What matters to me today is that reliability issues have and will continue to “Trump” any energy transition.
California’s accelerating transition toward a lower-carbon economy is no longer theoretical—it is policy and regulatory reality. Whether one views that trajectory as justified or not, the underlying facts remain: climate considerations are driving regulation, and fossil fuel resources are finite. In that context, an “all of the above” energy strategy is not ideological—it is imperative.
What is far less defensible is California’s unfortunate willingness to attempt to advance the transition while minimizing a central constraint: reliability. Solar and wind my prove economically and provisionally opportune components of the future grid, but their intermittency is not a minor inconvenience—it is a defining characteristic. Ignoring that reality creates vulnerability, not progress.
This blind spot has consequences. It fuels opposition that might otherwise be more measured, particularly when stakeholders perceive that reliability risks are being dismissed rather than addressed. That dynamic is evident even in areas removed from direct energy mandates.
Consider CARB’s implementation of SB 253. The program is fundamentally about disclosure—requiring large companies to report greenhouse gas emissions, with initial reporting deadlines beginning in August 2026—and does not mandate emissions reductions . Yet it faces vigorous legal challenge.
If disclosure alone draws this level of resistance, the implications for more aggressive regulatory measures are clear. A transition that fails to grapple honestly with reliability risks is not just incomplete—it is perilous.
That’s what matters to me today in 250 words or less. What matters to you? I’d really like to know.