With California electricity and fuel costs among the highest in the country, Newsom is doing everything possible to further increase both energy costs to residents, and transfer (or “leak”) emissions generation to developing countries. His actions are unabated as he avoids conversations to justify his bizarre energy policies.

  • Newsom continues to reduce oil production in California.

California, the fifth largest economy in the world is the ONLY state in contiguous America that imports oil to meet the demands of the state. That dependency has risen from 5% in 1995 to more than 58% today and Newsom continues to decrease in-state production that would further increase our dependency, on unstable foreign governments.

At today’s price of crude oil around $90 per barrel, the imported crude oil costs California more than $150 million dollars a dayyes, every daybeing paid to oil-rich foreign countries, depriving Californians of jobs and business opportunities, and drivers to pay premium prices for fuel.

First Question for a Conversation: Why does Newsom continuously seek further reductions of in-state production that will place greater dependency on foreign countries, now at 58 percent and rising. Why leak more emissions to countries with significantly less environmental controls than California, and increase California’s growing dependency on foreign countries which is a national security risk for the entire country?

  • Newsom has mandated no sales of internal combustion engine vehicles after 2035.

For an ethical and immoral supply chain required to build EV batteries, obviously Newson has yet to read the Pulitzer Prize nominated book that I co-authored, “Clean Energy Exploitations”, which provides transparency to the environmental degradation and humanity atrocities occurring in developing countries mining for those exotic minerals and metals to support the “green” movement. Subsidies to purchase EV’s are financial incentives to encourage further exploitations of yellow, brown, and black skin residents in developing countries.

Second Question for a Conversation: Why does Newsom support subsidies to procure EV’s when those subsidies are providing financial incentives to the developing countries mining for those exotic minerals and metals to support the “green” movement to continue environmental degradation to their local landscapes, and impose humanity atrocities to citizens with yellow, brown, and black skinned workers being exploited for the green movement?

  • Newsom supports EV’s that contribute no funds to maintain the California roadway system.

Newsom appears incapable of acknowledging that California’s almost 400,000 miles of roadways are heavily dependent on road taxes from fuels that contribute more than $8.8 billion annually, the same tax base that also funds the environmental programs that will be diminishing in the decades ahead.

Third Question for a Conversation: How does Newsom plan to replace the diminishing $8.8 billion in revenues from gas taxes to maintain the states’ 400,000 miles of roadways as the state migrates to more EV’s that contribute nothing for road maintenance and repairs?

  • Newsom supports ridding California of oil.

With no backup plan for a replacement for the more than 6,000 products and fuels manufactured from oil, and the fuels manufactured from oil that support more than 50,000 jets and more than 50,000 merchant ships, his efforts to cease the use of crude oil could be the greatest threat to civilization, not climate change, resulting in billions of fatalities from diseases, malnutrition, and weather related deaths.

Forth Question for a Conversation: Why does Newsom support wind and solar that only generate intermittent electricity, but cannot manufacture anything for society? What is his replacement for the oil derivatives that are the basis of more than 6,000 products and fuels for our various transportation infrastructures, and the economy?

In the UK, new chargers in the home and workplace now automatically switch off in peak times to avoid potential blackouts. New UK chargers are pre-set to not function during 9-hours of peak loads, from 8am to 11am (3-hours), and 4pm to 10pm (6-hours).

In addition, all home installed UK electric vehicle chargers are required to be separately metered and send this information to a Smart meter data communications network. Potentially, this UK legislation allows the electricity used for charging EVs to be charged and taxed at a higher rate than domestic electricity. Obviously, the EV electricity users are the ones that will be paying to upgrade and maintain the grid.

Fifth Question for a Conversation: Why doesn’t Newsom support a similar EV charging policy like that in the UK, where EV chargers do not function 9-hours a day during peak loading on the grid, and have those chargers on separate meters to help stabilize the grid and establish a convenient method of having the “user pay” for the rebuilding of the grid

In summary:

California voters had a chance to recall Newsom in 2021 but chose to support his bizarre and expensive energy policies. Following the failed recall, Newsom remains overconfident that his re-election is assured, and that voters are willing to accept the highest energy costs in America and support his avoidance of addressing those tough energy policy questions that may expose his limited energy literacy.

Author

  • Ronald Stein

    Ronald Stein is an engineer, senior policy advisor on energy literacy for CFACT, and co-author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated book “Clean Energy Exploitations.”