Examples of government malfeasance in California are way too many to list. While it is true that fraud plays a significant role in California, far more damaging to taxpayers is the simple failure to govern in a common sense, coherent fashion.
Long time political journalist Dan Walters made this point a few weeks ago in a column for CalMatters in which he listed some examples of what we like to call the “what were they thinking” contest. The most famous two, and clearly the winners in this Hall of Shame, is California’s High Speed Rail project and the unfathomable level of incompetence in the Employment Development Department during the pandemic. The former has now devolved into an international joke costing over $100 billion and the latter allowed an estimated $55 billion to be lost to international criminal gangs and other fraudsters.
Another high-visibility failure is the state’s response to the homelessness crisis. Billions have been spent but there remains a lack of clarity over which programs actually work and how the money should be allocated. Walters notes that the homeless population is 40% higher than it was when Gov. Gavin Newsom was first elected five years ago.
Other honorable mentions in the “what were they thinking” competition include the various failed information technology projects and the absurdly high cost of incarcerating criminals in California.
These failures in governance, which would never be tolerated in the private sector, have one thing in common – the absence of serious consideration of present realities or downstream effects.
Which brings us to proposed amendments to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations. Specifically, the proposal would amend Rules 1111 and 1121 for the purpose of reducing nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from residential and commercial heating systems by phasing out gas appliances entirely. According to a study by the Cost of Living Council, the proposal “introduces a phased transition to zero-NOx space and water heating units, applying new fees to “NOx-emitting units based on increasing sales targets for zero-NOx models over time.” The study concludes that, “The proposed rules will cost consumers living in the four-county SCAQMD region $7.7 billion over the 25-year lifecycle of these appliances.”
In addition to the huge hit on property owners in the form of new and higher costs, the mindless push to eliminate natural gas appliances as an option for consumers and businesses runs contrary to common sense. The stated goal, of course, is to fully “electrify” California, including everything from appliances and automobiles to public transit systems and trucks.
But have any political leaders or bureaucrats given any thought to where electricity comes from? Much of the electricity California uses is from fossil fuels, including natural gas. And it will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Does it really make any sense to mandate replacing a gas stove with an electric model if the electricity used is from natural gas, or an even dirtier source like coal?
Moreover, are the backers of the proposed rule change aware of the projections regarding the demands being placed on the electrical grid? With AI and server farms, there is a huge demand for additional power generation. While solar and wind are unquestionably part of the solution, they cannot begin to address California’s projected energy needs. Those needs can only be addressed by rapid development of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) which, even under the best circumstances, would take several years to bring online.
We must acknowledge that California has some of the highest energy costs in the nation. And that is a direct result of policies that are pursued without fully thinking through the consequences of bad decisions.
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Originally Published:
