Yup, some "rule", which is akin to a notional aspirational attempt to sounds fancy.
It's 11 years out. Can the infrastructure change that rapidly by then? I think we all think not, but it's possible. And maybe "they" ram it through but I suspect, as you note, it will be very unpopular when it hits the fan.
Right, but there's still a big difference between a goal and a rule.
A company may have a goal to get to net zero by 2040, for example. They may have plans already in place to get there, whether complete or acknowledging a "gap" between plan and goal that still needs to be closed. But even with a goal and a plan, that's not a rule. If the company isn't net zero by 2040, that doesn't mean that the government or Wall St will intervene and give them penalties.
A rule is something that is currently GOING to happen enshrined in law. If as you point out by 2035 the SSTF is exhausted, there is a rule in place for what will happen. It would trigger an immediate and significant cut in benefits. That's nobody's "goal" IMHO, but that will happen if nobody changes the rule.
Do we all think that will actually happen? No. We think the rule will be changed before then. But if they don't, the rule is already in effect and will happen as prescribed. It's not just some "goal".
The same is true with ICEVs in CA. Newsom didn't set a "goal." He had (as I understand it) an executive order stating this rule, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has enacted said rule so it is now enshrined in law. Can it be changed/modified? Yes. Will it? Probably. But it's more than a "goal".
