Can you share your source? I wonder if you are looking at production or consumption numbers. California is the largest energy importer in the USA (25%) and my understanding is that the number 1 source for this power is coal and natural gas in Arizona and Utah.

I'm looking at this source for California which includes imports. The main source of error is "unspecified" open market imports, but even if 100% of that is from fossil fuels, which seems unlikely, the worst-case error is another 7% of the total.

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...

Your understanding sounds completely fictional to me. Where did you come to believe that the primary source of imported power is Utah coal?

I didn't say Utah coal specifically. I said the leading sources were coal and natural gas from Arizona and Utah. I based this on theEIA. [1]

>In 2019, California’s net electricity imports were the largest in the country at 70.8 million megawatthours (MWh), or 25% of the state’s total electricity supply ... California utilities partly own and import power from several power plants in Arizona and Utah.

Arizona is ~75% coal and natural gas [2] Utah is ~80% and natural gas [3]

Looking at your link [4], 70% of California imports are "non-renewable and unspecified" and 75% of "non-renewable and unspecified" comes from the southwest (e.g. Arizona and Utah)

I think this brings us to the same conclusion that the number 1 source for imported electricity is coal and natural gas in Arizona and Utah. You are saying that a worst case for CA power is being 3-10% coal. I am talking about the worst case for CA imported power (which happens to be up to 37% coal)

[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46156#:~:tex....

[2] https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=AZ#tabs-4

[3] https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=UT#tabs-4

[4] https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...

How does this materially affect the discussion, though? If Texas at 67% fossil fuels is "shockingly green" then California, with at most 45% fossil fuels, must be jaw-droppingly green or some such nonsense.

I wanted to understand if the numbers you presented reflected a real snapshot of California's fossil fuel consumption or not.

I think the conclusion we came to is that the numbers you presented likely underestimate the fossil fuels, but there is still a big gap between Texas and California, and there is no material impact on the discussion. Thats OK.

I had an honest question about the data you presented, so I asked, and explained why I thought the data could be different.

You said my understanding was completely fictional, so I demonstrated that yes, in fact a significant portion of California imports come from fossil fuels.

Turns out that California's coal could be up to 3x the stated number, but is still less than Texas. My question is answered and hopefully we both understand the subject matter better now