Slashdot Mirror
California Moves To Require 100% Clean Electricity by 2045 (bloomberg.com)
California's assembly has voted to move the state's electricity completely off fossil fuels. The state assembly this week passed S.B. 100, a proposal to transition California to 100 percent emissions-free electricity sources by 2045. A report adds: The Assembly voted 43-32 in favor of the legislation Tuesday. It would eliminate the reliance on fossil fuels to power homes, businesses and factories in the world's fifth-largest economy, accelerating a shift already under way. The state currently gets about 44 percent of its power from renewables and hydropower. California has positioned itself to lead the battle against climate change by cutting emissions even as the Trump administration has worked to roll back the state's stringent auto pollution standards and prop up ailing coal-fired power plants. Earlier this year, California became the first U.S. state to mandate solar rooftop panels on almost all new homes. It would be the second state to require 100 percent carbon-free power after Hawaii.
Thanks to CA mandates all CA cars went zero emissions 18 years ago.
Doubtless this mandate will be equally effective.
t would eliminate the reliance...
behold the power of... words on paper. Words written on paper by politicians, even.
The ACA mandate is (was) just that.
Same argument as the ACA mandate, for the betterment of society, you old "get off my lawn" timers can, how did you say it, "move".
In terms of states' rights and energy independence and the environment, this is a good thing. Whether or not this works out, we will learn a lot about the feasibility of eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels from California's effort; other states could then model their own clean energy programs based on the positives and negatives of California's experiment.
(I'm not sure what the anti-Trump rhetoric adds to the article summary other than virtual signaling... ??)
to build a nuclear plant.
And states require you to buy liability insurance to obtain a drivers license and to legally drive on public roads. Even in the state of Texas whose AG was one of the biggest whiners about the ACA mandate.
Republicans only favor states rights when the states want to do something they agree with that federal government wants to do. When the federal government wants to do something they agree with the states don't want to do (like make pot illegal), they are very much against states rights! Case in point: Gonzales v. Raich
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
They can always do what Germany does in Europe: grandstand about renewables and use imports from other countries to keep the grid stable.
Hence why we vote in Federal elections. And if the majority of State representatives agree to such a provision, I guess we'll all just have to accept it.
It's almost like we live in a governed Federation instead of a do-anything-you-want clusterfuck of rogue nation-states.
Keep the lights on? How 19th century. In California 2046 all humans will sleep 10-14 hours a night like God intended when she failed to give us multiple suns.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Let me mad-lib this up for you:
Party A: Some stereotypical group
Noun/Verb: Pick any noun or verb you like
[Party A] only favor states rights when the states want to do something [Party A] agree with that federal government wants to do. When the federal government wants to do something [Party A] agree with the states don't want to do (like make [Noun/Verb] illegal), they are very much against states rights!
California is in a perpetual competition with itself to come up with the most freedom infringing, pointless legislation possible... if it wastes money, achieves nothing, and oppresses people, Moonbeam Brown will get behind it.
Yet they are the 5th largest economy.
The Hospital ER cannot turn you away for not having health insurance, and having no means to pay.
A non-trivial amount of operational costs for a hospital is covering ER visits for people with colds, flus, and non-insured; who all default on payment, with no means of covering their visit.
Many of the complications could have been dealt with for pennies on the dollar should the individual have had insurance, and simply seen the doctor before the illness progressed.
One cannot opt out of the health system.
One should not be able to opt out of paying for it.
Regarding paying:
Because of people and leadership that did not take action on this 40 years ago when the need was known, you're probably going to be paying a lot more for drought-ravaged food, water, and for fire damage year over year. Just lump it into a massive carbon fee and be done with it.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Yet they are the 5th largest economy.
Yet, still lead the nation in poverty and homelessness.
https://www.ocregister.com/201...
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Are you still upset about having to get health insurance? You know it was a plan concocted by the conservative Heritage Foundation and first signed into law by a Republican, right?
But don't worry, if you're really that opposed, you can help us fight for universal, single-payer health care. The line forms right behind me. There are no other options that don't bankrupt the country.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Indeed, states like Arizona and Alaska have their own natural solutions to homelessness. And remember when Nevada was caught shipping their homeless to California?
And despite that, California and other blue states continue to subsidize the red states. If that stopped, blue states would be awash in cash and red states (except Texas) would have some very difficult choices to make, like when Kansas nearly bankrupted itself under conservative tax policy. And then the new federal caps on mortage interest and state tax deductions will only increase the flow of money from blue states to red states, by design.
Of course none of this excuses California's rate of poverty and homelessness. There's plenty of money in the state, it just isn't distributed very well. And that's self-defeating for Democrats because poor people tend vote less than wealthier people and when they do, they tend to vote Democrat.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
What was happening is car manufacturers had to make their entire fleets meet California standards
And there's a lie.
Car manufacturers had a separate "California Emissions" package that they added to cars sold in California. Much to the dismay of car enthusiasts in California, since it reduced the horsepower and torque of their cars. It also means cars in California are more expensive.
it's the federal government saying that California cannot dictate policy upon other states. States with no representation in California.
Hey look! It's another lie.
No state was forced to follow California's emissions laws. They could get cars that did not have the California emissions package.
Some states passed laws to follow California's emissions standards, but you'll note that those states passed their own laws to do so. They were not forced to do anything by California.
Sorry, you just described what EITHER of the two main parties (D & R) do; this is not the sole domain of Republicans
What you missed is only the Republican party has attempted to make an issue out of "States Rights". The point is the hypocrisy. Just like passing a massive unfunded tax cut means you should be laughed at if you complain about the deficit.
Doesn't matter how much you make if you can't control your spending... funny how the state is so wealthy yet on the verge of bankruptcy
California's running a budget surplus, and has for the last few years.
You're thinking of Kansas, the state that went so broke following supply-side economics that they violated their Constitution.
Mitt Romney signed the Massachusetts bill on April 12, 2006. He tried to veto certain provisions of it using his line-item veto, but go overridden on those. But the actual bill itself was not vetoed by Mitt Romney. He signed it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Before you call someone a liar, get your facts straight.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I went into considerable detail on this a couple days ago here:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
If any state in the USA wants energy that is cheap, clean, safe, reliable, feasible in the short term, and with promise to stay that way in the long term, then they must invest heavily in wind, hydro, and nuclear. Oh, almost forgot, with a little bit of natural gas to speed things along on cleaning things up until something better comes along.
California has been going backwards with their unreasonable hating on nuclear power. Maybe some of this is justified with seismic activity in the state but there are means to address this.
What is exceedingly frustrating is that the politicians that made this promise will not be in office to see it through. This is no different than Obama signing a pledge to have the USA reduce it's carbon footprint only days before he left office. He didn't even bother to make it binding in any way by sending it to Congress.
If these politicians were smart then they'd be doing wind, hydro, and nuclear right now. If they were honest on following through then the pledges on making this happen would be within their terms in office.
I'd like to see a politician make a JFK style promise, "in this decade", once in a while. Anything longer beyond 10 years is outside the power of any politician to promise anything. A promise on the scale of 10 years is having a working plan in 2 years, 2 more for breaking ground, 2 for building something tangible, 2 for testing, and 2 for making it happen. On this scale we can see it happen and call them on it if the milestones haven't been reached.
The video on that Bloomberg article spent a lot of time explaining the "experience curve" and how it can improve performance and bring down costs on renewable energy. That same thing applies to nuclear power. Nuclear power costs keep rising because it is rare for anyone to build more than a handful of any one kind of reactor. If the US federal government would just allow people to get this experience, and keep it, by issuing licenses for new reactors more than once in a decade then nuclear power could experience the benefits of this experience curve too.
Solar power was once far too expensive until people decided to make long term investments in bringing down costs. If the politicians in California made this kind of investment then they could enjoy this from nuclear power just as they could from solar. By betting everything in solar plus batteries they set themselves on a path with no competition, and therefore only a bunch of people in industry working to maximize on tax credits against other companies in the solar market instead of making something that can thrive outside California mandates. Pit solar, nuclear, wind, and hydro against each other in a free market means near assurance of reaching their goal. Betting everything on solar and storage is just setting themselves up to fail.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.