Thanks for posting this. It is a large plan at over 200 pages long so a lot to go through.

I'm struck by how unfeasible, or at least untested so much of this plan is. It seems more like a wish list of environmentalists than a feasible plan. Carbon capture and sequestration is just a theory at this point, not a real technology.

The other thing that makes this plan impractical is its reliance on outlawing certain types of consumption. Southern Californians drive a lot. You can't really tell someone living in Los Angles to drive less. Outlawing gas powered vehicles and engines in 15 years is not feasible. Not everyone can afford a Tesla, and once gas production is eliminated in California gas prices will skyrocket.

The problem with SB 32 is instead of encouraging 'sustainable' methods of development it basically shuts down and limits carbon production. If California's economy and population continue to grow it may have the means to implement a fraction of what is on this plan (building electrification for example). More realistically there will be a point where these measures will stop economic expansion, and the high cost of these laws will force a population decline as people move out of state.

Missing from this climate plan is how much each of these measures and laws will limit economic growth. Everything assumes a robust growing economy. We need more production and economic growth so we can limit consumption of fossil fuels. Doesn't make sense from an economic point of view.