Temperatures have soared lately in California — the mercury rising to triple digits in much of the state, prompting calls for voluntary electricity conservation. Then there are the legions of environmentalists hot under the collar, furious with a recent change of heart by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The Democrat this month insisted that the state’s sole remaining nuclear power plant — Diablo Canyon, about 100 miles north of Santa Barbara — stay open for a decade beyond its scheduled closing in 2025.

The move reflected the excruciating calculations necessary in a state where the hunger for electrical power is rivaled by a hunger for liberal politics.

On the surface, the policy 180 by the usually future-focused Newsom was startling. The governor who supported closing Diablo Canyon while seeking office in 2018 now wants to provide Pacific Gas and Electric with a $1.4 billion government loan to keep the plant open, subject to legislative approval by month’s end.

Advertisement

But Newsom’s pivot was simply a matter of supply and demand. Diablo Canyon accounts for about 10 percent of California’s energy portfolio. Without it, the Golden State would almost certainly run out of electricity during heat waves, at least not without taking an even more unappetizing step: firing up polluting gas-fueled power plants. A California energy crunch in 2000 contributed to then-Gov. Gray Davis’s recall defeat three years later.

Newsom is up for reelection this fall but is in little danger of losing his job. His interest in running for president in 2024 if Joe Biden chooses not to, though, is almost a given. Projecting an air of competence as California governor — or at least one who doesn’t leave huge swaths of his constituents in darkness — would be essential to that effort.

To be fair to Newsom, liberals making urgent deals with the nuclear diablo isn’t unique to California. In April, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) asked for a federal bailout of her state’s Palisades Nuclear Generating Station. Tucked deep in the save-the-planet provisions of the comically misnamed Inflation Reduction Act that Biden signed: a nuclear power tax credit meant to keep existing plants running for the next decade.

Advertisement

Germany recently postponed the closing of its last three nuclear power plants — the consequence of leaving yourself at the mercy of Vladimir Putin for natural gas during European cold snaps.

But here’s what sets California apart: While continuing to bank on electricity from renewables that no longer are as reliable as they once were (the state’s worsening drought could nearly halve hydropower output), the Golden State wants to double down on what may be yet more unattainable green goals.

Earlier this month, Newsom proposed a more aggressive gas-emissions reduction target, tasking the California Energy Commission with figuring out how to generate at least 25 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2045. That’s the same year California supposedly will be carbon-neutral.

Two years ago, the Tesla-driving governor also signed an executive order mandating that, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in the state must be zero-emission vehicles. Good luck keeping the fleet up and running: California’s ratio of 27 electric vehicles per charger port is second-worst in the nation.

Advertisement

In California, fear of rolling blackouts makes for strange bedfellows — in this case, a governor and a utility company he once slammed for “greed” and “mismanagement.” But going green can also turn allies into frenemies. Or so Newsom discovered when, ahead of the vote in November, he came out in opposition to Proposition 30, a.k.a. the Clean Cars and Clean Air Act.

The ballot measure would raise income taxes by 1.75 percent on Californians earning more than $2 million, with the proceeds going to zero-emission vehicle subsidies and infrastructure. As an “environmental justice” sweetener, half the incentives would go to individuals in lower-income communities.

Why would Newsom oppose a plan seemingly in line with his green goals and liberal sensibilities? Because the measure is underwritten by Lyft, which could sorely use the help to overcome yet another green state dictate: Under the so-called Clean Miles Standard, approved last year by the California Air Resources Board, by the decade’s end, 90 percent of miles logged in California by drivers for companies such as Lyft and Uber drivers must be in electric vehicles.

Advertisement

California now finds itself on not one but multiple collision courses when it comes to meeting its energy needs. There’s the shorter-term urgency — for the next five summers, according to state officials, extreme heat and climate fluctuations could wreak havoc on California’s electrical grid. Extending Diablo Canyon’s life is a temporary bandage.

By 2030 and 2035, there’s the question of green mandates being achieved. (This dashboard shows progress toward California’s 2030 goals.) And, in 2045, the goal of carbon neutrality looms. It won’t come cheap: California’s climate change road map, adopted and altered three times over the past 15 years, with another update coming in September, portrays a 2045 California saddled with up to $30 billion in costs.

That’s a lot of California dreaming — and, potentially, something of a nightmare — for a state that’s responsible for just 1 percent of global greenhouse gases but a lion’s share of green schemes.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZLyxtc2ipqerX2d9c36OaW9oamNku7avy56Yq2WemsS0u8xmoKdlk5a5qrLOq6WimV2au6a%2BxrJknKqlo7Cpew%3D%3D