The U.S. Department of Energy today released its annual "state energy profiles," which present a number-packed but revealing look at the divergent paths being taken by the nation’s two largest states, California and Texas, in the age of global warming. On the green path is the Golden State, home to 36.1 million people in 2005 – nearly 1 in 10 U.S. residents. Taking the brown road is Texas, with a population of 22.9 million. Despite its size California’s per capital energy consumption ranks 46 out of the 50 states. Texans, on the other hand, are power hogs, with the state the 5th biggest consumer of energy. Texas produces 10.2 percent of the country’s coal-fired electricity; California a tenth of 1 percent. California, however, generates the most power from solar, wind and other non-hydro sources, accounting for about 26 percent of the U.S.’s renewable energy. Texas’ share is about 6 percent. The Lone Star State does whip the Left Coast when it comes to wind power. With 1,600 wind farms in just west Texas, the state is the nation’s biggest wind-power generator. (Update: Southern California Edison on Thursday announced it has signed the nation’s largest wind energy deal, an agreement to buy 1,500 megawatts from wind farms to be built in the Tehachapi region by Australian wind power company Alta Windpower Development.) Still, no surprise that Texas emits 10.3 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide from electricity generation while California is responsible for 2.2 percent.
So what gives? It’s tempting make this a Blue State-Red State thing – you know, Toyota (TM) Prius-driving, solar-powered San Francisco vegans versus Hummer-lovin’, Halliburton (HAL) -stock-owning Houstonians. Sure, cultural predilections play a role but this is more about geology and policy. Texas holds 23 percent of the country’s crude oil reserves, California has 16 percent; Texas has 4 percent of coal reserves, California zip; and Texas owns 28 percent of the natural gas reserves, California 1.6 percent. For 30 years, California has imposed energy efficiency regulations that have kept power consumption relatively low – compared to other U.S. states – even as the population soared and the economy boomed. California’s new mandate that 20 percent of electricity production come from renewable sources by 2010 and the recently enacted landmark global warming law will keep the state on the green path.
Green Wombat 
Todd, a rather big CA omission is that they consume tremendous quantities of coal-based power produced in the states of Nevada, Utah and Wyoming. They rather dramatically changes the less than 1 percent number you used to 8.7 percent by coal.
You must keep in mind the Texas is a net energy exporter while California is a net energy importer. Also, the Texas electric grid is isolated from the Eastern and Western grid; so, Texas eats what it produces. If Texas does not produce enough electricity, Texas cannot import more from other states.
I think these facts severly understate the environmental impact of energy use in California. The prices alone are not high enough in California to represent the frugality the article claims California demonstrates.
Weak logic. The information source sited even admits that the reason California uses less energy is because of its mild weather.
First, I live in California and have family in Texas. I think this does have to do with the mentality of blue versus red. California is run more by democrats and Texas run by Republicans, enough said you get the point. Although, I do agree with California’s going 10% renewable by 2010, I don’t agree with this CO2 emission cut. Renewable energy such as windpower is as cost effective as coal and NG now (solar still has 15 years before its viable). All this CO2 emission cut will only drive jobs out of California. Global warming must be addressed by a national scale or multi-national scale to have any impact. Someone needs to stand up to China and India soon. It doesn’t matter anyways, we must first tackle labor problems around the world. What is the point of breathing clean air when you work 90 hours a week?
The DOE report focused on in-state generation but Bill is right in that California does import electicity – out-of-state generators provided between 22 and 32 percent of its electricity between 1990 and 2004, according to a California Energy Commission report (www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013-D.PDF). And many of those out-of-state power plants are coal-fired. That is about to change, however. The California Public Utilties Commission last week proposed regulations that would effectively ban the state’s largest utilities from buying power from out-of-state coal-burning plants. Meanwhile, a number of Southern California municipalities have declined to renew contracts with coal-fired plants.
As far as the weather goes, I have family in Texas and know first-hand how hot it can get. (Though Southern Californians certainly like to run their air conditioners too.) But while California’s temperate climate certainly reduces energy use, it by itself doesn’t account for the big difference in consumption.
Noteworthy Green News: Week in Review
Wind Energy Scores Major Legal Victory in U.S. (Texas) – Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center in Texas, currently the world’s largest wind farm, did not create enough noise to be considered a private nuisance. Via Hugg. Google Plants Solar Trees – About a t…
No energy crisis in Texas. Don’t brag about California virtues when they do all their whoring out of state.
So how come Texas has one of the lowest gasoline and electricity prices? and California…? Obviouosly “green” costs and are we willing to pay?