often prohibited at those times, even when they aren't it's not a smart thing to do. As your drone setting off a wildfire makes you liable for civil penalties, and the AMA isn't going to step in and save your butt.

What's wrong with flying at a public beach?

It's legal at some beaches and not others. You must check the beach posting to determine if drones are allowed and at what times. In my earlier example it is not permitted without special permission for public safety reasons at a very crowded beach. But if you really want more detail there is a nice summary from the California Department of Parks and Recreation

Yeeehawww!

I wonder if I could get the same ruling in California too, as long as I don't shoot some film studio's drone. The courts are overly protective of Hollywood.

PS - yes, you can own firearms in California. it's not a big deal if you're away from the big coastal cities. You used to be able to open carry here in unincorporated areas until recently

According to Waymo's latest disengagement report for 2017, their disengagement rate is 1 once per 5600 miles. Considering the average american drives around 13000 miles per year based on DOT statistics, this equates to a disengagement incident every 5 months per vehicle. If the car is fully autonomous without a monitoring driver, each of those disengament incidents would translate into an accident. Any human that had an accident every 5 months would find themselves uninsurable in short order.

I don't think they should be rolling out these vehicles on the road until they can prove that it is not expected to disengage more than once over their lifetime, or once per 200,000 miles. At the current rates, it would be irresponsible to have the vehicles on public roads

Are you sure the law just doesn't say something like this: "each gender must be represent by at least one member in the board of directors"?

It explicitly sets quotas for the number of women, based on the size of the board.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca...

If on the other hand it explicitly is written as "at least one woman per board" then it should be unconstitutional on the basis of equality.

Lets hope someone challenges it in court, because it's a stupid sexist law in its current form.

You know, can someone explain wether in the USA one is allowed to basically claim to be a lawyer *and* also claim to be speaking in a professional instance, without actually being one *and* licensed for practice? Where I live, that is a crime, and can land you in jail.

Read this and this.

I suspect that he's not actually violating the law until he attempts to contract to provide someone with legal counsel. All of my consulting contracts make it clear I'm not an attorney, for that reason.

"Low carbon fuel source" appears to be a CO2 cap-and-trade program specific to motor vehicle fuel (source: Wikipedia). "Cleaner-burning fuel" comprises refining methods and additives to reduce sulfur, alkenes, benzene and other aromatic hydrocarbons, and other exhaust components that contribute to smog.

Hmm. So where on the political spectrum are the people who point out that raising the cost of power in California will hurt the states economy ?

On the intentionally ignorant/conservative side. As there are loads of studies out there indicated that even with with increased direct energy cost, the economics of nuclear/renewable are a net win due to the reduction of externalities of coal/NG. https://www.sourcewatch.org/in...

The people who point out that the highspeed rail initiative will never pay for itself are arguing from emotion ?

Again on the blithering retarded/conservative side. As again numerious studies have proven your false "fact" wrong.

https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/ne...

I get it. You are a retard who refuses to listen to any peer reviewed studies but think that the "facts" you pull out of your ass are worthwhile to spread.

wrong, the law is a bunch of arm waving

read source before you spew, anon

https://leginfo.legislature.ca...

Let me repeat, you wanted for the legislators to use their brains and "consult with people who are experts, and layout a detailed road map of transition to clean power with how they were going to fund and tax credit each step" did you not?

That is what this law requires. Your own link documents it. I'll quote it:

(2) In consultation with all California balancing authorities, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 399.12, as part of a public process, issue a joint report to the Legislature by January 1, 2021, and at least every four years thereafter. The joint report shall include all of the following:
(A) A review of the policy described in subdivision (a) focused on technologies, forecasts, then-existing transmission, and maintaining safety, environmental and public safety protection, affordability, and system and local reliability.
(B) An evaluation identifying the potential benefits and impacts on system and local reliability associated with achieving the policy described in subdivision (a).
(C) An evaluation identifying the nature of any anticipated financial costs and benefits to electric, gas, and water utilities, including customer rate impacts and benefits.
(D) The barriers to, and benefits of, achieving the policy described in subdivision (a).
(E) Alternative scenarios in which the policy described in subdivision (a) can be achieved and the estimated costs and benefits of each scenario.

But you, you complained that they're doing the very thing you expressly wanted. You're so outraged by the idea that you fume and rage rather than admit the reality.

Seriously, marijuana is legal in California, light some up. Calm the fuck down. You'll get what you want in due time.