We are clearly not *done* with the electrical sector, but clearly *are* on the right trajectory. Energy efficiency and demand response will continue to play a massive role in helping accommodate more renewables. Cheap batteries will allow even deeper penetration of variable RE 4/

A 100% zero-emitting grid is very likely achievable without assuming further developments in technology. A 90-95% zero-emitting grid certainly is. Cheap zero-emitting dispatchable generation (nuclear?) or seasonal energy storage is the last piece to hit 100% 5/

On the industrial side, the next decade is going to be all about reducing high-GWP gases, like methane and HFCs. We may be reaching the end of the lowest-hanging fruit from an efficiency side (i.e. stuff that pays back in very short time period) but still lots of opportunity. 6/

I'd like to see GHG emission stats that attribute industrial production to the place goods are consumed rather than the place they're produced. Would such numbers still show California hitting targets? Or are we hitting the targets because industry is moving to China, etc.?

For one thing, if we were really just exporting industry and the associated GHG reductions, what explains the fact that CA's has faster GDP growth and job creation than U.S. or average industrialized economy over last decade?

I haven't seen any evidence that there has been a systematic shift of production out of CA. Industries which are energy-intensive and exposed to international trade are basically exempted from the cap-and-trade program (see: Industrial assistance provisions).

Typical household GHG footprint is dominated by energy, for transportation and household. Those aren't things that can be outsourced, same for most personal services. Food production hasn't changed significantly, CA is still major agricultural producer.

Consumer goods are only 1/8 of typical household GHG footprint (researchgate.net/figure/Tota…) so it becomes really hard to make the math work if you assume that offshoring goods is the dominant driver of emissions cuts.

CARB commissioned three independent studies and held an series of public workshops to discuss them. arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/me… They assessed risk of leakage, then ultimately the Legislature gave companies significantly more anti-leakage assistance than CARB's numbers dictated.

Thanks. The consumer goods as portion of household footprint numbers are pretty convincing. I'm asking because the numbers that are widely quoted (emissions in a region) aren't really the numbers that are answering the right question (emissions from people's consumption). 1/