Moving to zero-emissions is desirable and should be a goal however, as said it should be done where possible. Moving to zero-emissions too quickly and before the technology and infrastructure has sufficiently progressed to the point where it doesn't create an adverse economic effect or multiple spill over effects increasing emissions in other areas will result in further difficulties decreasing the emissions in the long term.

Limit on wind is wind. Climate change may change wind patterns and make current wind farms irrelevant while shifting the patterns elsewhere. I have nothing against wind energy per say as there are places it should be developed however it's an inefficient use of government resources as nuclear is far more effective and also produces zero emissions. One nuclear powerplant can easily provide the power requirements of a small city where you'd need hundreds of turbines to accomplish the same result.

https://www.ans.org/news/article-933/wind-nuclear-infographic/

Geological stability is not a valid prerequisite for nuclear power plants if they are designed well. I won't lie to you and say the risks of incompetence aren't high. It's smart to build them as far from inhabited areas as is feasible. However. The risk of accident is low provided they are built and maintained correctly. California already has some without incident but I believe they have largely shut due to age.

Prices of energy will increase greatly due to demand increasing. The cost of electric cars and hydrogen cars are both greatly higher than gasoline cars. Increased cost of vehicles and transportation costs will result in increased prices across the board in the same way fuel costs effect prices now.

If we were talking in timescales of, ban gas powered cars by 2050. I'd agree that is a more tenable proposition. To do so in 8 years will not work for California. The state is unable to manage its own failing infrastructure it can't be expected to build new infrastructure in time.

I think ultimately this means the hydrogen fuel cell car will be the car of choice as it's somewhat better than electric for a number of practical reasons and the infrastructure for electric cars won't be there in time. But the hydrogen fuel car is massively expensive in comparison. New models of hydrogen cars have a cost almost double that of traditional gasoline cars at the low end. Eventually the fuel manufacture costs will end up being lower than gasoline but the economies of scale aren't there yet. Plus with how Californians drive they'll be exploding constantly.