If Kamala Harris becomes president, the policies that have plagued California could soon become the reality for the entire country.
California, under the leadership of Harris and Gov. Gavin Newsom, foreshadows America’s fate if Harris ascends to the presidency. The state has aggressively pursued climate policies, which, while championed as progressive and forward-thinking, have also proven costly and economically burdensome for its residents. These policies, enacted in the name of combating climate change, offer a glimpse into the Biden-Harris administration’s whole-of-government approach and its harmful effect on Americans.
California’s climate actions, epitomized by legislation like the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, have made the state a trailblazer in renewable energy initiatives. However, this has come at a steep cost to consumers. For instance, California consistently ranks among the states with the highest electricity prices, second only to Hawaii. As of mid-2024, Californians were paying 25.93 cents per kilowatt-hour, more than double the national average and significantly higher than states like Texas, which boasts a competitive energy market with prices about 162 percent lower. These inflated costs result from policies that favor non-dispatchable energy sources like wind and solar, requiring extensive investments in grid upgrades and new infrastructure — expenses that are ultimately passed on to consumers.
In the push for a green economy, California has also implemented stringent regulations and mandates, especially on land use and energy production. This has led to a housing crisis, exacerbated by strangled land development and inflated building costs. The state’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which accounts for the cost of living, has consistently shown California leading the nation in poverty rates — No. 1 for poverty since 2009. Despite its wealth and natural resources, more than 15 percent of its residents live below the poverty line.
While the Biden-Harris administration has aggressively pursued similar climate policies at the federal level, through legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act, there is growing evidence that these initiatives will not deliver the promised economic benefits. Instead, they could mirror California’s struggles with skyrocketing energy prices, regulatory burdens, and stagnant economic growth for middle- and lower-income families.
As someone who served in the California State Assembly for six years before moving to Texas, I’ve seen firsthand the detrimental effects of California’s climate-centric policies. My decision to relocate to Texas, along with hundreds of thousands of other former Californians, was driven by the state’s growing hostility toward business and job creation.
California’s leadership often touts its environmental achievements, but those come at the cost of economic opportunity for working-class citizens. In stark contrast, Texas, with its more business-friendly environment, has seen robust economic growth and lower living costs, illustrating an alternative path for governance — not only at the state level, but for the federal government as well.
California’s energy policies, particularly its aggressive push toward renewable energy, have also contributed to the state’s vulnerability to wildfires. Utility companies like PG&E have struggled to balance the state’s high regulatory demands with maintaining aging infrastructure. In 2019, PG&E’s power lines sparked the deadly Camp Fire, a catastrophe that might have been averted had regulators approved the necessary rate hikes for maintenance and safety upgrades. The reluctance to raise electricity rates further, due to the already high costs imposed by renewable mandates, has led to underinvestment in critical infrastructure, with devastating results.
Moreover, California’s mismanagement of its forests — stemming from stringent environmental regulations that limit timber harvesting and controlled burns — has led to a dangerous accumulation of wildfire fuel. These policies have not only increased the risk of catastrophic wildfires but also made homeowners’ insurance increasingly scarce and expensive. Many Californians, especially in high-risk areas, now struggle to find affordable insurance, further compounding the state’s cost-of-living crisis.
As we look toward the 2024 presidential election, it’s essential to recognize that California’s challenges could become America’s challenges. The Biden-Harris administration’s climate agenda mirrors many of the policies that have put California at a disadvantage. The administration’s “whole-of-government” approach to climate policy, which includes heavy subsidies for electric vehicles (EVs) and renewable energy projects, is set to cost taxpayers trillions of dollars. Yet, the return on these investments is uncertain. Even as California leads the nation in EV adoption and renewable energy use, it still consumes roughly the same amount of hydrocarbons as it did in 1980, revealing the difficulty of transitioning away from traditional energy sources.
The administration’s push to electrify the transportation sector, for instance, will require massive upgrades to the nation’s electrical grid, with costs estimated between $2.4 to $4 trillion. These upgrades will be necessary to accommodate the increased electricity demand from EVs, yet the financial burden will fall squarely on taxpayers and consumers. In states like California, where the cost of electricity is already prohibitively high, these additional costs could push even more people into energy poverty.
California’s experience is a warning to the rest of the nation. The state’s climate policies have driven up costs, stifled economic growth, and hurt the most vulnerable populations.
As the Biden-Harris administration continues to push its climate agenda on a national scale, Americans should carefully consider the potential consequences. California, once the land of opportunity, now stands as a cautionary tale of what happens when government overreach and regulatory excess are prioritized over economic prosperity and individual freedom.