Judging by the presence of well maintained (some fairly new) fuel oil tanks on the property of at least three Northern California power plants that I know of, California does burn oil to generate electricity. Though one PG&E friend of mine says two of the three are used only for "Peeking Power". He thinks that the biggest may not always burn oil either, being easily changed over (a few hours work) between natural gas and oil (has ready access to both). Which is burned depends on the relative price of natural gas vs fuel oil, the price and availability of both being very volatile in California.

It doesn't really matter though, as a friend who recently retired from BART told me - each BART car draws about the same propulsion energy per mile on average, as one standard sized sedan. That being true, then since the average commute trip in a car carries 1.2 passengers and one BART car using the same energy carries an average (thru the day) of about 50 passengers, then public transit such as BART is about 40 times as fuel efficient (40 times as "green",if you will). And since in some corridors, BART takes over half the commute traffic, that efficiency is a very big deal in the Bay Area.

With the enormous natural efficiencies of rail vehicles, it is not very important how their energy is generated. Whereas, it is extremely important to see to it that such alternatives to the automobile are expanded, making them practical for as many people as possible - at least for repetitive travel such as commuting.

It is not therefore of any concern if the fuel isn't "green" - just get 40 times the efficiency using it. Nor should we pay any heed to environmentalists or global warming freaks who (continually it seems) NYMBY public transit projects to death; or who drive to work anyway. They obviously don't even believe their own scare tactics - why should we!

But the price of gas! . . . Public transit solves both!

OPB