> It categorically rejected Newsom’s 2035 carbon neutrality goal as too expensive, arguing that sticking to 2045 was more reasonable.
"more reasonable"
"more reasonable"
That would cover roughly half of California's summer generating capacity.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/05/f22/CA-Energ...
That much solar would supply 10-14% of California's total electricity consumption.
That much money would better be split with wind.