No it's not, especially if you replace natural gas with burning coal for electricity.
Until the last coal plant shuts down, it makes zero sense to ban natural gas.
Until the last coal plant shuts down, it makes zero sense to ban natural gas.
Berkeley has been transitioning businesses and residents to majority and most recently 100% renewable energy for years.
> Until the last coal plant shuts down, it makes zero sense to ban natural gas.
This is nonsense. Every year the % of renewable energy increases it makes more sense to electrify than it did previously. It's a lot easier to change the energy source for a power grid than it is to rip out all existing gas infrastructure.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...
I don't quite follow the logic here, why? California only had 1 coal plant left, and most of it has been decommissioned. It's not like natural gas usage would be replaced with coal. It would be replaced with either renewable, nuclear, or centralized natty
In some ways coal anywhere in the world counts because we tend to sell unused coal (i.e. any coal not burned by us just gets burned elsewhere).
I suspect when California finishes shutting down the last coal plant, it'll probably be with local unused natural gas capacity or renewable. I don't think it's practical for the state to import coal power from separate grids or across the country. I know reducing coal usage in the US might make it cheaper to burn in coal in other parts of the world, but there's still local benefits wrt lifespan and air quality