California’s Renewable Energy

Gavin Newsom has doubled down on the idea that California must reach net-zero emissions by 2045. Yet, the Golden State’s heavy hand has likely made meeting this timeline implausible. Two-thirds of the state might be powered by renewable energy now, but red tape has compromised real progress. 

Some critics argue that green energy hasn’t taken off around the country not because of bureaucratic issues, but rather because of special interests such as “big oil” or climate change denial. San Francisco congressional candidate Saikat Chakrabarti and Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout, who voiced this opinion in a debate with Ezra Klein, have expressed this viewpoint. 

Klein, one of the prominent voices of the “abundance movement,” emphasized that this argument fails to explain why some states see more growth in green energy than others. In 2024, 34 percent of electricity in Texas was generated through wind and solar, a massive jump from only 12 percent in 2015. Unlike California, Texas has no statewide mandate for clean energy. Although Texas is synonymous with big oil, several anti-renewable legislation bills failed to pass in 2025. 

It is estimated that wind and solar saved Texas consumers a staggering $28 billion between 2010 and 2022. Meanwhile, Californians pay nearly double for electricity compared to Texas and are not reaping the rewards. Texas’s relatively liberal permitting environment incentivizes innovation and competitive pricing, which leads to energy costs that are 60 percent lower than those in the Golden State. 

In California, energy curtailments, i.e., the reduction or closure of clean energy systems, have seen a 29 percent increase since 2023. The grid system in the state cannot harness the output of wind and solar being produced. Regulations must be slashed to maximize the amount of energy being created. As of 2024, California was home to a renewable workforce of 545,000, the highest in the country—yet the state still trails behind the clean energy output of Texas and its 262,000 workers. A state that prides itself on being at the forefront of renewables is underperforming against a state with less than half the workforce. 

In its current condition, California stands no chance of reaching total clean energy autonomy. Multiple regulatory agencies in the state have created a bureaucratic bottleneck. Approval for new transmission projects can take close to a decade. No one is building because everyone is waiting. 

To build new infrastructure in California, agencies need to go through assessment processes such as the California Environmental Quality Act, which can take years to conclude. CEQA is often abused by NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) activists, who can make it almost impossible to build new infrastructure. After CEQA approval, a project must be approved by the California Public Utilities Commission to receive a “certificate of public convenience and necessity”—a process that can take as long as nineteen months, nearly two years for a single permit, before construction starts.

Meanwhile, Texas uses a “connect and manage” approach. Projects are connected to the grid and tested in real time. California is an embodiment of bureaucracy at its worst, requiring years of studies and waiting before progress is made: the opposite of “progressive.” Texas, on the other hand, streamlines projects and enables building. At the same time that it takes one project to be approved in California, multiple projects can already be finished in the Lone Star State. 

California needs to follow Texas by slashing the red tape that holds progress back. Abolishing CEQA and implementing a connect-and-manage approach would enable the Golden State to meet its green energy goals. Texas has proven that competition in renewables works, and California must take note if it wants to reach its lofty goals.