[washingtonismoney]

I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

That's probably true. So, let's decompose a bit. First, one of the big benefits to California living that you don't get as much in other regions of the country is the lack of a need for temperature control. If you live in, say, Palo Alto, you almost never need to turn on a heater and can probably get away without air conditioning for large parts of the year. That's not the case in, say, D.C., which is currently trying to broil its inhabitants alive.

The other big problem is that outward CA migration is also accompanied by in-state migration -- people are moving from L.A. proper to San Bernardino, say; or from S.F. and the South Bay to, say, Fremont or more in the East Bay. That's problematic in both cases for a number of reasons. It means longer commutes, which means more energy expenditure. (It also means unhappier people -- the link between unhappiness and long commutes is very well-established at this point.) And of course the outer suburbs of California are less temperate than SF and (parts of) LA, which means more reliance on air conditioning.

I don't have exact statistics on where Californians are moving to -- I believe mostly Nevada and Arizona, but I don't know for sure.

[washingtonismoney]

I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

That's probably true. So, let's decompose a bit. First, one of the big benefits to California living that you don't get as much in other regions of the country is the lack of a need for temperature control. If you live in, say, Palo Alto, you almost never need to turn on a heater and can probably get away without air conditioning for large parts of the year. That's not the case in, say, D.C., which is currently trying to broil its inhabitants alive.

The other big problem is that outward CA migration is also accompanied by in-state migration -- people are moving from L.A. proper to San Bernardino, say; or from S.F. and the South Bay to, say, Fremont or more in the East Bay. That's problematic in both cases for a number of reasons. It means longer commutes, which means more energy expenditure. (It also means unhappier people -- the link between unhappiness and long commutes is very well-established at this point.) And of course the outer suburbs of California are less temperate than SF and (parts of) LA, which means more reliance on air conditioning.

I don't have exact statistics on where Californians are moving to -- I believe mostly Nevada and Arizona, but I don't know for sure.