California generally has a good track record of hitting longer-term environmental goals. 2045 is a long way out, but it is a length that will allow for unclean plants to see through to their end-of-life, rather than kneecapping current plants/projects. I suspect the intent was to signal to energy producers that CA won't make their current investments worthless (otherwise it would drive away developers who have put investments in to our grid).

In other words, this was a "keep investing, but new plants need to be clean" move.

From the bill (sb100),

33 percent by December 31, 2020,

44 percent by December 31, 2024,

52 percent by December 31, 2027,

and 60 percent by December 31, 2030.

The commission shall establish appropriate three-year compliance periods for all subsequent years.

The UK has a law requiring ongoing cuts towards an 80% cut from 1990 to 2050, and we’re about half way through, and about half way there. If the government doesn’t keep to the pathway it can be sued and required to take action by the courts.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/ccc-cut-uk-emissions-61-by-2030-...

I agree with the sentiment but this is probably a more realistic goal. Germany, which is far more organized than the US in many respects, is failing to hit its climate goals for 2020.

It's just harder than people think. Same with public projects going over budget. The budget was never realistic in the first place.

I think "realistic" kind of depends on your goal. If you want to make it under 2C, I don't believe this is particularly realistic (i.e. not soon enough). If you want to avoid controversial actions and major changes to people's loves, sure it maybe too soon.

The pace is already going to beat that legislation at it’s current rate.

This codifies that they don’t drag behind.

> By the way - 10% in 3 years would be a perfect milestone to 100% in 30 years.

That would be a reduction to about 35% of the original after 30 years.

Keep the basis level constant, and 10% every three years fine :)