California is growing again—but barely. And while some headlines may frame three consecutive years of population increases as a return to pre-pandemic normalcy, the deeper story tells us something different: the state’s modest rebound is colliding head-on with a decades-long failure to build homes at the pace that growth demands.
That failure predates the pandemic, continued through it, and now shapes the uneven geography of California’s recovery.
Despite modest or flat population growth in recent years, California’s housing market remains deeply unaffordable because the state has long failed to build enough homes to meet demand.
Academic and government analyses show that “California simply doesn’t have enough housing to keep up with demand,” and that chronic undersupply is “the leading cause of our housing affordability concerns,” according to housing experts and state officials cited by CalMatters.
The shortage persists even as population growth has stalled or slowed, creating a situation where limited inventory relative to demand—stemming from decades of underbuilding—is a central driver of high rents and prices rather than rapid population increases alone.
Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) has directly linked California’s population loss and stagnation to high housing costs.
A statewide survey found that a significant share of Californians have seriously considered leaving the state because of housing costs, indicating that unaffordable housing is a causal factor in migration decisions.
Specifically, the survey found that “37% of Californians have seriously considered leaving the state because of housing costs,” and that the state’s high cost of living, driven almost solely by comparatively high housing costs, remains an ongoing public policy challenge if the state is to remain attractive to residents.
According to the Los Angeles Times, California’s population rose by roughly 19,200 people from July 1, 2024, to July 1, 2025, a 0.05 percent increase based on data released Friday by the California Department of Finance. The previous year’s growth was 0.58 percent.
The increase was entirely the product of births and international arrivals offsetting domestic out-migration. More than 216,000 California residents left the state for other states, exceeding the number of domestic in-migrants.
That means the state is still losing residents to other parts of the country, but those losses are being offset for now by factors outside domestic migration—namely, births and global migration flows.
The report noted the dramatic influence of federal policy on that fragile balance. The Department of Finance stated: “In 2025, most of the humanitarian migration programs were terminated. As a result, net international migration for 2024-25 declined to … approximately half of the 2023-24 level.”
Those programs played a significant role during the earlier rebound. Their termination illustrates both how sensitive population trends are to federal actions and how tenuous the state’s recent gains remain.
This is not the robust population boom California had come to take for granted in the 20th century. It is, instead, the latest chapter in a decade where growth has slowed, shifted, and—during the early pandemic—reversed.
The Department of Finance cautioned that: “With change in policy for international humanitarian migration and deaths returning to long-term trends, California is likely to experience slower growth over the coming several years.”
That slower growth is occurring against the backdrop of a structural housing shortage decades in the making.
As Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson write in Abundance:
“But in the late 1970s, home construction started to fall behind the pace of population growth. New permits per capita declined in the 1980s and again in the 1990s. After the Great Recession, the housing market crashed, and home construction in the 2010s was obliterated. Today, the average number of dwellings per thousand people in the developed world is about 470, according to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). France and Italy have nearly 600. Japan and Germany have about 500. The US has only about 425.6 Where did all the houses go? The answer is that they were never built at all.”
In other words, even modest and slow population growth runs into the hard barrier of limited housing supply.
California does not need explosive growth to fuel a crisis. Its decades-long failure to build is already enough.
Klein and Thompson add: “Texas has been the single largest beneficiary of California’s housing crisis. And that is, in part, because Texas is California’s mirror image on housing. The Austin metro area led the nation in housing permits in 2022, permitting 18 new homes for every 1,000 residents. Los Angeles’s and San Francisco’s metro areas permitted only 2.5 units per 1,000 residents.”
Both stats paint a picture: California is not building enough housing. Neither is the US overall.
This contrast tells a story population statistics alone cannot. California’s weak housing production has exported growth elsewhere—particularly to Texas. It has also redirected internal growth away from coastal metros toward inland and exurban regions.
The latest population report reflects this geographic split. The strongest growth occurred in the Central Valley and Sacramento exurbs—areas that, while less economically dominant than coastal metros, permit more and build more.
Meanwhile, Los Angeles County registered a net population loss of 28,000 people. The Department of Finance cited wildfires and decreased international migration, particularly linked to the Palisades and Eaton fires, as major contributors.
Significantly, the report did not address whether the Trump administration’s summer immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles influenced migration patterns.
The omission highlights another dimension of current population dynamics: the role of federal enforcement in shaping local demographics, particularly in counties with large immigrant communities.
The new report mirrors the themes the Vanguard has covered throughout the year.
In previous analyses of Davis housing constraints, Bay Area rebounds, and statewide affordability pressures, a consistent pattern emerges: constrained supply dictates outcomes even more than population flows do.
When California’s population slowed during the pandemic, housing costs did not fall—they stabilized only briefly and have since resumed upward climbs in key regions. When population increases returned, even at low levels, the pressure intensified.
This challenges a persistent but flawed narrative that California’s housing crisis is the product of runaway population growth. The evidence suggests the opposite: the crisis persists because growth slowed while housing production lagged dramatically. The result is that even slight increases strain capacity.
It also explains why population loss did not relieve affordability burdens. The state’s most expensive metros—San Francisco, Silicon Valley, West Los Angeles—remained unaffordable even during periods of net out-migration. Limited construction, high land costs, and regulatory barriers held prices firm.
Now, as population inches upward again, the old pressures return. Coastal counties remain resistant to permitting. Inland regions absorb growth not because policy designed it so, but because markets redirected demand where supply exists. And other states—particularly Texas—capitalize.
The lesson is that modest population growth does not solve the housing crisis. And population loss does not solve it either. Only construction does.
California could continue to grow slowly for several years and still see affordability worsen. It could even resume net population loss and experience similar outcomes. That is because the fundamental constraint is structural rather than demographic.
California’s challenge is not that it is adding too many people but rather that it is adding too few homes.
The new population figures should remind policymakers of this rather than obscure it. The temptation will be to read three consecutive years of growth as a sign of returning normalcy. But normalcy in California has always meant population growth paired with robust construction. Without the latter, the former means pressure—not prosperity.
The state’s future depends on whether it can reverse decades of restrictive land-use habits. If not, slow growth will still produce scarcity, displacement, long commutes, and an exodus of working- and middle-class families. And places like Austin will continue to build what California does not.
California’s population uptick is real. But the housing shortage is the reality that matters. Until that changes, even slight increases will deepen a crisis that began not with growth, but with refusal to build.
Tags:
There is less strain on the housing market mostly thanks to Trump’s immigration policies. I know progressives hate to admit that but California’s and much of the nation’s housing woes were caused by too much immigration. All those people entering into our country have to be housed somewhere.
1.6 kids (nationwide), less than that in California. 2.1 needed just for replacement of a couple.
Ultimately, if you don’t build it – they don’t come (other than illegal immigrants – which Trump has reversed). More importantly, this also applies to businesses – the actual driver of growth for a given area.
From article: “And other states—particularly Texas—capitalize.”
David “tips his hand” in that comment and throughout this article in regard to how he views never-ending growth as a positive outcome.
But again, the country itself isn’t growing. See “1.6 kids”, as well as the result of Trump’s immigration policies.
David continues to present population stabilization in a negative light.
“1.6 kids (nationwide), less than that in California. 2.1 needed just for replacement of a couple.”
Which is also endogenous rather than exogenous. I presented two data points on housing that you completely ignored and went back to your same points you’ve been arguing for years.
What can I tell you, David? Facts are facts.
A slight uptick in population in California is essentially a rounding error.
No one (including you) can point to housing prices as the “same thing” as a shortage. One reason being that every area “competes” with every other area. Texas itself is part of California’s “supply/demand” model as an alternative which impacts California’s prices. And housing isn’t always cheap in Texas either, though the property taxes are what’s truly out of control there (or so I’ve heard). Property taxes, insurance, etc., ARE housing costs. So are the parcel taxes that school districts levy on property owners.
Couple of other notes: Even while California’s population has largely stabilized (declined for about 3 years after the pandemic, perhaps a slight uptick now), the population itself is spreading into areas (like Davis and the Sacramento valley) from environmentally-superior areas (like the Bay Area) – where public transportation and the weather itself is better (resulting in less energy usage).
Now, one can argue that moving to Davis is sometimes (slightly) superior to moving to some place like Spring Lake, but the OVERALL trend is what’s concerning – people moving from REGIONS (such as the Bay Area) that are environmentally superior, to environmentally-inferior areas like Davis and the Sacramento valley.
I can tell you from personal experience that those in the Bay Area don’t see much difference between Dixon, Davis, Woodland, West Sacramento, Sacramento, etc. It’s all one big hot, flat hellhole to most of them. A place where they get stuck in traffic jams on the way to Tahoe, when freeway lanes shrink from 4 to 3 lanes.
Most people from the Bay Area probably focus more on the low foothill cities – like Folsom, Lincoln, Roseville, etc. But even so, they view those communities as essentially part of Sacramento as well.
It would be interesting to know how much additional housing California has built in environmentally-inferior areas (as well as superior areas) during the past 5 years or so, since California’s population has stabilized.
Since the article discusses the population shift from California to Texas, wouldn’t it be useful to consider “environmentally superior” growth in a context beyond just California?
Texas generates 29% more VMT/capita (and associated GHG/capita) than California.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2023/ps1.cfm
Texas generates 234% more energy use/capita than California.
https://solarpower.guide/solar-energy-insights/states-energy-use-per-capita
26.5% of Texas’ power generation comes from renewable sources, compared to 43% for California.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_renewable_electricity_production
I know I’m cherry picking just a few metrics, but this doesn’t even account for the presence of environmental protection laws like CEQA in California and the lack thereof in Texas.
Do you think it is “environmentally superior” when a person who wants to live in California but can’t find/afford housing must live in places like Texas instead?
I’m asked, “Do you think it is “environmentally superior” when a person who wants to live in California but can’t find/afford housing must live in places like Texas instead?”
Your assumption is that a person “wants to” live in California, but can’t afford it. I flat-out don’t believe that in the first place. But it is true that as communities pursue high-paying industries (such as the technology industry), they can become priced out of their original home towns (if they’re not already homeowners, or in rent-controlled units).
The growth activists never seem to want to talk about that.
In any case, people move for a lot of different reasons, and one of them is the cost of housing (compared to wages). That’s always been true, and is the reason that a place like Texas “competes” with California, and is the reason for the exodus from California. The market itself will dictate the choices that people make, to some degree.
Also, California is a big place, and lots of places therein have cheap housing. Davis has cheap housing compared to San Francisco, so it’s ultimately subjective. But it actually sounds like you’re making the same argument I am, that it would be better for people to remain where they are (and that communities should stop making decisions which price out their own residents, such as the Bay Area has done with the technology industry.)
But the other (perhaps bigger) issue is, what is Texas doing about environmental regulations, then? And if they implemented more regulations (such as restrictions against sprawl), wouldn’t that presumably cause housing prices to rise even more than they have, there?
Is your argument that because Texas is pursuing sprawl and has less regulations regarding energy (presumably less regulation than California), that California should follow suit? Or, are you arguing that Texas should implement some of the same controls that California has – thereby increasing housing prices in Texas, in your view?
(Actually, I’d argue that California has done next to nothing to reign in sprawl.)
That’s an awfully long non-response to a yes or no question.
I already answered your question, by rejecting its premise (assumptions). It’s essentially a “did you stop beating your wife” type of question.
We can discuss the assumptions embedded in your question further, if you’d like.
“Texas generates 29% more VMT/capita (and associated GHG/capita) than California.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2023/ps1.cfm”
Thought I’d look at your first citation, above. Haven’t looked at the others, yet. In any case, it appears that you’re comparing two numbers (Total VMTs per capita, between California and Texas).
California’s VMT per capita is 8,008, while Texas’ is 10,305. But other columns break down total VMTs for their respective rural vs. urban areas. (California has a higher total VMT than Texas does for urban areas, but a lower total VMT for rural areas.)
Wouldn’t one need to know the relative percentages of rural vs. urban population distribution (between Texas vs. California) to make sense of that? Texas is much more spread out than California is, and I suspect a higher percentage of residents live in rural areas compared to California (which would account for some of the difference regarding VMTs per capita).
But again I’d ask if VMTs (and home energy usage) are lower in the Bay Area, compared to anywhere in the valley. And what percentage of newcomers to this area come from the Bay Area.
Regarding VMT/capita, every metro area in California (including the Central Valley and Inland Empire) is below even the lowest metro area in Texas.
https://www.bts.gov/geography/geospatial-2/daily-vehicle-miles-traveled-capita-urbanized-area-2022
How are VMTs in San Francisco, compared to ANYPLACE in the Central Valley – including this region?
How much energy do residents in San Francisco (or anywhere along the coast) use for heating and cooling, compared to ANYPLACE in the Central Valley?
And since those along the coast use a lot less, why do some advocate for those folks to move out to the Central Valley?
Here’s a breakdown of CA vs TX rural/urban annual VMT capita.
CA
94% urban vs 6% rural population
Urban: 6,896 annual VMT/capita
Rural: 26,191 annual VMT/capita
Total: 8,008 annual VMT/capita
TX
84% urban vs 16% rural population
Urban: 9,048 annual VMT/capita
Rural: 16,767 annual VMT/capita
Total: 10,305 annual VMT/capita
The table below shows daily VMT/capita for every urban area in both CA and TX. Pretty clear trend of TX urban areas dominating the top of the list, especially the largest metro areas where a lot of growth is happening.
For CA, only 4 of the top 25 urban areas are in the Central Valley. You might be interested to see the urban areas ranked near San Francisco. Stockton, Visalia, Modesto, Fresno, Tracy, and Bakersfield are all within 1 VMT/capita (less than 5%) of San Francisco. In fact, about half of the Central Valley urban areas generate less VMT/capita than San Francisco, including Davis, Woodland, Merced, and Chico.
That’s an interesting opinion about CA doing nothing about sprawl. Of all 50 states, CA is ranked #1 in population, #1 in percent of population living in urban areas (94.2%), and #1 in urban area density (4,500 people per square mile). Whatever we’re (not) doing seems to be working, granted there’s always room for improvement.
Urbanized Area (Population 50K+) State Daily VMT Population Daily VMT/Capita CA/TX Rank CA Rank TX Rank
Temple, TX TX 4,012,961 90,390 44.4 1 – 1
San Marcos, TX TX 2,302,298 52,826 43.6 2 – 2
Conroe–The Woodlands, TX TX 9,847,488 239,938 41.0 3 – 3
Midland, TX TX 4,034,709 117,807 34.2 4 – 4
McKinney, TX TX 5,816,057 170,030 34.2 5 – 5
Waco, TX TX 5,839,704 172,378 33.9 6 – 6
Odessa, TX TX 4,274,036 126,405 33.8 7 – 7
Beaumont, TX TX 4,907,189 147,922 33.2 8 – 8
Sherman, TX TX 2,051,087 61,900 33.1 9 – 9
Livermore, CA CA 2,561,051 81,624 31.4 10 1 –
Harlingen, TX TX 4,146,680 135,663 30.6 11 – 10
Texas City, TX TX 3,229,352 106,383 30.4 12 – 11
Dallas–Fort Worth–Arlington, TX TX 155,053,927 5,121,892 30.3 13 – 12
Paso Robles–Atascadero, CA CA 1,965,852 65,088 30.2 14 2 –
Victoria, TX TX 1,917,648 63,683 30.1 15 – 13
Austin, TX TX 40,800,811 1,362,416 29.9 16 – 14
Fairfield, CA CA 3,979,795 133,683 29.8 17 3 –
San Antonio, TX TX 51,812,787 1,758,210 29.5 18 – 15
Denton–Lewisville, TX TX 10,750,368 366,174 29.4 19 – 16
Tyler, TX TX 3,718,632 130,247 28.6 20 – 17
Longview, TX TX 2,781,246 98,884 28.1 21 – 18
Gilroy–Morgan Hill, CA CA 2,720,591 98,413 27.6 22 4 –
Houston, TX TX 136,233,696 4,944,332 27.6 23 – 19
Camarillo, CA CA 1,944,465 71,772 27.1 24 5 –
Abilene, TX TX 2,962,495 110,421 26.8 25 – 20
Thousand Oaks, CA CA 5,621,275 214,811 26.2 26 6 –
Lubbock, TX TX 6,095,137 237,356 25.7 27 – 21
Manteca, CA CA 2,110,533 83,578 25.3 28 7 –
Lake Jackson–Angleton, TX TX 1,870,844 74,830 25.0 29 – 22
Concord, CA CA 15,377,294 615,968 25.0 30 8 –
Port Arthur, TX TX 3,809,139 153,150 24.9 31 – 23
Arroyo Grande–Grover Beach, CA CA 1,288,595 52,000 24.8 32 9 –
Riverside–San Bernardino, CA CA 47,882,875 1,932,666 24.8 33 10 –
Vacaville, CA CA 2,267,256 93,141 24.3 34 11 –
Corpus Christi, TX TX 7,606,201 320,069 23.8 35 – 24
Santa Barbara, CA CA 4,600,090 195,861 23.5 36 12 –
Indio–Cathedral City, CA CA 8,107,385 345,580 23.5 37 13 –
Redding, CA CA 2,729,443 117,731 23.2 38 14 –
Lodi, CA CA 1,589,728 68,738 23.1 39 15 –
Amarillo, TX TX 4,507,747 196,651 22.9 40 – 25
McAllen, TX TX 16,575,228 728,825 22.7 41 – 26
Santa Clarita, CA CA 5,856,185 258,653 22.6 42 16 –
Turlock, CA CA 2,217,926 99,904 22.2 43 17 –
College Station–Bryan, TX TX 3,744,578 171,345 21.9 44 – 27
Murrieta–Temecula–Menifee, CA CA 9,504,792 441,546 21.5 45 18 –
San Diego, CA CA 63,425,975 2,956,746 21.5 46 19 –
Sacramento, CA CA 35,407,538 1,723,634 20.5 47 20 –
Petaluma, CA CA 1,310,185 64,078 20.4 48 21 –
Seaside–Monterey, CA CA 2,324,943 114,237 20.4 49 22 –
Mission Viejo–Lake Forest–San Clemente, CA CA 11,858,752 583,681 20.3 50 23 –
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA CA 245,545,803 12,150,996 20.2 51 24 –
San Angelo, TX TX 1,842,205 92,984 19.8 52 – 28
Wichita Falls, TX TX 1,961,767 99,437 19.7 53 – 29
Vallejo, CA CA 3,201,273 165,074 19.4 54 25 –
Santa Rosa, CA CA 5,951,349 308,231 19.3 55 26 –
Brownsville, TX TX 4,189,980 217,585 19.3 56 – 30
Victorville–Hesperia, CA CA 6,279,469 328,454 19.1 57 27 –
Killeen, TX TX 4,100,454 217,630 18.8 58 – 31
Santa Cruz, CA CA 3,058,744 163,703 18.7 59 28 –
Stockton, CA CA 6,809,266 370,583 18.4 60 29 –
San Jose, CA CA 30,445,965 1,664,496 18.3 61 30 –
Simi Valley, CA CA 2,289,667 125,206 18.3 62 31 –
Visalia, CA CA 3,983,208 219,454 18.2 63 32 –
Modesto, CA CA 6,431,353 358,172 18.0 64 33 –
Fresno, CA CA 11,726,804 654,628 17.9 65 34 –
San Francisco–Oakland, CA CA 58,065,770 3,281,212 17.7 66 35 –
Tracy, CA CA 1,519,502 87,569 17.4 67 36 –
Bakersfield, CA CA 8,857,030 523,994 16.9 68 37 –
Salinas, CA CA 3,097,252 184,809 16.8 69 38 –
San Luis Obispo, CA CA 983,862 59,219 16.6 70 39 –
Laredo, TX TX 3,881,980 235,730 16.5 71 – 32
Lancaster–Palmdale, CA CA 5,581,015 341,219 16.4 72 40 –
Davis, CA CA 1,174,392 72,794 16.1 73 41 –
Yuba City, CA CA 1,813,226 116,719 15.5 74 42 –
Oxnard, CA CA 5,666,425 367,260 15.4 75 43 –
Antioch, CA CA 4,234,447 277,634 15.3 76 44 –
Hanford, CA CA 1,282,760 87,941 14.6 77 45 –
Woodland, CA CA 809,316 55,513 14.6 78 46 –
Watsonville, CA CA 1,061,459 73,534 14.4 79 47 –
Merced, CA CA 1,965,599 136,969 14.4 80 48 –
Chico, CA CA 1,364,098 98,176 13.9 81 49 –
Napa, CA CA 1,137,737 83,913 13.6 82 50 –
Madera, CA CA 1,062,284 78,413 13.5 83 51 –
Santa Maria, CA CA 1,725,045 130,447 13.2 84 52 –
Delano, CA CA 657,285 54,372 12.1 85 53 –
El Centro–Calexico, CA CA 1,243,493 107,672 11.5 86 54 –
Hemet, CA CA 1,775,191 163,379 10.9 87 55 –
Lompoc, CA CA 522,785 51,509 10.1 88 56 –
Hmm. This is pretty hard to read, but the first thing I’m noticing is the “easy” part – that those in rural California have much higher VMTs than those in rural parts of Texas.
I would have thought that it would be the opposite of that.
Where are you getting your percentages and calculations regarding “urban” vs. “rural”?
Regarding the following claim, can you explain this better – including exactly how you’re calculating it? I ask because it makes no intuitive sense, and I’m not seeing it in your calculations.
“For CA, only 4 of the top 25 urban areas are in the Central Valley. You might be interested to see the urban areas ranked near San Francisco. Stockton, Visalia, Modesto, Fresno, Tracy, and Bakersfield are all within 1 VMT/capita (less than 5%) of San Francisco. In fact, about half of the Central Valley urban areas generate less VMT/capita than San Francisco, including Davis, Woodland, Merced, and Chico.”
I can see where UCD, Merced and Chico students might drive less than full-time residents – is that a factor here? Though that seemingly would not account for Woodland residents “driving less” than residents of San Francisco.
Where exactly are these figures coming from, though? And how are you calculating them?
Maybe take one example – Woodland, and show us exactly how those residents are “driving less” than those in San Francisco?
I did click on one of your links, and am not seeing VMTs broken down by California city. However, it does show that VMTs are significantly lower in the San Francisco Bay Area than they are in the Sacramento region – right off the bat:
https://www.bts.gov/geography/geospatial-2/daily-vehicle-miles-traveled-capita-urbanized-area-2022
So to reiterate, how are you coming up with your data/comparisons which apparently conflict with your source?
Rather that doing a data dump, let’s see some actual examples of what you claim. (But again, I do understand that individual towns within a region might be different, depending upon factors such as percentage of college students, percentage of retired people, etc.).
Perhaps the best comparison is to compare worker commutes, in various cities. But hey – since you claim that Woodland’s VMTs are lower than San Francisco’s, I guess it’s not an enormous problem that some UCD workers live in Woodland after all?)
The urban vs rural VMT data by state is from here: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2023/ps1.cfm
The VMT data for each urban area is from here. To get VMT/capita, you divide the daily VMT by the population for each urban area: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2022/hm71.cfm
You’re free to download and play with the data and draw whatever conclusions you want.
I’ll check it out.
But again I’ll ask why your other citation shows that VMTs are significantly higher in the Sacramento region, than they are in the Bay Area as a whole. Which obviously makes intuitive sense.
I can see why that might not be the case for individual cities (such as college towns, or towns with a lot of retirees) within a given region, but it’s certainly not going to apply regarding workers.
But again, you’re stating that Woodland has lower VMTs than San Francisco? So apparently, it’s not an environmental disaster that some Woodland workers commute to UCD? And apparently, San Francisco’s compact size and robust public transportation isn’t working?
Is that the conclusion you’re trying to put forth? That everyone in San Francisco should move to the valley to save the environment – other than the 4 worst towns that you listed elsewhere? (Those towns are “outliers”, in your view?)
So I took a quick look at your latest table, and found that San Francisco/Oakland area are “lumped together”, while Woodland is listed separately on a different table.
I’m finding this confusing. Would you be so good as to show us how you concluded that Woodland has lower VMTs per capita than San Francisco?
In other words, please show us the math you’re using.
Actually becoming more curious regarding other cities that you claim have lower or equivalent VMTs than San Francisco, as well. Really? Stockton, for example? (That’s one of the cities that you claim has VMTs that are essentially equivalent to VMTs in San Francisco.)
And to answer your question about energy use, here’s residential GWh/capita by county for 2024. This includes electricity and natural gas consumption for residential use only. Sorted from highest to lowest.
Lots of Bay Area counties at the top of the list and you have to scroll down a ways to start seeing Central Valley counties. San Francisco is higher than every Central Valley county except for Sutter. San Francisco is 7% higher than Sacramento and San Joaquin, 17% higher than Yolo, and 20% higher than Placer, to name a few in our region.
Source: https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/california-energy-consumption-dashboards-0
County Residential GWh/Capita (2024)
MARIN 0.514
SAN MATEO 0.466
CONTRA COSTA 0.430
NAPA 0.403
VENTURA 0.400
MONTEREY 0.399
SANTA BARBARA 0.398
SANTA CLARA 0.384
SUTTER 0.377
SOLANO 0.375
ALAMEDA 0.374
SONOMA 0.369
SAN FRANCISCO 0.368
LOS ANGELES 0.366
STANISLAUS 0.362
SAN BERNARDINO 0.356
ORANGE 0.352
TULARE 0.347
SACRAMENTO 0.345
SAN JOAQUIN 0.344
SANTA CRUZ 0.341
HUMBOLDT 0.340
KINGS 0.333
KERN 0.330
FRESNO 0.330
YOLO 0.316
SAN LUIS OBISPO 0.309
PLACER 0.307
SAN BENITO 0.303
BUTTE 0.301
RIVERSIDE 0.299
MERCED 0.293
COLUSA 0.285
SAN DIEGO 0.258
GLENN 0.248
YUBA 0.243
SHASTA 0.242
EL DORADO 0.221
NEVADA 0.189
MADERA 0.166
TEHAMA 0.165
MENDOCINO 0.155
IMPERIAL 0.141
AMADOR 0.117
LASSEN 0.036
CALAVERAS 0.024
MODOC 0.012
DEL NORTE 0.010
SISKIYOU 0.010
LAKE 0.008
MARIPOSA 0.007
TUOLUMNE 0.007
ALPINE 0.007
INYO 0.006
MONO 0.006
PLUMAS 0.006
SIERRA 0.006
TRINITY 0.004
Hmm. Do you suppose this has something to do with other than heating/cooling costs?
I ask because it’s a basic fact that most San Francisco homes have no air conditioning, for example. The weather is also not as cold in the winter, and square footage of homes is smaller than homes in the valley.
That’s a good question. I don’t know for sure, but could posit a guess that it has something to do with higher income levels (which typically track with higher consumption in general) and maybe older housing stock with less efficient energy systems, appliances, etc.
Or maybe you’re posting incorrect information again. How are you getting these data dumps, and how are you interpreting/calculating it? Your link doesn’t immediately show it.
Here’s what a quick Internet search shows:
Data Points (Illustrative):
Sacramento: Around 750 kWh/month per household, but higher per person due to home size.
San Francisco: About 864 kWh/month per household (often smaller/shared), but lower per capita.
“In Summary: Expect lower per-person energy use in San Francisco due to apartment living and climate, while Sacramento residents often consume more electricity overall due to larger homes and intense AC needs, even if their rates are lower.”
(That’s just for electricity, not natural gas.)
Step 1: Download the electricity and natural gas consumption data for 2024 from the CEC website.
Step 2: For natural gas consumption, convert therms to GWh (to match GWh used for electricity).
Step 3: Sum the residential electricity and natural gas consumption for each county. This gives you total residential energy consumption by county.
Step 4: Download county-level population figures from CA DOF.
Step 5: Divide total residential energy consumption by population for each county.
Step 6: Copy and paste this table into a comment on the Vanguard.
This can be done with any basic spreadsheet tool and 15-30 minutes of free time. You’ll get the same numbers I pasted in the table above.
Per the Census, SF County has around 2.2 people per household whole while Sacramento County has around 2.7 people per household. So based on the numbers you provided, Sacramento County is at 277 KWh/month per person while SF County is at 392 KWh/month per person for electricity only (41% higher – yikes!!). Which supports the conclusions from the CEC data I pulled that SF County uses more energy on a per capita basis than Sacramento County.
I may try that later, but I’m finding it initially difficult to narrow down the tables in the manner you suggest. So it might take me longer than 15 minutes.
In the meantime, I just thought I’d “ask the Internet” to compare, and the link below from the University of San Diego states the following: “Fresno homes have the highest electricity use on average, around 9,700 kWh in 2020, while San Francisco homes have the lowest electricity use on average, around 4,000 kWh in 2020.” The combined use of electricity and natural gas offers a full picture of household energy use over time. Once converted to the common unit MMBtu (Million British Thermal Units), the total residential energy use (electricity + natural gas) can be compared across counties. Homes in Fresno County had the highest residential energy use in 2020 with 51% from natural gas. San Francisco County’s total residential energy use is comparable to San Diego County, but homes in San Francisco County rely on natural gas more than homes in San Diego County. San Diego County has the lowest total energy use among the counties in the chart, most likely due to our milder, year-round climate.
(So this is apparently “per household”, not “per capita”. If San Francisco has a higher number of people per household, then per capita energy usage would be even lower.)
https://www.sandiego.edu/soles/centers-and-institutes/nonprofit-institute/signature-programs/dashboard/electricity.php#:~:text=Fresno%20homes%20have%20the%20highest,homes%20in%20San%20Diego%20County.
You originally stated:
“Even while California’s population has largely stabilized (declined for about 3 years after the pandemic, perhaps a slight uptick now), the population itself is spreading into areas (like Davis and the Sacramento valley) from environmentally-superior areas (like the Bay Area) – where public transportation and the weather itself is better (resulting in less energy usage).”
I’m providing data that refutes the notion that the Bay Area is “environmentally superior” to the Central Valley. At least as it relates to a couple of useful metrics.
The point is that there aren’t overwhelmingly negative environmental consequences resulting from people moving from the Bay Area to the Central Valley. These people exist and need to live somewhere, and a person living in the Central Valley doesn’t necessarily have a larger environmental footprint than a person living in the Bay Area. More broadly, a person living in either the Bay Area or the Central Valley has a smaller environmental footprint than a person living in Texas, so the “environmentally superior” thing to do would be to figure out ways to encourage/allow that person to live in Bay Area, the Central Valley, or pretty much any other urban area in CA.
“I’m providing data that refutes the notion that the Bay Area is “environmentally superior” to the Central Valley. At least as it relates to a couple of useful metrics.”
You are providing data – the problem is that it proves the OPPOSITE of what you claim.
Here’s one example that you yourself provided:
https://www.bts.gov/geography/geospatial-2/daily-vehicle-miles-traveled-capita-urbanized-area-2022
20.5 VMTs per capita in the Sacramento region.
17.7 VMTs per capita in the San Francisco/Oakland region.
I haven’t even looked at your other metric yet, but you’re not off to a good start. When you put forth claims that defy common sense, it’s going to raise questions.
The map showing VMT for the major urban areas and the detailed urban area VMT table/link I shared are from the SAME data source. However, the map only shows the major urban areas whereas the detailed table includes every urban area in the US.
You’re conflating cities with regions with urban areas. Again, the VMT data is for URBAN AREAS per Census definitions. Based on Census definitions and the FHWA data, the Woodland urban area is different from the Sacramento urban area. The Davis urban area is also different from the Sacramento urban area.
You continue to cherry pick the Sacramento urban area in your comparison with the SF urban area, when there are about 20 other Central Valley urban areas that you could also look at to form your opinion.
The table I posted yesterday has all the information you need to understand the VMT differences between the urban areas, including population, total VMT, and VMT/capita. It literally shows the math for every urban area in CA.
Dude, I asked you about 3 times now to back up what you’re stating, and suggested that you use just one of of your examples to make it easier.
Show us the exact source you’re using, and the math you’re using, to prove that Woodland’s VMTs per capita are less than San Francisco’s. Don’t ask me to do research to prove something that you claim.
Again, your own source (cited several times now) shows that the San Francisco/Oakland region uses fewer VMTs than the Sacramento region.
If you’re stating there are outliers which conflict with that overall truth, then let’s see them and how you came up with them.
I’ll go out on a limb here and claim that there are NO regions in the central valley, and few (if any individual cities) which have lower VMTs than those in the San Francisco Bay Area. (Other than perhaps a town like Davis, due to its high concentration of university students who likely drive less than permanent residents.)
And that likely goes for residential energy usage per capita, as well. (Already posted information about that elsewhere on this page.)
“The Davis urban area is also different from the Sacramento urban area.”
There’s no such thing as the “Davis urban area”, in the same sense that there’s a San Francisco/Oakland, or Sacramento region -which generally includes Davis. Granted, it is difficult to determine what the giant “regional circles” in your earlier citation include (and some of them overlap). But it certainly appears that Davis is “swallowed up” in the Sacramento region in this diagram, at least.
https://www.bts.gov/geography/geospatial-2/daily-vehicle-miles-traveled-capita-urbanized-area-2022
And by the way, check out your other “preferred” California location on there (Riverside / San Bernadino).
This is my final comment on this thread. Based on FHWA data, there are plenty of urban areas in the Central Valley that generate VMT/capita that is similar to or lower than VMT/capita generated by the SF urban area. There are also plenty of Central Valley urban areas that generate more than the SF urban area. In fact, about half of the Central Valley urban areas rank above the SF urban area while about half rank below.
You can choose to interpret the data however you like. You can also take it up with the US Census Bureau if you don’t like their definition of urban area.
Data Source (same as previous link): https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2022/hm71.cfm
Sample Calculations:
San Francisco urban area: 58,065,770 daily VMT / 3,281,212 residents = 17.7 VMT/capita
Sacramento urban area: 35,407,538 daily VMT / 1,723,634 residents = 20.5 VMT/capita
Davis urban area: 1,174,392 daily VMT/ 72,794 residents = 16.1 VMT/capita
Woodland urban area: 809,316 daily VMT / 55,513 residents = 14.6 VMT/capita
Summary Table:
Daily VMT/Capita for Urban Areas in California (Sorted Highest to Lowest)
Livermore, CA 31.4
Paso Robles–Atascadero, CA 30.2
Fairfield, CA 29.8
Gilroy–Morgan Hill, CA 27.6
Camarillo, CA 27.1
Thousand Oaks, CA 26.2
Manteca, CA 25.3
Concord, CA 25.0
Arroyo Grande–Grover Beach, CA 24.8
Riverside–San Bernardino, CA 24.8
Vacaville, CA 24.3
Santa Barbara, CA 23.5
Indio–Cathedral City, CA 23.5
Redding, CA 23.2
Lodi, CA 23.1
Santa Clarita, CA 22.6
Turlock, CA 22.2
Murrieta–Temecula–Menifee, CA 21.5
San Diego, CA 21.5
Sacramento, CA 20.5
Petaluma, CA 20.4
Seaside–Monterey, CA 20.4
Mission Viejo–Lake Forest–San Clemente, CA 20.3
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Anaheim, CA 20.2
Vallejo, CA 19.4
Santa Rosa, CA 19.3
Victorville–Hesperia, CA 19.1
Santa Cruz, CA 18.7
Stockton, CA 18.4
San Jose, CA 18.3
Simi Valley, CA 18.3
Visalia, CA 18.2
Modesto, CA 18.0
Fresno, CA 17.9
San Francisco–Oakland, CA 17.7
Tracy, CA 17.4
Bakersfield, CA 16.9
Salinas, CA 16.8
San Luis Obispo, CA 16.6
Lancaster–Palmdale, CA 16.4
Davis, CA 16.1
Yuba City, CA 15.5
Oxnard, CA 15.4
Antioch, CA 15.3
Hanford, CA 14.6
Woodland, CA 14.6
Watsonville, CA 14.4
Merced, CA 14.4
Chico, CA 13.9
Napa, CA 13.6
Madera, CA 13.5
Santa Maria, CA 13.2
Delano, CA 12.1
El Centro–Calexico, CA 11.5
Hemet, CA 10.9
Lompoc, CA 10.1
Porterville, CA 9.7
O.K. – haven’t checked the data myself in that table, but those are the numbers for Sacramento, vs. the San Francisco/Oakland region from the other table I saw. Of course, Oakland is not the same as San Francisco – which is what you were attempting to compare with Woodland. Regardless, it is surprising that Woodland apparently has lower VMTs per capita than the combined San Francisco/Oakland region.
It is interesting to see variations within the same region.
Apparently, robust public transit and density is not always the panacea that it’s presented as, and Woodland is not causing any outrageous environmental disaster by welcoming commuters to UCD.
Also just noticed that Woodland’s VMTs per capita are significantly less than Davis’. Maybe everyone from Davis should move to Woodland, to reduce their VMTs.
Either that, or perhaps UCD students (assuming they’re counted in this) are driving more than I first guessed.
There’s got to be all kinds of variables that account for differences, given that some place like El Centro has very low VMTs. I’m somewhat familiar with that town, and there’s a good chance one would die if you venture outside of an air-conditioned car to get anywhere during the summer. And there’s no such thing as “walking neighborhoods” or anyplace to go without a car, as I recall at least.
Maybe all of us should move to El Centro or Porterville, to reduce our VMTs.
I do wonder how this is all counted, since (to my knowledge) the government is not compiling data regarding “my” driving habits and comparing that to my address. (Maybe they do so via car repair shops, or via insurance companies?)
As I stated in my comment, the VMT data is for urban areas. Yes – San Francisco includes Oakland and other neighboring jurisdictions. Sacramento includes Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and other neighboring jurisdictions. These are the geographies that the comparative VMT data is available for (at least from my quick Google searching).
Urban areas are defined by the US Census Bureau as follows:
“The Census definition of urban area includes urbanized areas of 50,000 or more population and urban clusters of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 population. ”
Still waiting for you to put forth the math behind your claim. Start with Woodland, since you claim that city has fewer VMTs per capita than San Francisco.
Again, your own citation shows that the San Francisco/Oakland region as a whole has significantly-lower VMTs per capita than the Sacramento region.
17.7 for San Francisco/Oakland region.
20.5 for the Sacramento region.
https://www.bts.gov/geography/geospatial-2/daily-vehicle-miles-traveled-capita-urbanized-area-2022
From article: “When California’s population slowed during the pandemic, housing costs did not fall—they stabilized only briefly . . .”
This statement is factually untrue, and yet is the underlying basis for David’s entire article. While also ignoring the “demand” side, as usual (the recent rise of the AI industry in parts of the Bay Area).
By the way, here’s your “clean energy” in California:
“Opponents, however, argue that the project will cost the area rural land, threaten habitat, strain water resources, and worsen air quality.”
“This is proposed to be a temporary project that will be decommissioned after 35 years of operation, but we are saying no matter what you are doing afterwards to try to replant little sapling trees, it’s not going to make up for the hundreds of years old oak trees that are really creating a vibrant ecosystem,” said Liz Lim from the Environmental Council of Sacramento.”
https://www.kcra.com/article/sacramento-county-solar-farm-proposal-opposition/69478653
Just last night, I was watching the national news regarding some farms on the east coast that are experiencing the threat of eminent domain in regard to new power lines to support the growth of artificial intelligence, and the MASSIVE amount of power that uses.
Reminds me of the mining of rare earth materials, needed to support “environmentally-friendly” technologies.
<<<>>>. I would like a discussion that questions the basic premise that it is housing shortages that drive the high costs of homes. You need to embrace the cognitive dissonance of “population is stagnant, declining, or modest, yet it is still population increase that creates a shortage that drives housing prices.
Again, it’s a “housing affordability crisis” rather than a “housing crisis.” I must confess that I am a little tired of the Abundance Doctrine and its simplistic (and convenient) supply and demand argument. “As Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson write in Abundance:”… Look, I thought the book was interesting, but I also sort of like Malcolm Gladwell books. It’s as if we are determining state and local policy using a Malcolm Gladwell-type book. Abundance Doctrine is now tainting academic discussions: https://events.ucr.edu/event/deans-anniversary-event. In am not convinced that if you paved half the state that it would move housing costs a dollar. Focus on this simplistic explanation deflects serious discussion about the deep and fundamental structural problems that truly drive unaffordability. A friend of mine with graduate training background in policy, who worked in Sacramento on policy, and served as a Mayor of one of our local cities (where you have to make real-world decisions on housing proposals) told me this week, “there isn’t really an acute major housing supply shortage. You are always chronically running behind by quite a few units. Part of it is the time that approval takes. Part is it is that you basically have maxed out your trained construction workforce at any given time. Building materials play a role.” She has the expertise, I don’t. But I do know that housing affordability is much more than a simple supply equation. In 2008 you could get a house in downtown Fairfield for $90,000. Now that same house is $500,000. That had NOTHING to do with statewide supply. A fundamentally flawed system drives the entire enterprise – yet no one seems to be talking about that. No one has solved “how do you fund infrastructure?” No one has solved, “how do you get developers to build the right type of housing?” No one has solved, “how do you pay for city services?” No one has solved, “how do you pay for the pensions of retired city employees?” No one has solved, “how do you respond to unpredictable interest rates?” And the minute that you build housing – at least one quarter of the units are purchased by investors.” In major cities, overseas investors buy giant blocks of housing – using it as a place to park money. Every city is running a structural deficit – small cities run a $10 million deficit, large cities run a deficit in the $100s of millions. So they add a Development Impact Fee (DIF) to each unit. In Vacaville the DIF is $110,000. In Fairfield, I think $112,000, but these are going up. I’ve been told (and check this) that the DIF in Elk Grove is $130,000. OK, so that is your baseline. Add Community Services District Fees and perhaps Homeowners Association fees (HOAs) and then add 10% sales tax on every item purchased. You have Labor costs, building materials (known in the vernacular as “sticks and bricks”), and land costs. All of this is expensive in California. It seems to me that if someone could solve the need for such high DIFs and CFDs and HOAs and sale tax and property tax and state income tax and… and… and… then we could talk about affordability.
Craig says: “That’s an interesting opinion about CA doing nothing about sprawl. Of all 50 states, CA is ranked #1 in population, #1 in percent of population living in urban areas (94.2%), and #1 in urban area density (4,500 people per square mile). Whatever we’re (not) doing seems to be working, granted there’s always room for improvement.”
Uhm – how do you define “sprawl”? I ask because to me and every normal person, it refers to areas that are (now) urbanized, and are continuing to be urbanized. So what exactly do your figures have to do with that?
And do you suppose there’s a difference in density between the coastal cities, and inland cities (where most of the sprawl is continuing to occur)?
Still waiting for your definition of sprawl, to see if it includes areas that aren’t urbanized.
While there is no consensus definition of sprawl, I tend to agree with the characterization from this article:
“The term “sprawl” describes the result of unrestricted and rapid expansion of development into the periphery of metropolitan areas. In the United States, sprawl is most often characterized by single-family residential housing, the separation of residential neighborhoods from retail and commercial land uses, and the increased reliance on the private automobile for transportation.”
https://www.planetizen.com/definition/sprawl
I disagree with your definition of sprawl because it suggests that any additional growth beyond current urban boundaries is sprawl. It is entirely possible for new outward growth to occur that does not meet the aforementioned characteristics of sprawl.
Because single-family housing and geographic expansion are characteristics of sprawl, population density is one useful metric to evaluate sprawl (single-family housing and geographic expansion both directly influence population density).
Since auto dependence is also a characteristic of sprawl, VMT/capita is another useful metric (California is #7 for lowest annual VMT/capita).
There are absolutely differences in density between coastal and inland areas. Although there are many coastal areas that have low densities and other characteristics of sprawl. Your original comment was referring to state actions to combat sprawl, so I was providing information at the state-level.
In reference to your 5:37 p.m. comment above from yesterday, you referred to statistics regarding urbanized areas (in response to my comment).
Regardless of how you personally define sprawl, would you agree that it by definition includes ONLY urbanized areas, “after” it’s already been built? Or, do you think that sprawl exists in the middle of a forest, with no housing in it – and theref
And if you agree that sprawl “only” exists in urbanized areas (once it’s built), then why were you citing statistics regarding the existing amount/percentage of urbanized areas – as an implication that California doesn’t have a problem with continuing sprawl?
I don’t understand what you’re trying to ask here. I was just providing some information to refute your point that CA has done “next to nothing to reign in sprawl”. I never said that CA doesn’t have a problem with sprawl and acknowledged that there’s room for improvement.
You stated the following, and then cited statistics which are completely irrelevant regarding the point you were trying to make:
“Whatever we’re (not) doing seems to be working, granted there’s always room for improvement.”
By the way – I’m fully ready to answer Craig’s earlier question regarding encouraging people to move ANYWHERE in the central valley in order to have less environmental impact. The chart below (that Craig himself provided) is part of my “answer”.
https://www.bts.gov/geography/geospatial-2/daily-vehicle-miles-traveled-capita-urbanized-area-2022
Seems to me that someone like Craig or David should be advocating for EVERYONE in the valley (and perhaps the entire country) to move to San Francisco/Oakland. (And when you do so, you can also help them avoid closing schools THERE, since they’re also facing that same issue. You might also help them save their own failing/bankrupt transit systems by doing so.)
Bottom line (despite data which is all over the place): Living along the coast reduces the need for both heating and cooling, compared to inland areas. Living in a dense, transit-rich city like San Francisco reduces the need for driving.
As for the other factors influencing VMTs and energy usage: Those factors are not necessarily dependent upon geographic location.
Perhaps being “poor” is a factor which causes a reduction in both of those variables, unless (for example) energy usage is subsidized.
Unfortunately, being poor often seems to be correlated with having more kids – the opposite of what one might expect.
But if you want a cheap house in California with low community-created VMTs, it seems that there’s more than once choice regarding that (e.g., El Centro, Hemet, etc.). And anyone in Davis who wants to reduce their VMTs can apparently move to Woodland, based on the data.