A recent Wall Street Journal article titled “Climate Action Is Leaving California’s Energy Economy in Trouble” exposes the stark reality of Governor Gavin Newsom’s energy and climate policies that are damaging California’s economy while costing The resulting environmental benefits are minimal. For those obsessed with high costs, unreliable power and empty promises, Newsom’s policies offer a master class in addressing dysfunction.
country in crisis
California, once the envy of the nation for its innovation and economic prowess, is now making headlines for rolling blackouts and soaring energy costs. Under Governor Newsom’s leadership, the state is committed to achieving carbon neutrality through aggressive climate policies. But as the Wall Street Journal article aptly highlights, these policies are undermining the foundation of the state’s energy infrastructure.
The consequences are obvious. California’s energy grid has become a house of cards, with the state’s reliance on renewable energy sources like solar and wind creating severe vulnerabilities. These energy sources are intermittent in nature—solar doesn’t produce electricity at night, and wind is unreliable. The result? The power grid is unstable, leading to frequent power outages. As the lights go out in California, residents wonder why their high energy bills don't seem to buy reliability.
The high cost of virtue signaling
One of the harshest criticisms in the Wall Street Journal article was California’s astronomical energy costs. The state's average retail electricity price hovers around 26 cents per kilowatt-hour, nearly twice the national average. For low-income families, this is not only a financial burden, but also a crisis. Households struggling to make ends meet are forced to spend a disproportionate share of their income on energy bills. For all the talk about “climate justice,” California’s policies are regressive and hit the most vulnerable hardest.
As a result, California homes and businesses pay the most expensive bills for electricity and gas among the lower 48 states. All in vain. California still relies on oil and natural gas for 80% of its energy, and its dependence on fossil fuels 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 renewable energy, which is far from self-sufficient. Wind and solar energy require large amounts of fossil fuels or expensive battery storage as backup to ensure a stable supply of electricity. Ironically, these backups tend to increase emissions because natural gas plants must quickly ramp up production during renewable energy production gaps, a practice that is both inefficient and environmentally damaging. So while Newsom and his administration embrace 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 devastating consequences for its energy workers. The state was once a powerhouse for oil and gas production, but has steadily eroded the industry through restrictive drilling regulations, refinery closures and an overall hostility to conventional energy sources. Thousands of good-paying jobs disappeared, leaving workers with few options.
This is pure hypocrisy. Instead of safely drilling for oil in a state with the strictest environmental and labor protections in the world, California is forced to refine oil imported from paragons of human rights and environmental stewardship such as Ecuador, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Meanwhile, California's refineries are closing one after another, without the option of imported gasoline, as the state requires special formulations that reduce the “carbon content” of transportation fuels.
The state’s push for electric vehicles (EVs) further demonstrates its disdain for practical considerations. Newsom's requirement that all new cars sold in California be electric by 2035 sounds visionary but ignores obvious realities. California’s energy grid is already on life support, unable to handle the surge in demand that millions of electric vehicle chargers will generate. The Wall Street Journal article notes that the infrastructure for such a transformation simply does not exist, making the task more fantasy than policy.
Furthermore, EV batteries’ reliance on imported raw materials raises serious questions about sustainability and ethics. Mining of lithium, cobalt and other key battery components often occurs in countries with poor labor and environmental standards. California’s policies may shift emissions elsewhere but fail to address the global impacts of these supply chains.
Net zero emissions: an empty promise
Governor Newsom’s ultimate goal of achieving net-zero emissions epitomizes the flaws in California’s approach to climate policy. Even under the most optimistic assumptions, the state's emissions reductions would have a negligible impact on global temperatures. Estimates cited in the Wall Street Journal article suggest that California's efforts could reduce global temperatures by a fraction of a percent — not enough to justify the economic and social disruption these policies would cause.
The push for net-zero emissions has become a mantra among climate campaigners, but it’s worth asking: at what cost? California’s policies prioritize symbolic gestures over real solutions. The closure of Diablo Canyon, the state's last nuclear power plant, is a case in point. Nuclear energy is one of the most reliable and lowest-carbon energy sources, but it has been replaced by less reliable renewable energy sources. The decision reflects a broader trend in California climate policy that prioritizes ideology over effectiveness.
The false promise of green jobs
Supporters of California's climate policy often tout the potential of “green jobs” to replace jobs lost in the traditional energy sector. However, this narrative falls apart under closer inspection. Jobs in the renewable energy industry tend to be less stable and lower paying than in the oil and gas industry. Additionally, many so-called green jobs are temporary positions related to the construction phase of renewable energy projects. Once the solar panels are installed or the wind turbines installed, the jobs disappear.
The Wall Street Journal article highlights another inconvenient fact: California’s green energy industry relies heavily on foreign manufacturers, especially those from China. By outsourcing production, California not only undercuts its own workforce but also supports industries in countries with problematic environmental and labor practices. This is hardly the green utopia that policymakers promised.
Perhaps the worst part of Mr. Newsom's plan is offshore wind, for which the California Air Resources Board has planned 25 gigawatts of capacity. They clearly haven't figured this out yet. Just offshore, the California continental shelf drops rapidly 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 10-megawatt turbines to a site 20 miles offshore, each about 1,000 feet high from the waterline to the tip of the blades. There they will be connected to the seafloor by a cable nearly a mile long. High-voltage underwater cables will carry power to onshore substations. It's an environmental and financial disaster waiting, but Newsom says only climate deniers would object.
These are the consequences of a state run by rent-seeking renewable energy companies and environmental fanatics who provide them with political cover. Mr. Newsom’s climate action is impacting every industry and every home.
unintended consequences
In addition to economic and environmental failures, California’s policies have also created a host of unintended consequences. The state's high energy costs and regulatory burdens are prompting businesses and residents to flee in record numbers. Companies that once called California home are relocating to more business-friendly states like Texas and Florida. This outflow is eroding the state’s tax base, further exacerbating its financial woes.
At the same time, the state's reliance on renewable energy leaves it vulnerable to geopolitical risks. As the Wall Street Journal article points out, China dominates the global solar panel and battery supply chain. By tying its energy future to these technologies, California is effectively ceding control of its energy independence to foreign powers—an unprecedented strategic mistake.
blueprint for failure
California’s energy policies serve as a warning to other states and countries. They highlighted the dangers of prioritizing ideology over practicality and pursuing sweeping missions without considering their feasibility or consequences. Governor Newsom may enjoy basking in the glow of international glory, but his policies have plunged ordinary Californians into darkness — both literally and figuratively.
The Wall Street Journal article highlights the need for a balanced approach to energy policy 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 solving these pressing challenges.
Conclusion: Models to Avoid
If California truly wants to lead, it must provide a model that balances environmental stewardship with economic vitality. Instead, it has become a laboratory for extreme policies that bring nothing but misery to its citizens. As the Wall Street Journal article makes clear, the state’s “climate action” policy is 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 countries would be better off learning from California’s mistakes rather than emulating them. The Golden State may be green, but its energy policies are driving its citizens into the red.
Relevant
