[ZeroGravitas]

Maybe they are saying that if they'd followed California's policies they'd have a higher percentage of their power from renewables and they wouldn't be so wasteful with the energy they do generate.

Because that's the point of this article isn't it? To follow Texas policies, not California's, by pointing to absolute numbers of renewables.

If they looked at absolute numbers on coal and gas they'd look worse.

[epistasis]

California is not plummeting in total emissions either, which is the point of the plots in there.

The only thing that could move this along faster is to shut down fully running and functional fossil fuel facilities, which means that the huge capital assets are stranded and a big loss to the people who paid for them.

There, Texas's approach of private investors bearing the cost of that poor investment will fare much better than California's approach of letting the utility bill customers for their poor decisions. (I say this as a Californian absolutely INFURIATED at our toothless public utility commission allowing six whole rate increases in the past year, making electricity for a heat pumpfar more expensive than burning gas for heating, and making charging an EV about the same cost as fueling gas car, instead of much cheaper.)

[Spivak]

> and making EVs about the same cost as a gas car

At first I was like, isn't that great EVs are the more expensive car but then I realized you meant that the electricity costs as much as the equivalent gas. Oof. Yikes. That's really bad.

[epistasis]

Thanks for pointing out that ambiguity, I hopefully edited for better clarity!

The other problem in California is that most heating is done via natural gas, and though heating needs are fairly low if houses had any sort of insulation, there's basically zero insulation in all homes. Which means that every winter, people experience massive natural gas bills that should be close to zero, making it very problematic to switch some of the utility cost burdens from the electricity side to natural gas side. Meanwhile, PG&E profits are at the very top of the utility stock list for its profit margins...

[toast0]

Insulation in California homes depends a lot on where they were built and when. My parents' home in southern california was built in the 1960s, and was pretty much uninsulated, but none of these homes had a/c and the gas heater would be run a few days in the winter. You've got to have a heater to be an inhabitable home by California law, but if it only runs a few days a year, insulation almost doesn't matter. If there's little climate control, not being air sealed is generally a benefit rather than a negative, as it provides passive ventilation, and much of the old housing stock is in areas where the climate is generally pleasant enough all year that outside air is nice enough.

If you've got an attic, it's not too expensive to from zero insulation to basic insulation, and the ROI is pretty quick. Of course, some areas of California had neighborhoods built in the Eichler-style with no attic space; those are hard to add insulation to. A nice large tree over the home can help with summer heat, but large trees over the home have risks and costs too.

[baggy_trough]

> there's basically zero insulation in all homes.

This is completely false.

[0cf8612b2e1e]

In SoCal, but when I moved here from Chicago, I was aghast at the so called insulation. Single pane glass windows, visible gaps in window frames and doors. Probably not legal to sell in the Midwest.

Here, it’s like whatever. I never run the heater, and there are maybe 7 days a year where I want the AC.

[triceratops]

I read "zero insulation" as "shit-tier insulation" and that is approximately accurate for a lot of Bay Area housing.

[baggy_trough]

That's closer to the truth, but to say that all homes have basically zero insulation is just wrong.

[epistasis]

Well all I can talk about is the 1970s-era boxes that dominate in the Bay Area, which is the major population center that PG&E serves.

If your experience with these homes is different somehow, let me know. But go to SF, go to the peninsula, and you'll find that most homes barely stop air coming in and out of the house, much less have proper insulation. A blower test for SF homes would shock most people in the modern world.

[jandrese]

In LA sure, you can get away with minimal insulation. SF is a different story. That city is shockingly cold. An uninsulated house in SF is wasting loads of energy.

[baggy_trough]

Yes, my experience is that you are simply wrong.

[kragen]

A nice thing about EVs is that they already have enough battery to shift their energy consumption from the powerline to whatever hour is most economical. So you can install solar panels on your house and charge your EV during peak daylight hours if you're home then, or get the company to install them over the office parking lot if you're at the office then. This eliminates the cost of storage from the cost of upgrading to solar. Even at the US's grossly inflated costs, that makes it an easy economic win.

[sightbroke]

I don't really know, the details of measuring energy consumption, emissions, and price is a fairly convoluted concept as far as I know.

Asking google AI:

"California emmisions rate" gave:

"California has seen a decline in greenhouse gas emissions, with a 20% reduction since 2000, while its economy has grown significantly. The state aims to reduce emissions to 85% below 1990 levels by 2045 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045"

Then asking "Texas emissions rate" gave:

"Texas is a major emitter of carbon dioxide in the United States, producing 13.4% of the nation's total in 2022, with transportation being a significant source of emissions"

followed by:

"Emissions Leader: In 2022, Texas produced 663 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, more than double that of California, the second-largest producer"

[epistasis]

Google AI is not really useful, but going to an actual reliable source from that such as California's emissions inventory:

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-graphs

The graphs seem to contradict those in the article, as the article has a huge annual variability not shown in the government data, and also the article does not show the decline in the "Electric Power" sector that's shown so clearly in the CA government data.

I also would not agree with the article's assessment that Texas is a "disaster" based on the same sort of plot. Serving the needs of ever more people, with an ever growing GDP, but keeping emissions constant is a win environmentally.

[sightbroke]

Texas has both less people and lower GDP than California yet emits more. How is that not a bit of a disaster?

[epistasis]

Well, the status is a disaster but it's an ever decreasing disaster, and when evaluating "do lots of renewables help?" I think it makes more sense to look at the direction of where the puck is going rather than where it started from before the renewables were added. (And one note, Texas' power sector emissions also include lots of "extra" emissions from fossil fuel consumption that should be attributed to the downstream consumers of those fossil fuels).

[sightbroke]

> (And one note, Texas' power sector emissions also include lots of "extra" emissions from fossil fuel consumption that should be attributed to the downstream consumers of those fossil fuels).

Are you saying it includes the USE of fossil fuels produced in the State outside of the State OR the emissions related to the production of fossil fuels in the State?

The former does not in my opinion sound accurate while the latter I fail to see changes anything because surely emissions from other industries (steel/construction/etc) are included for the State that they are made in.